AOE or CIV3
- Thread starter POWER
- Start date
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
My mouse slipped... I swear.... 
Just kidding... I think both are good game but since I spend more time here than at AOE sites, the choice is obvious.
AOE was my favorite game until my brother in law bought me CIV3 for Christmas. I knew I married into that family for a reason
Just kidding... I think both are good game but since I spend more time here than at AOE sites, the choice is obvious.
AOE was my favorite game until my brother in law bought me CIV3 for Christmas. I knew I married into that family for a reason
Eric The Fish
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 68
Shogun: Total War vs Civ 3 would be a better contest. STW blows AOE out of the water.
I know this was stupid, i just wanted to see what people thought. And besides before i started playing Civ 3 AOE 2 was my favorite game. And i still play it. I just like civ3 more because of the way you can take your civilization though all the ages and the AI smartness. In a way I kinda like the way AOE has a much more easier mililitary to control and the nice graphics make it a very good game. Wouldn't you agree.
Oh yeah and i Am the RULER of the world so you have to like so ha ha. just kidding.
Oh yeah and i Am the RULER of the world so you have to like so ha ha. just kidding. AOE graphics are really nice, but could not fit on a Civ game. Civ is a game of global domination, you have to see the overall picture in order to think strategically and tactically. AOE, on the other hand, is merely a click-fest, the quickest mouse wins. No strategy at all. Maybe on a tactical level, but that's all.
Anyway, I don't despise AOE. It's a very good game in its own genre. Very polished, high production values.
But... whenever you think strategy, you think Civ. Hmm... that could be copyrighted.
Kefka
Your local Schizophrenic
This is Kind of a stupid place to put this poll ain't it 
Well I guess you just wanted to say that over 80% of people asked perfer Civ3
Well I guess you just wanted to say that over 80% of people asked perfer Civ3
Mapache
Coronel
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Messages
- 469
The high percentage for AoE is surprising, given that it's old and this is not a place for rts games. A stronger contender could be HOMM 1-3.Originally posted by Kefka
This is Kind of a stupid place to put this poll ain't it
Well I guess you just wanted to say that over 80% of people asked perfer Civ3
Which detergent do you prefer? Ariel or HCl(chloric acid)?
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
AoE and AoK are awsome will never go out of style and can only be improved by graphical changes
Civ 3 is my favorite then comes EE and AoE
Civ 3 is my favorite then comes EE and AoE
The_Newbie
Apis Novum
Empire Earth is a big improvement on AoE/AoK. I find EE much more fun for the AoE era than AoE and it looks a lot better (unless you zoom in but what do you expect? Photo quality faces?)
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Yes
Have not gotten around to buying EE and don't think I will until I get tired of Civ. Which will not be for a while.
I have all of the AoE games, right on up to AoC. (Age of Conquerors, i swear that these acronyms on the web is like a secret code). I voted for Civ3 however, which i think has a lot more depth and replayability. You can develop many different strategies and approaches to Civ3, but the AoE line of games has only a few approaches. Nevertheless, it's a great game to space in between blocks of Civ playing, which will always be my dark master, 
. It's kinda hard to compare these games though because they have a different look at things, what i like to call a "zoom". In other words, Civ3 is more representative of units and other things, where in AoE you actually see the units and such. The maximum zoom would be first person shooters or roleplaying. I probably make absolutely no sense, as i do when i try to explain this to my friends.
. Though maybe a few crazy ones will understand my insane ranting :enlighten .
. It's kinda hard to compare these games though because they have a different look at things, what i like to call a "zoom". In other words, Civ3 is more representative of units and other things, where in AoE you actually see the units and such. The maximum zoom would be first person shooters or roleplaying. I probably make absolutely no sense, as i do when i try to explain this to my friends. . Though maybe a few crazy ones will understand my insane ranting :enlighten .Civ3 and all other civ's are good and they beat AoE easily, but still I think that AoE are nice games with good idea. Still AoE, Rise of Rome and AoE2 are hiding my Civ's under my bed. (AoE 2 is best of all AoE's!!! Glory for it!!!)
If I nedd somebody do tease, wI must go and find my brother. --- Not so rare words from my mouth
Sum of life is bunch of bad days. --- Old man
. (AoE 2 is best of all AoE's!!! Glory for it!!!)If I nedd somebody do tease, wI must go and find my brother. --- Not so rare words from my mouth
Sum of life is bunch of bad days. --- Old man
AtroX_Worf
Chieftain
AoC is the better game - it has multiplayer support.
I used to play AoK and its expansion - AoC - nearly 2 hours every day. AtroX (my (ex-) AoC Clan) became 2nd and only lost in the playoffs, we are still undefeated on island map. We played in the mideuropean AoC league with over 80 clans.
I can tell you, AoC is a real sport, it was one of the games at the www.worldcybergames.com in Korea.
You can't really compare this 2 games, they belong to different genres. RTS comes down to multitasking (you change screenposition in average one time per second, that is a very low number for good players) and single unit handling as well as macro thinking. It is a just in time management of ressources and untis with nearly nonstop action and mixed armys.
CIV in general is about macro thinking and diplomacy. Time is no critical factor (or ressource, depends on your point of view) and the developers put more emphasize on a longer game with many researchs. Though the rush is powerfull, it is not that powerfull like it is in nearly every RTS, that's the main difference.
People are complaing about warriors beating tanks and so on, another difference. To my mind, purists tend to play CIV.
So what? If it works, I would pump warriors when tanks are available when my warriors win in huge numbers vs tanks. It only comes down to cost per round or worker in CIV and VS (villager seconds, work one villager does in one second) in AoC, it's all about math - not reality.
I play the game to win, I don't wanna change it.
I used to play AoK and its expansion - AoC - nearly 2 hours every day. AtroX (my (ex-) AoC Clan) became 2nd and only lost in the playoffs, we are still undefeated on island map. We played in the mideuropean AoC league with over 80 clans.
I can tell you, AoC is a real sport, it was one of the games at the www.worldcybergames.com in Korea.
You can't really compare this 2 games, they belong to different genres. RTS comes down to multitasking (you change screenposition in average one time per second, that is a very low number for good players) and single unit handling as well as macro thinking. It is a just in time management of ressources and untis with nearly nonstop action and mixed armys.
CIV in general is about macro thinking and diplomacy. Time is no critical factor (or ressource, depends on your point of view) and the developers put more emphasize on a longer game with many researchs. Though the rush is powerfull, it is not that powerfull like it is in nearly every RTS, that's the main difference.
People are complaing about warriors beating tanks and so on, another difference. To my mind, purists tend to play CIV.
So what? If it works, I would pump warriors when tanks are available when my warriors win in huge numbers vs tanks. It only comes down to cost per round or worker in CIV and VS (villager seconds, work one villager does in one second) in AoC, it's all about math - not reality.
I play the game to win, I don't wanna change it.
CIV RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no seriusly the main difference is that civ is much more enjoyable cause is so much complicated....
Still I think that Cossacks are far better than AOE. I never understood the population limit idea....Cossacks gives UNLIMITED and I MEAN UNLIMITED(at least 8000) unit numbers.....
Now this is what I call fun wouldn't you say??????
no seriusly the main difference is that civ is much more enjoyable cause is so much complicated....
Still I think that Cossacks are far better than AOE. I never understood the population limit idea....Cossacks gives UNLIMITED and I MEAN UNLIMITED(at least 8000) unit numbers.....
Now this is what I call fun wouldn't you say??????
simwiz2
Warlord
AOE 2 beats civ3 easily. MP gives it almost unlimited replayability, and gameplay is much more thought-out and polished. In AOE you dont have patches that fix one botched gameplay thing but then wreck something else. Also, AOK's release was much cleaner. All of the units actually worked, IIRC Civ3 has limited replayability because of tedium, and lack fo strategy in the modern age. Lack of MP and scenarios doesnt exactly help civ3 either.
The poll is very skewed BTW, i mean think about it, its on a civ3 FANATICS site, and many people here have said they hate RTS, they think they are all clickfests, etc. The poll would be very different if it were on AokHeavengames for example.
Civ3 has limited replayability because of tedium, and lack fo strategy in the modern age. Lack of MP and scenarios doesnt exactly help civ3 either.The poll is very skewed BTW, i mean think about it, its on a civ3 FANATICS site, and many people here have said they hate RTS, they think they are all clickfests, etc. The poll would be very different if it were on AokHeavengames for example.
JoseM
Roman Emperor
"Age Of Empires 2 : The Conquerors" has 2 patches.
Erdrick
Servant
I think AOE is a better game in the first couple months that you own the game, especially because of the multi-player capability, but in the long run I like Civ3 better. I got bored with AOK after about 3 months, even with the multi-player. I mean, you could try doing a smush, or walling an enemies gold in the dark age, or try other unique tactics, but after a while it just got boring. Every game ended up being the same thing over and over (if the game ended at all, with all the cheaters on the zone). AOK gave me a few good months of enjoyment (and x-pacs didn't rekindle interest), but I'll be playing Civ3 for years and years. The two things that make AOK even close, IMO, is the multi-player, and the ability to watch recorded games (at the end I spent as much time watching the games of others as I did actually playing myself)
Civ3 forever! Or at least until Civ4
Civ3 forever! Or at least until Civ4
AoE (AoK and all) have more depth and subtility than many casual players might think. If you ask me, right now i don't feel like Civ3 has alot of depth, considering there's no multiplayer module, and after a few games you can pretty much know from the first age how it's gonna end. Yes the possibilities of individual actions taken through a game are limitless, but the general tendencies of games tend to be quite similar (with constant settings, and there aren't that many settings you can change really). With a proper patch the game sure could gain alot depth-wise though..
But in the end, as others have pointed out, you can't compare the value of those 2 games since they're basically in totally different genres. Like saying that Britney Spears is better than Kid Rock (ok that's a poor exemple, they both suck ) It's all a matter of personnal taste, and personally i like both 
-corv-
But in the end, as others have pointed out, you can't compare the value of those 2 games since they're basically in totally different genres. Like saying that Britney Spears is better than Kid Rock (ok that's a poor exemple, they both suck
) It's all a matter of personnal taste, and personally i like both -corv-
Similar threads
