PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Played AGE OF EMPIRES III yet?



VonShlagnoff
11-15-2005, 03:56 AM
is it any good?

HotelBushranger
11-15-2005, 04:14 AM
For an RTS person, they'd probably love it. For me, it was nothing to write home about. I just went straight back to PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

neural_dream
11-15-2005, 04:15 AM
If you're a competitive AoE II player then you'll notice how less challenging III is, how shallow it is in terms of tactics, how poor in units and generally how much you don't like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.
If you only liked AoE II and played a few times and maybe finished the campaign in the moderate difficulty, then AoE III is the game for you. Fantastic graphics and no more frustration organising your economy, having idle villagers and returning the goods to the drop-off locations. Micromanagement is non-existant, as taught by other boring games like the Empire Earths and Rise of Nations.

I'm afraid the game hasn't progressed at all, and although it was the top RTS game of 1998-2002, now it's just a reminder of a past generation of games. They say they tried to make it modern and add exciting new things (BS), but they only came up with a pathetic idea of having a beautifully designed but completely useless home city where you can play your cards (!!!!) as if that's some kind of Magic the Gathering http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif. Too bad, I really wanted to like it. The game is disliked by the majority of the series' veterans.

Sturm_Williger
11-15-2005, 04:18 AM
I did... and I sent it back. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Seems they forgot all the things that made AOE 1 & 2 good and fun, then they added new "features" that they thought would be fun and make the game good.

Unfortunately, they should have stuck with what worked.

But this is just my opinion.

Examples : Maps VERY small - apparently in MP they scale depending on no. of players, but single player felt like the enemy were literally outside the gate.
No formation stances like Defend, Stand Ground etc. ( the latter paricularly pernicious in conjunction with the fact that you can no longer lock a gate either )
No speed adjustment ( except in MP ), so you have to get into a semi-apoplectic frenzy to control things.

Pity, but again, I stress this is just my opinion.

HotelBushranger
11-15-2005, 05:29 AM
@ Nerual_dream: My oath! AoEII was the best RTS ever IMO, I played it as much back then than I play PF now. AoE III is a sad successor: the series doesn't go out with a bang, but a whimper.

neural_dream
11-15-2005, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
@ Nerual_dream: My oath! AoEII was the best RTS ever IMO, I played it as much back then than I play PF now.
I think I've played about 1500hrs online AoEII http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. , and it's by far the most enjoyable game I've ever played (computer or not). IL2-PF isn't that polished and shows the lack of experience of its developers on online gaming. AoK, just like IL2 made me wanna learn more about the historical era it covered.

My advice for VonShlagnoff is to buy the Age of Empires Collector's edition if you don't already have it. Otherwise buy AoE III only as a tribute to the developers of the previous version(s).

panther3485
11-15-2005, 08:51 AM
I always liked AoE and loved AoE2. After playing the AoE3 demo, I have to say that apart from the graphics I wasn't very impressed.

I think the level of graphics in Age of Kings was great for its time and, with a little enhancement, would have still been fine today.

IMHO, this apparent obsession with 3D in the newer strategy titles may have added a bit of 'Wow' factor for SOME players but has done nothing to really improve the genre.

And often, backward steps are taken in the areas that really matter, as appears to be the case with AoE3.

Just my opinion, but I won't be rushing out to buy Age of Empires III.


Best regards,
panther3485

SeaFireLIV
11-15-2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
you'll notice how less challenging III is, how shallow it is in terms of tactics, how poor in units and generally how much you don't like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.


Just as I thought.

This is the way games are going these days. BW2 was very similar (extrememly shallow). It seems games are produced more like movies with no challenge and have a longevity of about a week - And get more expensive too.

Very sad.

JG52Karaya-X
11-15-2005, 09:07 AM
My favourit RTS game is "Rise of Nations GOLD" (with Thrones&Patriots addon)...

It's looks very much like AoEII but with lots of new ideas - I especially like the border system; you can't just build everywhere. In the beginning (of a skirmish map) you start of with just 1 town that draws a cirlce of territory around it that you claim. By building additional towns near the borderline you can claim more territory. You also need to research to be able to build more towns and increase the effect of your towns on the border. As the game advances your border will necessarily clash with your opponents - then you have to conquer his towns to get more land (if a city's hitpoints are 0 it doesnt get destroyed but conquered by the player with the bigger military force in the proximity). Forts near the borders also claim territory. In the Modern and Information Age you get bombers which are perfect to "destroy" cities - but fighters/AAA/SAMs make short work of them, so you have to combine these air raids with escort fighters and/or ground units.

Another thing is the "Risk" like campaign system where you move armies on a world map (in a round based system) and then start battles in real time

These are just two of the many nice features of this great game - try the demo if you want... it's highly addictive

http://www.microsoft.com/games/riseofnations/