By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast on 07 September 2009
Edit Thread
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
KungKras said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
nojustno said:
Hope it's better than 3

Why do so many people dislike AOE3?  Is it because you have perticular objections to the game or was it just the 'sequel' effect (aka, it wasn't like AOE2 and didn't do what you wanted in a sequel)?

It was pretty much everything a sequel should be, with enhancements in every field and new enhancements to gameplay.  And unlike many RTS games recently, tried to do something new.  Which in my opinion, it did well (yes, the 'deck' system coupled with unique units and things like the Consolate buildings were all great additions).  And even compared to AOEII, each race has more diversity and unique abilities.  From being able to build Daimyos to build units in the field with the Japanese to running over your opponents with Calvary with the Germans, every race has their own unique advantages.  I really think AOEIII and Company of Heroes were two of the more innovative (and fun) RTS games in the last 5 years.  I wish people wouldn't put their love of AOEII in the way of that.  And yes, I love AOEII as well.

 

Anyway...rant over.  With the topic of the thread.  I love AOE.  Favorite RTS series, so I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this.  But I'm hesitant because the original team isn't working on it.  I can only hope it'll either be worked on by a team that is really working to keep the same feeling of the past games or some of the key members of Ensemble Studios.

The pacing wasn't really good. And the feeling of controlling a civilization from the begining in AoE 2 was not there. I think the latter is what hurt the game the most. Even AoM felt like you were building up your civilization from basicaly nothing. Founding colonies doesn't feel the same.

As for more mechanical stuff, it feels like they wanted the game to feel realistic in certain areas, and it made the gameplay suffer (Ships) and in other areas they sacrificed realism for gameplay. It just felt messy.

 

 

Well no offense to the holy AOE2, and I'm sure 20 people are going to jump down my throat for this now, but having to build my civilization from the Feudal Age to the Imperial Age every game kind of got old after a while.  They even gave you an option to skip that part, though it left out a lot of the point of the game (building, upgrading and being better at micromanaging than your opponent).  In AOE3, you still have to go through 'periods', but they aren't quite so drastic and meld a little better, allowing for units in the first age to still be useful in the last age with upgrades (and cards).  While some units in AOE2 because useless after the feudal/etc ages like Pikemen or such.

I can see how many things being different in AOE3 would make the game feel less fun for some people or even slower (a common point of annoyance), but I just don't see where the total distain for the game comes and why so many people keep brining it up like the game was total trash.  I still feel it has more to do with it being the sequel of AOE2, much like how many games have become financially successful, yet gained a 'reputation' as being bad due to following a momumentally popular game (see Smash Bros Brawl, Final Fantasy VIII, etc).

And with the specific point you brought up, ship combat and troop movement, that wasn't exactly fluid in AOE2.  I didn't see much of a change in AOE3, aside from stronger ships.

I never got bored with the build up phase. It was so cozy and atmospheric.

I agree with KungKras about the pacing and colonies stuff in AoE III, the building up your own civ from ground up aspect is very important in Age games. Although in AoE II multiplayer I loved DM and scenarios too, because it decreases the risk of people disconnecting before the action really has started. I hate quitters.

AoE III is still a great game. It was just that AoE II was so perfect.