(edited) Age of Empires III...Tread Carefully

Remove all ads!

(The original title of this thread was "Do NOT Buy Age of Empires III")...at least until the price drops, significantly.

I bought it yesterday, the day it came out, and it's actually a pretty fun game. The problem is it isn't anything special at all, and not what I would consider a great leap from AOE2, which came out 6 years ago.

AoE3 isn't any more fun than Age of Empires 2, and especially not Age of Mythology. The game engine is impressive, but not spectacular, and even on my fairly robust system, I get alot of slowdown when certain elements are onscreen. Though it would've looked somewhat less photorealistic, they really should have stuck with Age of Mythology's game engine, which looked much better. The graphics are very jaggy, despite a more realistic 3D feel. The combat is essentially the same, too - which isn't a bad thing - but there are some annoyances that make large-scale battles a little frustrating at times. Also, killed units and destroyed buildings don't animate a "death" sequence like in past games, they just fade and disappear (which is lame). However, there are some cool particle effects added in for explosions and shrapnel, but it doesn't make up for it. There are a few concepts they've introduced into the game that are pretty cool, but overall I'm pretty disappointed. It feels like a lesser game than what Ensemble Studios is capable of.

So anyway - I didn't really want to post a full review here on the game right now, I just wanted to drop a quick warning, because I know we have several fans of the series here. DON'T BUY IT. It isn't worth $50, and despite a pretty enjoyable game it's still very flawed and not worth full price.

I should disclose that I haven't played any campaigns yet, only skirmishing - but still. My socks are decidedly not blown off.

Just FYI, and friendly warning.

edit: addendum below.

[ October 31, 2005, 22:45: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

So this would be AoE's version of Tiberian Sun, eh?

 

I tried out the AoE3 demo, and I think I'll stick with the original AoE, thank you very much.

 

Hmm, i was planning on buying this, because I truly loved AoE2, but after reading this, perhaps I will wait a few months (until February, maybe?).

 

Exactly what were you expecting from this game, apart from the graphical improvements ? If the concept reminds you too much of the AoE2 gameplay, then what's the problem ? Wasn't AoE2 a succes in RTS land ? So why change a winning formula ? What's to change in RTS's overall anyway ?

I only have it for one day, and i'm still trying to get the hang of the gameplay right now, but i can already tell that this one is going to keep me occupied for weeks to come, just like AoE, AoK+expansion, and AoM did. I wasn't expecting a revolutionary change in gameplay, just an interesting RTS, and that's exactly what it is.

 

WC3>AOE I hope they come out with an expansion that fixes the small problems AOE3 has, but I wanna see a starcraft 3 soon.

 

Well, after a few weeks of playing it, I do really enjoy the game. It's not a bad game in any sense. I became so addicted in fact that I uninstalled the game and boxed it up (along with all my games), sealed it with duct tape and vowed not to play a single game (not even solitaire) until I graduate, because I've just wasted so much time and turned my brain to mush.

What my problem is, Pac Man, and where disappointment stems, is that you'd think that after six years, they would make many more improvements and unique additions to the game. Given, the graphics engine is great, and the whole "home city" system is a very cool concept, but not explored well enough. Sure it's cool that after each win you can choose new "cards" to better your civilizations each game and form new strategies based on your new cards (military or economic powerhouse?), but the cards are more or less the same for every civilization. They missed a huge opportunity here to really make each country uniquely powerful as they gain in power levels. Toss in a few unique cards - like a fleet of unique ships for Spain, or General Cornwallis leading British troops out onto the field, etc.

So sure the "winning formula" of the original AoE2 was a good one, but it was still flawed and could have been greatly improved upon. I just think that after 6 years, they would have innovated more than merely the prettiness of the game.

Then there are more useless features - like the ability to decorate your home city. Whooptie-sh*t, what a pointless feature. Like this effects your game in any noticable way. I would much rather have had them spend the development time it took to create this lame feature on creating more unique units, buildings or cards for each civ.

 

Apply for a job as software developer, you sound just like the guy that could make games more interesting.

 

Don't you think the problem is in the age itself? The military in musketeer era is not your most interesting thingy. Those people have gun power and bullets and they stand nicely in line and shoot at each other. There isn't really many things to do here, pretty much every european super power do the same thing. History is like this.

The biggest military thing in this era, i think, is naval warfare in this age. AOE just tradiationally not good at doing ship fighting. You see ship bumping each other in AOE1, AOE2, AOM and you see them still. Hard to control, hard to organize naval warfare.

 

You know, all negative warnings are wasted on fans; they will still buy it and then praise it to heavens, no matter how bad the game is.

Why on earth they would IMPROVE a working formula that will be bought in any case? Don't you know that companies do not need to act creative unless they are going belly up sometime soon?

 

I take it you're unfamiliar with Close Combat? Ground Control? Battlezone? Warlords Battlecry? Hell, even X-Com 3.

There's plenty of room for change in RTS's.

 

Actually, i AM familiar with some of those, and they're not the best examples of great gameplay in the AoE fashion, which still is king of the hill in RTS land. If you want to make improvements in RTS, people should start working from that level, everything beneath it wouldn't exactly be an attempt to improve things.

Warlords battlecry ? Entertaining for perhaps an hour or two, but overall a pretty lame excuse for an RTS. Close Combat ? I've watched my brother play it several times, and i really don't see why this game got so much attention, or has such a large fanbase, in my book it's not even real time warfare you're playing. Things started inproving with the introduction of Sudden Strike, now that was RTS as RTS should be.

 

Hmm. I may have misunderstood; I thought your original statement meant "where's the room for improvement in RTSes in general," but now I'm thinking you were being more specific to the AoE franchise. Correct?

As for AoE still being king of the hill, well, I can only suggest that you check yourself into a mental institution, with all speed. King of the hill indeed! *insert much grumbling here*

 

Well, it's all a matter of opinion, no ?

And i know i'm nuts, my dog keeps telling me that.