1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Korea scenario: Civ vs. Age of Empires

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by insaneweasel, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. insaneweasel

    insaneweasel Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    329
    A shoutout to all three of you who remember playing Age of Empires 2, the Conquerers (Hi! :D)

    That game had a truly awesome bunch of scenarios, and they even had a Korean scenario exactly like this one, though it was an RTS.

    Civ may have stolen a bunch of ideas from Empires, but I was wondering if anyone here thinks one is better than the other, with regard to how fun they are. In my opinion, Civ doesn't do scenarios very well.
     
  2. GiantCornSnake

    GiantCornSnake Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Georgia
    I remember playing it back in the day. I especially felt nostalgic when I read Civ 5 had the turtle ships that I adored in AoE2. I have to say I agree that the scenarios were much better structured in AoE2 than Civ5 but it bordered on holding your hand through everything whereas Civ5 just drops you in and lets you find your own way of doing things.
     
  3. Fabiano79

    Fabiano79 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Messages:
    337
    Yeah, right..:crazyeye:

    Age of Empires sucess was pretty much result of all the marketing of microsoft. The crazy speed you need it to play online was just a joke. The campaign was boring and repetitive.

    With the money they had, Age could be the best strategy game of history, but it was mediocre. Even for a RTS, Age is worst than the average games.

    Of course this a matter of opinion, but civ was always a better game than Age..at least until ciV.
     
  4. Revoran

    Revoran Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    493
    Civilization was released in 1991. Age of Empires was released in 1997, nearly 7 years later. I'm sure Age of Empires influenced subsequent civs to a small degree - but I think the flow of influences and ideas was mainly the other way around.

    Even then, i'm not sure you can really compare turn based strategy and RTS - it's like apples and oranges, they're both fruits but very different.
     
  5. insaneweasel

    insaneweasel Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    329
    I saw a lot of units from AoE ending up in Civ. How many games have had sipahi or landschnekts?



    I totally disagree with you there. Did you ever play the Saladin campaign? The last part had you frantically trying to build a wonder while you were attacked by hordes of trebuchets, longbowmen, bombards and frankish paladins was anything but boring imo.
     
  6. TW_Honorius

    TW_Honorius Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    278
    medieval total war and medieval 2 total war had sipahi.
     
  7. fat_tonle

    fat_tonle Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Messages:
    540
    AoE 2 had one of the most entertaining campaigns I can remember. I remember my Trebuchets on their last health bar before finally sniping the last castle or wonder I had to destroy (or protect from being destroyed) as the last poster stated. Attila and Barbarossa campaigns were SOOO good... And the MP was pretty fun while it lasted. AoE3 was complete ****. Had some good civs and concepts, but it failed miserably, starting with a crappy campaign that progressively worsened.

    What I wanted from AoE was basically what I got to an extent in Civ. I didn't want a turn game per say, but I wanted something that could capture RTS without being a total war game. Incorporate something like building a town/colony/city with an actual population, organization and infrastructure... economically and politically. Trading in real time with a system a little more complex than the supply and demand system in the market. Supporting an actual population and their needs economically, politically, and personally. Age of Empires never took it to that extent in any of its renditions. It was basically a "secure all resources and amass an army" RTS in the vein of Blizzard games, C & C, and similar RtS games.

    CiV has tried to do this now, giving the game a significant military bias to almost give you a real time strategy feel that is anything but, though nonetheless just as immersing from a combat standpoint. Problem is, the game in unplayable as a multiplayer. And the AI is so piss poor that they have to make it so overpowered to have the slightest chance of competing.

    I just think they need to get back to the roots of what civ is supposed to be about. If you want to bias war, then give us an RtS game or something as close to possible as that. Otherwise, add more content and make it a building game, where we have to manage every aspect and variable that affects running an empire in history. So far it has failed on both counts, but there is room for improvement.
     
  8. Omega124

    Omega124 Challenging Fate

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,083
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Albany, New York
    What I think people like fat_tonle is looking for is Rise of Nations. It takes the RTS of Age and mixes it with the nation building of Civ quite well.
     
  9. Misterboy

    Misterboy Modern Major General

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    It's funny how often Rise of Nations is recommended to people after all these years. It was a very good game.

    I wonder if there's any chance for a sequel. Is BHG around anymore? I can always hope...
     

Share This Page