By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What went wrong with Age Of Empires?

Tagged games:

Yeah, I remember playing the AOE III demo and being absolutely disgusted. It went from one of the best RTS games ever in a series, to a completely different game without nearly the same appeal or fun factor. They really dropped the ball.



 

Around the Network

What is wrong with Age of Empires 3? Also, why the hype behind something that was intended to be Warcraft with random maps?

I also have a hard time taking accusations of a game scoring in the 7-8 range as "worst ever":
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/age-of-empires-iii



KungKras said:
Slimebeast said:
JEMC said:

They also got the age setting wrong, it was more modern that the previous games, but it didn't advance enough, or any. I mean, playing as a prehistoric village that manages to become the Roman Empire is satisfying, but playing as British citizens that try to conquest North America... and that's it, isn't that exciting.

The more sensible approach would have been do a "Empire Earth" game. Starting with prehistoric men and ending with intergalactical civilizations.

This, so much this.

AoE 3 had innovative gameplay mechanics but the historical time period between the 16th century and the Industrial Age simply wasn't interesting. And I didn't want to freaking colonize America, give me something epic! And the SP campaign that depicted the history of the fictional Black family was far from epic (not that SP matters that much for an RTS).

The Ancient times and Medieval times just are so much much more interesting settings than the era between 1500-1850, from a historical and mythological perspective, at least in the context of a game.

And swords-archers-siege is much more exciting than guns and cannons.

Clearly they should have tried an Empire Earth approach or just chosen a different epoch no matter if it had ruined the chronological order.

So that's what went wrong. Age of Empires 3 failed. Actually it already started with AoM, because they chose bad timing to go off the historical path and it fractured the player base. And only 3 civs in AoM, WTF was that? AoE2 was dearly loved not least because it had so many civs.

To be fair, the civilizations in AoE weren't that different while they were distinct in AoM.

Age of Mythology is fine as long as you view it as a spin off.

Absolutely, the civs in AoM were very distinct and I applaud Ensemble for trying to innovate (although some might say the three distinct factions was copying Starcraft). But it confused AoE 2 players. We were happy with our 16 civs that were different almost only on the surface.

AoM did a lot of things right and with regards to pure gameplay it was actually better than AoE2. It just couldn't win over the huge AoE2 player base for various reasons.





It's really not that bad and actually did a good job of mixing the more positive elements of AOEII and AOM. I thought the railroad/trade routes and the ability to ally with locals introduced new strategies and methods to the game. For instance, a quick scout of you enemies position should ID some native camps nearby giving an easy way to Rush.

The civs were also quite diverse and unique and they had more than the 3 in AOM. For instance, the British were easily the best civ for having a late economic boom (each house gives an extra villager) whilst the French villagers were practically Military units in their own right making the difficult to rush but giving them extra military option if they want to rush. Then you could customise and level up a civ to suit your playstyle with shipment options.

Unfortunately, this is also it's biggest flaw. To be competitive you have to use the same civ. You can't chop and change like you could in AOEII and this was detrimental for multiplayer games imo. Actually, I didn't bother with multiplayer in AOEIII, so it was certainly a bad move. The time period also wasn't that exciting. I still think AOEI had the best time period and would love a true modern remake of that classic.

I actually liked all the "Age of..." games. I still played AOM from time to time with my girlfriend and AOEI has to be installed on my PC at any given time for when I have an itch for old school RTS.



Its appeal was its glorious art. I agree with the 2D-3D guy. Same thing happened to Stronghold Kingdoms' transition.



Yay!!!

Around the Network

While I didn't play the campaign of AOEIII, I would suggest you get the expansions. The Warchiefs expansion will feel like AOE 3, however the Asian Dyansties expansion has a more AOE / II feel to it.

There's always AOEO (Age of Empires Online), which is originally what I thought this thread was going to be about. AOEO has both single player and multiplayer, but an emphasis on multiplayer after you achieve level 40.

Some people have a problem with the more cartoonish style of AOEO, but the game is pretty good. Unfortunately, over the summer they tweaked the gaming AI and made the game significantly more challenging. For example, if you weren't necessarily good (like me) you could still win, it just took more time. Now you have to really educate yourself about the game, the units, and the enemy units. In my own opinion, the AI is as good, if not better than the player, which makes the game extremely challenging at times.



I remember playing AOE 1 demo 100+ hours and AOE2 full game over 9000...AOE3 I played 2 hours..I don't know..Was thinking giving it new try now.



 

 

Take my love, take my land..

Simulacrum said:
I remember playing AOE 1 demo 100+ hours and AOE2 full game over 9000...AOE3 I played 2 hours..I don't know..Was thinking giving it new try now.

That demo was all I played for months. Best demo I've ever played



JEMC said:

The more sensible approach would have been do a "Empire Earth" game. Starting with prehistoric men and ending with intergalactical civilizations.

Do not even bring Empire Earth into this.  That series had the same issue.  The first one was absolutely amazing, and the second one was horrible compared to it.  The third one was absolutely atrocious.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon said:
JEMC said:

The more sensible approach would have been do a "Empire Earth" game. Starting with prehistoric men and ending with intergalactical civilizations.

Do not even bring Empire Earth into this.  That series had the same issue.  The first one was absolutely amazing, and the second one was horrible compared to it.  The third one was absolutely atrocious.

The sequel was an absolute waste of potential. It had some great ideas but completely ruined the implementation. Didn't even bother with the third.

Now the first one, I remember I played an 8 player random map that lasted 29 hours... epic!