I opened this up to get your opinions on EE1, EE2 and EE3.Anyone's opinions is accepted but just NO BAD WORDS please!

BAD WORDS BAD WORDS! :aargh:

Just kidding. :D I enjoyed the first one a lot. I would make random maps with 5 opponents but only allow them to advance through to the second epoch while I was allowed to advance to the last epoch and experiment with killing each opponent with the units of the epoch. But I felt that EE2 got too complicated.

I really liked the second one, the first was great to but I felt the second was far superior with the exception of the fact that the maps were to small and cluttered. The third is great fun, but way to overisimplified, and once you start gaining resources you only get richer quicker, in that you snowball out of control really quickly and you pretty much never have to worry about resources after the first ten minutes. Overall I think the second one is the best, does anyone miss the calamities from the first game?

Harbringer, you think EE2 is great? Well, think again if you go to this link:

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/gentopic.php?board=938463

I didn't like EEII. Too much graphics, poor editor (I mean look at DYOS! My comics are crappier using EEII than EEI)

Empire Earth I is great, but I haven't got III yet, so I dunno

How about downloading the demo first?

Harbringer, you think EE2 is great? Well, think again if you go to this link:

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/gentopic.php?board=938463

Thankyou for elaborating, I have no idea what the hell your trying to say.

I tried EE3 demo. It crashed my computer 10 minutes into the game.

EE2 is great for role playing if you have a plot.

I like EE 1, but I'm not that good. I can win on narmal, but not on hard :(

I was thining of getting III, so opinions on it would be very helpful.

Perhaps I should get the demo of EEIII, but I remember the demo for Supreme Commander. I install it, and the screen comes up and then my computer resets

So I won't risk EEIII until I think my hardware is good

I have EE3 and think about it, cartoonish graphics like world of warcraft.

-gets into rant about how bad Warcraft III is and does a sales pitch for Starcraft-

I'm too busy with Halo 3 to bother with a demo and also the graphics, no matter how cartoonish you say, my computer probably cannot handle it

I have EE3 and think about it, cartoonish graphics like world of warcraft.

What is up with you and telling everyone to think about it?This isnt freeking feudal japan and your not some martial arts sensai, just freeking elaborate its not going to hurt anyone. What are you trying to say?

????????? I have no Idea.........?????????? What are you saying..........???????????

Time to throw in my two cents! (I haven't posted anything in a while so I have a proverbial huge bag of change I could throw...)

I really enjoyed EE 1 and spent some of the better years of my life playing it from every stance possible and making poor scenarios on whatever my imagination struck up at that moment in time. OK the graphics were a little off (all those manic grins from people being shot at...) and little in the way of cutural diversity, but still it was a game to be enjoyed.

HOWEVER; EE 2 was one of the bigger disappoints as far as sequels go (from a person who's usually in favour of them)- An editor that, at best, allows you to give up hope of making a scenario worth playing, gameplay which simplifies the span of human history to such an extent that I had to find out what the epoch numbers corresponded to, and write them down to make it seem a little less mechanical and a little more human. Oh and the graphics were not worth the slowdowns suffered on maps large enough and with enough players to make the game interesting... (and I'm sure there were still some manic grins from the units being shot at...)

And now for EE3 they're saying "the other games were too complicated so we're cutting down on everything (except graphics, they'll be a HUGE drain on the PC) to make it Newbie friendly"- I'll think I'll pass thanks...

????????? I have no Idea.........?????????? What are you saying..........???????????

Twice now in thsi thread youv told somebody, one of which was me to "think about it" without elaborating to what exactly your alluding to, its just annoying, just explain yourself and stop speaking in riddles.

well now that I've actually read the reviews for EE3 and understand what, exactly, it's about (I didn't even realise it'd been released) all I an say is "Oh good god! What have you done with the game I loved!"

3 Generic Civs? FIVE Epochs!? And unit talk (which I detested from the earlier games) with phrases regarding units being "as loud and dangerous as a camel fart" apparently!

Has anyone played the game and confirm these shocking allegations? I'd rather not find out for myself... it could result in some serious mourning

well now that I've actually read the reviews for EE3 and understand what, exactly, it's about (I didn't even realise it'd been released) all I an say is "Oh good god! What have you done with the game I loved!"

3 Generic Civs? FIVE Epochs!? And unit talk (which I detested from the earlier games) with phrases regarding units being "as loud and dangerous as a camel fart" apparently!

Has anyone played the game and confirm these shocking allegations? I'd rather not find out for myself... it could result in some serious mourning

Its all true, I thought the retail would be better than the demo and god no it wasnt.

Gamespot rated the game 3.5 out of 10. Here are some reasons why.

1. Civilizations - Empire Earth III raped out the old civilization model and made control a region of the world (West, Far East, Middle East), and you would show your true identity as you specialized in a branch of military units (I'm assuming that if you were a Western player specializing in infantry units you would end up as Rome?). Their bonuses were based on basic stereotypes of their cultures.:sleep: And even then the West and East are structured very similarly; only the Mideast stands out, and that's due to portable buildings. Even then, they all play out very much like each other. They only all stand out amongst each other once the civs enter the Future, when the Mideast gets to show off their cloaked factory and East their genetically engineered supercreatures.:smoke:

2. World Domination - :aargh: :aargh: The main reason I like the series was for its historical RTS campaigns; they have pretty much disappeared from Age of Empires. I can just play Rise of Nations for this. Even worse, these maps can REALLY end up crazy, as the Olmecs could be in the British Isles, and Asian tribe could be in Spain, and elephant archers could be guarding a lost tomb in Germany. This is just bad.

3. Bad AI - Enough said. WHERE DID TARA TEICH GO!!! :confused: :gripe:

4. Bad maps - The maps tend to have numerous canyons, valleys, and rivers that would make you feel like your crossing narrow corridors instead of forest and plains. You have to patrol every square kilometer of the map to find to your enemy. Units also have pathfinding problems, which I haven't seen since the original Age of Empires. :crazyeye:

5. Historical Inaccuracy - Units from different epochs traveling together occured in Empire Earth I (but not II, thank goodness). Now however, with only 5 ages, you may see Gatling guns fighting alongside arquebusiers. Then there's the historically inaccurate units, such as the Mideast's camel that hurts units with a horrid stench (:drool:) and a hero prophet who calls out a plague of frogs (:nuke:). :evil: :mwaha: :devil: :groucho:

6. More Things - According to other player reviews, there are no churches, roads, "priest" units (except for Eastern shamans), or wonders. The multiplayer is buggy, and the game crashes often. Then there are the cartoonish graphics and stupid dialogues. What is this, Shrek the Third?

I'm sure somebody who's actually played EEIII can elaborate on this.

The dialougue makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

There should be an Empire Earth forum here.................... maybe one of us should request one?

I just buyed EEIII on fnac.com an french online trade site :blush:

I think that the big criticism are the fact the game is "too way simplificated"...

I have been during 10 years an hardcore gamer, since 1995 to 2005...

I have not all my time to play games, by the way i like a lot Sim City Societies on PC and i will certainly like a few EEIII...

Because my best souvenir of an RTS is Age of Empire I, i doesn't liked a lot AOE II, and i loved EEI and i doesn't liked a lot EEII...

This simplification is in my opinion a good thing because if not the game turn fastly to be too frenetic :lol:

Or i'm never been very skilled in RTS, and pratically never played in multi also because i was disgusted by a friend who killed me at AOEII while i was hyper defensive with plenty of castles...

I hope you inderstand me Co-Civers:lol:

I agree with Lachlan to some extent. Rise of Nations is my favorite RTS, and World in Conflict might also be a favorite of mine after Christmas.

Why is RoN rated T anyway?

The Age of Empires series was an attempt at merging Warcraft gameplay with the historical context of Civilization.

The Empire Earth series was an attempt at taking the gameplay of the award-winning Age of Empires II, modifying it, and then extending the gameplay so that you can play Civilization as an extremely violent RTS of epic scale; play from the Stone Age to the Space Age, or engage in an epic campaign.

Rise of Nations was an attempt at taking Age of Empires gameplay and including a few elements of Civilization, as well as shortening gameplay. Not very epic, but it's still good, if only for non-hardcore fans.

I've heard incredibly bad stuff about Empire Earth III. It seems to be an RTS for non-hardcore people who hate intense micromanagement, and I would buy the game just for a graphics update for RoN. But there are these two features which seem to destroy this vision. They are:

1. Bad Map Generator. It tends to throw out tons of canyons, rivers, and valleys, forcing you to patrol every square inch of a map to find enemies.

2. The Middle East. The only feature of this region that really stands out is portable buildings, which require A LOT of battlefield micromanagement. What's worse is that you basically have to learn how to use those effectively since the Middle Easterners can't build walls (which is very unrealistic, IMO).

I personally thing that EEII was better than EEI, but I just refuse to play both games in the series. The Empire Earth series really lost most of its purpose when RoN was released.

2.

But I felt that EE2 got too complicated.

How do you figure?

It was complicated at first, but you get the hand of it.

I agree with Lachlan to some extent. Rise of Nations is my favorite RTS, and World in Conflict might also be a favorite of mine after Christmas.

Why is RoN rated T anyway?

The Age of Empires series was an attempt at merging Warcraft gameplay with the historical context of Civilization.

The Empire Earth series was an attempt at taking the gameplay of the award-winning Age of Empires II, modifying it, and then extending the gameplay so that you can play Civilization as an extremely violent RTS of epic scale; play from the Stone Age to the Space Age, or engage in an epic campaign.

Rise of Nations was an attempt at taking Age of Empires gameplay and including a few elements of Civilization, as well as shortening gameplay. Not very epic, but it's still good, if only for non-hardcore fans.

I've heard incredibly bad stuff about Empire Earth III. It seems to be an RTS for non-hardcore people who hate intense micromanagement, and I would buy the game just for a graphics update for RoN. But there are these two features which seem to destroy this vision. They are:

1. Bad Map Generator. It tends to throw out tons of canyons, rivers, and valleys, forcing you to patrol every square inch of a map to find enemies.

2. The Middle East. The only feature of this region that really stands out is portable buildings, which require A LOT of battlefield micromanagement. What's worse is that you basically have to learn how to use those effectively since the Middle Easterners can't build walls (which is very unrealistic, IMO).

I personally thing that EEII was better than EEI, but I just refuse to play both games in the series. The Empire Earth series really lost most of its purpose when RoN was released.

2.

RoN was good but it was civilization in Real Time, in brief a not always happy mix of RTS/TBS...

EEIII has just a patch of 370 Mo, perhaps you should downlad it after downloading base patch....
If i took EEIII it's because i dislike too micromanaging...

I want comptemplate by moments

RoN was good but it was civilization in Real Time, in brief a not always happy mix of RTS/TBS...

EEIII has just a patch of 370 Mo, perhaps you should downlad it after downloading base patch....
If i took EEIII it's because i dislike too micromanaging...

I want comptemplate by moments

I think you're missing a third of the whole game if you don't learn how to micromanage properly (a la the Middle Eastern faction).

Wait :lol:

I didn't mean "No Micromanaging" but "not too much micromanaging" ;)

Micromanaging, ok, but easily understandable and easily to do...

In Empire Earth One i liked the feature to limit eras...
I could choose to play only the two first eras if i wanted...
Or only the modern era, or only classiqual era or Future Era

If not, in RTS, i research not forcilly accurracy at 100 % but funny play...

We are not in middle 90's since 12 years...

I think EEIII is a relativelly good game but two details : AI and perhaps maps....

I'm repeat once again i dont trust too much videogames press, videopress is trustable only for news... After, it's to us players to decide...

That's all

How do you figure?

Well you'd have to select traits to advance an epoch. I mean in EE1, there was just a button in the Capital building that would say "Advance to the next epoch" when you got a certain amount of resources. But EE2 you had to choose one of 4 military traits or economic traits or something.

Well you'd have to select traits to advance an epoch. I mean in EE1, there was just a button in the Capital building that would say "Advance to the next epoch" when you got a certain amount of resources. But EE2 you had to choose one of 4 military traits or economic traits or something.

No you just had to research a minimum amount of techs before it allowed you to advance.

I prefer saving up resources and then building 2 buildings to get to the next epoch. It's easier than research and reduces that competition stress over crowns. Sometimes I forget to collect a crown.

Besides that, crowns are not very realistic. I know, there's priests and prophets, but they should be gone too. Keep it sort of real... maybe have soldiers capture buildings, like in Generals

I have it and it's vere very bugged, as i couldn't dl the demo which was too big...

Dont buy this game !

EEIII is even worst than EEII, the worst 2007 is it...

:( :( :(

I bought StarCraft this morning, and I noticed a few similarities between it and Empire Earth III.

1. Both games have only three playable factions, all of which are very different from each other while still being well balanced. But you can't get good results if you do that for a historical strategy game, whereas you can just make it up in a sci-fi or fantasy one.

2. Both games have only two resources. But that's all that StarCraft needs. Trying to do something like that for a historical game is a bad idea, as in EEIII you can make a tank out of fish just as easily as you can out of iron. That doesn't really make sense.

3. IS STARCRAFT REALLY THAT GOOD?! I GUESS IN AN AGE WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN SOME VERY BAD RTS GAMES I MANAGED TO PICK UP A NINE-YEAR OLD GREAT ONE.

You can make a tank out of fish- You have to feed the crews somehow (and they take up a lot of food. How does advancing to the next age require food? You gotta feed your cavemen to invent a better club)