Anyone into this one? A deep, dark disbelief has been covering my will to finally try the final piece of The Mighty Series. Not anymore. Slightly limited gaming options of my notebook and the absence of a good quality strategy pushed me to act. And...voilá, it actually doesnt suck. At all. The first act took me a week of happy settlers/armies mass making. Whaddya say? Imho four thumbs up.
Age of empires 3
- Thread starter thawey
- Start date
Harbringer
Your A One Flower Garden
It was definitely better then I thought it would be, but the expansions were a rip off IMO. And to bad the studio shut down, it would have been interesting to see there take on the colonial era and World War I.
Man, I'm ambiguous about this one. I rarely play campaigns in RTS games, I dive right into the skirmish mode. I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of the "levelling up" system, although the "card" system is okay, I don't really think it was necessary to make it so that you have to play to obtain them. You could just do any strategy you like from the beginning.
I guess it was alright. I played it a lot at the beginning, mostly playing coop against AIs with my girlfriend. It was fun, I love the way buildings fall to pieces, the feel of battle and the sound effects were great. The sheer number of units fighting was fun too. But in the end I felt that the game maps felt a little contrived or too small and homogenous. All the maps pretty much felt the same. When I was playing AoE2, I somewhat felt that my army was crossing fast lands or something, in AoE3, it's feels like the enemy is basically on the other side of that patch of wood there, and there's nothing blocking them. I don't know how to explain it, there was something about the maps and their size and homogeneity...
Also, it's a much more offense oriented game. I find it's a trend in more modern RTS games, and I'm not sure I like it. Even Sins of a Solar Empire was largely based on offense. And just zerging your enemy out. Many of these games don't leave me much time to contemplate (although MAYBE Sins of a Solar Empire does... Unless you're called out at three different places..)
I guess it was alright. I played it a lot at the beginning, mostly playing coop against AIs with my girlfriend. It was fun, I love the way buildings fall to pieces, the feel of battle and the sound effects were great. The sheer number of units fighting was fun too. But in the end I felt that the game maps felt a little contrived or too small and homogenous. All the maps pretty much felt the same. When I was playing AoE2, I somewhat felt that my army was crossing fast lands or something, in AoE3, it's feels like the enemy is basically on the other side of that patch of wood there, and there's nothing blocking them. I don't know how to explain it, there was something about the maps and their size and homogeneity...
Also, it's a much more offense oriented game. I find it's a trend in more modern RTS games, and I'm not sure I like it. Even Sins of a Solar Empire was largely based on offense. And just zerging your enemy out. Many of these games don't leave me much time to contemplate (although MAYBE Sins of a Solar Empire does... Unless you're called out at three different places..)
Harbringer
Your A One Flower Garden
the problem in sins was that for an RTS it gave you TO MUCH time to contemplate.....
Yeah, I find it really hard to figure out the actual pace of that game. To this day, I have no idea if I'm rushing for no reason, or lagging behind, when I play this game.
Harbringer
Your A One Flower Garden
That was the exact same problem I had for the longest time, now Im pretty good at it. But its still just way to slow paced for me, it only really gets fun on the large maps where you have hundreds of fleets over multiple systems and stuff, but it takes way to long to build up to that. My average sins game on a large map lasted longer then my CIV games on a large map....and that just shouldn't happen.....
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,316
I played it a lot once I first got multiplayer. So I definitely liked it. But there was a lot of room for improvement. I would have rather had a historical campaign. I played the AoE 3 campaign once and never had any desire to again. Even AoM I played the campaign twice - but it wasn't historical for a good reason. It just seemed more fun than AoE 3's campaign to me, too - maybe it was the vast differences in the sections of AoM's campaigns. But the AoE2 ones I played many times. So the historical AoE2 ones were definitely my favorite scenarios.
I agree with SimonL that the "leveling up" system may not be a good idea. It makes it much harder to just get people to play a game - people get too worked up about the "level". It seemed to me like it was actually quicker to get into a Civ4 multi-player game despite all the settings, because you had no idea how good the people you were playing against were. And alliances tended to counter anyone who starting to run away quite well. I still played more AoE3 than Civ4 online, but that was mostly because Civ4 games just last too long to play online, unless it's with real-life friends and done in sessions.
Never bought the expansions as they didn't seem like a good deal, and by the time they might have been (if that time has even come yet) I'd stopped playing AoE3.
I agree with SimonL that the "leveling up" system may not be a good idea. It makes it much harder to just get people to play a game - people get too worked up about the "level". It seemed to me like it was actually quicker to get into a Civ4 multi-player game despite all the settings, because you had no idea how good the people you were playing against were. And alliances tended to counter anyone who starting to run away quite well. I still played more AoE3 than Civ4 online, but that was mostly because Civ4 games just last too long to play online, unless it's with real-life friends and done in sessions.
Never bought the expansions as they didn't seem like a good deal, and by the time they might have been (if that time has even come yet) I'd stopped playing AoE3.
The AoE2 campaings were definitely better than AoE3 campaigns (nothing interesting happened in the new world, or did the devs just think it would be a good idea to make up some s**t?)
As for the leveling system, you can hack (give yourself whatever level you want and as many cards as you want, at least in the single player)
In the end, I suppose it was an ok game. Not bad but no masterpiece.
As for the leveling system, you can hack (give yourself whatever level you want and as many cards as you want, at least in the single player)
In the end, I suppose it was an ok game. Not bad but no masterpiece.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I've played it with both expansions too. It was better than expected. Quite good game actually.
However AoE2 is still better - by a lot.
However AoE2 is still better - by a lot.
truckingpete
On a Stark Trek
I was thinking the same thing when you got the game. I was thinking, oh the game isn't going to be as good as AoE2. I played the demo and was like...nah. But I picked it up at Wal- Mart a few months ago. I got the gold addition so I got Warchiefs. The campaign was pretty good, but not like AoE2. The Warchiefs campaign was...blah....
I'm thinking about getting the Asian Dynasty one once the price goes down a little. It looks pretty good. I always liked playing the Asians in AoE2...dont know why...the sweet buildings I guess...haha.
Multiplayer isn't like AoE2 tho....who remembers logging on the Zone on MSN on friday nights and playing all night? I DO!! It was great with all the sweet maps!!!
Other then that...AoE3 was well worth the money I think in the long run!!
I'm thinking about getting the Asian Dynasty one once the price goes down a little. It looks pretty good. I always liked playing the Asians in AoE2...dont know why...the sweet buildings I guess...haha.
Multiplayer isn't like AoE2 tho....who remembers logging on the Zone on MSN on friday nights and playing all night? I DO!! It was great with all the sweet maps!!!
Other then that...AoE3 was well worth the money I think in the long run!!
I have to agree. AOE II campaigns were simply better and kept me playing to see the next cutscene or mission prompt (storytelling compete with page-turning images.)
AOE III had a very generic campaign complete with hidieous close-up of game graphics a-la Empire Earth. In short a big step back singleplayer wise.
AOE III had a very generic campaign complete with hidieous close-up of game graphics a-la Empire Earth. In short a big step back singleplayer wise.
I still don't get why your cities go up in levels when you play scenarios...I really hate the whole card thing being that customizable. I'd rather want it static for each civ.
Anyhow, yeah AOE 2 is far superior. Especially for multiplayer.
In this game you can't even make your own formations or change stances of units. They run even though you dont want them to.
It's not crappy but its not worth spending MP time on.
Yeah what the hell is up with that. WHY?
Even EE had more zoomed out. Stupid game develoepers.
Anyhow, yeah AOE 2 is far superior. Especially for multiplayer.
In this game you can't even make your own formations or change stances of units. They run even though you dont want them to.
It's not crappy but its not worth spending MP time on.
Yeah what the hell is up with that. WHY?
Even EE had more zoomed out. Stupid game develoepers.
Similar threads
