Any AOE Fans?

Thorvald of Lym said:
Oh, I have no problem with that. What really stood out to me was the campaign. Where AoE 1 and 2's campaigns were based on historical events from a wide swath of cultures, AoE3's story was narrow, and in retrospect quite absurd. It was more like AoM than AoE.

Ahhh, the single player campaign! I will admit, a little bit bashfully, that I am one of those Philistines who usually never play through the story campaigns in the top-down RTSes. Usually I would get frustrated with particular missions, even on classics such as Red Alert. I guess also some RTSes are notorious for making missions puzzle-like to the extent that you had to figure out the exact right dance to win. The worst had to be where it would be impossible to win without knowledge of the events of the mission. Probably one of the reasons I liked Rise of Nations RISK-esque single player campaign, if I mess up on particular kinds or missions it does not halt the entire campaign.
 
Huge fan of all the Age of Empires games. I like 3 the best for single player, AOE2 was one of the best multiplayer experiences EVER.
 
I just want to say that I hate AoE2. It's historically inaccurate . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Longbow has more range and damage than arbalest? Ha! Don't even get me started on the horrible campaigns.

What reminded me of this was some discussion about historical accuracy and I was reminded of the disgusting teenagers' game that was AoK, which devolved to mad rushing at some point at which I stopped playing. And what irked me more was the fact that most reviews tout it as historically accurate :lol: :gripe:

The best game in the series was AoE1, simply because it was the first. It's also horribly inaccurate. Longswordsmen upgrade to legion. Wha?? Hoplites upgrade to phalanxes (not even phalangites) and then to centurions :crazyeye: Is it that hard to come up with something less fantastic in a supposedly historical game? But, then again, it was the first and quite impressive for its time.

I despise AoE3 the most because it's boring and it goes to new heights of fanciful history that anyone can barely even imagine without being on drugs. You're not changing history. You get served a mangled history from the get-go.

To sum it up, awful series that should have stopped at AoE1. Today, I read an interview about Ensemble not being able to introduce two attack modes for units in AoK because it would've made the game 'overly complicated', and I laugh. Why not just play the latest EA console game?

This is my evil post for the day :p
 
You are of the "Simple Is Stupid" school of design thought?

Simplistic is stupid. I like X-Com: UFO Defense, and it's pretty simple.

Anyway, for some awesomeness:

AoE Drum Mix

I revise my opinions. The first AoE was really good for its time.
 
I liked all of them, AoE2 the most, AoE3 had potential but the campaign was just some hollywood story that made no sense. I was hopeing for a American' Civil War campagin type
 
Besides the campaign, why does everyone hate AOE 3? Its pretty good, and I honestly don't care about its graphics. On the other hand, I loved AOE: Rise of Rome. I loved the editor, and I remember I made a Carthage campaign with it, but then I had to get rid of it when I got a new computer and my disc broke. :( Age of Mythology was a great spinoff, though, and its my favorite out of all the Age of series.
 
AoE 3 is really boring. I'd rather play Rise of Nations.

I think I'll reinstall the original AoE sometime soon.
 
AoE3 was pretty fun, I don't know why it's panned here, except maybe for the bad campaign. It played well in MP. The nations were more different than each other, the gameplay was quicker. I guess if you liked to build walls and sit around for hours it wasn't so good.
 
I, for one, liked the AoE 3 campaign, despite the 'So Bad It's Good' historical accuracy (I learnt just to ignore that and enjoy.) This may be because it's the only AoE game I have.

My game cut off is usually anything earlier then 476 and anything later the 1500, so I don't think I'll end up getting AoE 2.
 
I just lost to non-cheating AI in AoE for the first time in a long time. 5v1 and I was eventually overwhelmed by successive non-stop attacks by 4 of the different civs. Damn, that pisses me off, but it's good.
 
AoE I and HoMM II were the first computer-games I ever played. And the only ones for, like, 2 or 3 years. Damn, I became pro... :D I remember being able to defeat 5 adversaries at Hardest level... :king:

AoE II I never owned, but played quite a lot at my brother's comp. Never reached the level of proficiency I had with AoE I, though.

Haven't got around to getting AoE III yet...
 
AoE I and HoMM II were the first computer-games I ever played. And the only ones for, like, 2 or 3 years. Damn, I became pro... :D I remember being able to defeat 5 adversaries at Hardest level... :king:

Dude, I don't think that's possible. Even 1 Hardest AI is iffy because it might attack you with overwhelming force when you've just got into Bronze Age. It freaking cheats with +2000 of every resource at the start.

Now 5 Hard AI is fun. I might win against 6 as it is, but I'm not playing anymore for now.
 
Dude, I don't think that's possible. Even 1 Hardest AI is iffy because it might attack you with overwhelming force when you've just got into Bronze Age. It freaking cheats with +2000 of every resource at the start.

Now 5 Hard AI is fun. I might win against 6 as it is, but I'm not playing anymore for now.

Well, "being able" was probably poor choice of words. "Succeeded a few times" would've been better, I guess. :)
 
Well, "being able" was probably poor choice of words. "Succeeded a few times" would've been better, I guess. :)

How about "impossible"? :mischief:

Pics or it didn't happen :p
 
Back
Top Bottom