AOE3 sucks because it feels like you're playing AOM, and I've been playing that game for years.
More importantly, however, it sucks because they purposely ****ed over the editor so they could appeal to scenario designers with a half-arsed expansion pack where they fix it.

[This message has been edited by Shrink (edited 12-26-2005 @ 08:32 PM).]

It has almost classical music which is why it is good.

Demo anyway.

It does not suck because I am an ES Fanboy.

AoE3 sucks because:

Graphics go unnoticed beyond a certain extent. There's a point where you can say 'That's good.' and know that no-one will notice anything during a game besides the basics. For this worthless exchange, you need a high-powered system to run the game properly. In any case, the buildings are bloated and unstylish (not quite the word there).

It is unbalanced and incomplete. The French rule the game, Ottoman rushes overpower most counter-rushes, the editor (I think) is not fully complete and many details in the game are missing.

It is impossible to create large cities in the editor due to a lack of building variety.

The RPG element of home cities repels me. I do not want to spend several days only to yell "OMFG I GOT MY SECOND FORT CARD YES AWESOME LQL!!!!!!11"

So, in short, it's extremely demanding for your system for little repayment, in is unbalanced and the patches aren't coming fast enough, it is incomplete, it is bland and has narrow range of units and buildings, and it takes much needed time and dedication to get barely-worthy cards (omg i haz teh uber leet pwnz curasseer kard i winz teh earth).

General discussions?

It is good because:

- The HC system opens a new way of playing, with cards and XP, Natives and trade routes does the same
- The graphics rules if you have the graphic card to match it
- It fits well into the previous ES games, which also were the best (IMO) in their own time
- The music is well made and gives a kind of ambient feeling
- Effects in the game, like sounds from cannons from far away, people falling off horses when they die and buildings being gradually destroyed
- It has an exciting theme
- Politicians helps with varying the game
- Treasures
- Interesting with no drop-off points
- Many new strategies are opened because of the previous points

It is bad because:

- Bugs!
- Some people may find it too much alike previous Age games
- Some graphic cards can't take the graphics
- Less realism because the drop-off points are removed and that buildings can fire even though they are almost destroyed (like Outposts can fire without the top)

aoe3 does no suck, its the best thing since sliced bread, buy it. i was a naysayer, but i have realised its a great game.

EDIT: I HAVE TO GIVE THIS PREFERENCE TO SHOW PEOPLE WE SHOULD NOT LISTEN TO THIS PERSON

Quote:

omg buy dis game bekuz if u dont ur a warmongering sucker of satans cock lol im so smart calling people gay maks me look mature!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

A TERRIBLE new way of playing.

Quote:

And we all look at the trees in the middle of microing a battle and think "Aw, it's so pretty! ".

Quote:

...No. Not at all. The standard music sucks in all but one case.

Quote:

You've won this round. But I'll be back!

Quote:

Well THAT'S new. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Meh.

Quote:

Yeah... they change *so* much.

Quote:

Treasures are BAD. a BAD thing. Just like adding random starting resources would be.

Quote:

I prefer to call it skilless, but to each his own.

Also the fact that it changes almost nothing. <_<

Quote:

...That isn't a bad thing. Unless you mean lowest possible graphics. And even a 32mb card can take them.

[This message has been edited by Bk 101 (edited 12-25-2005 @ 08:19 AM).]

Like I said, SOME graphic cards can't take them. At least not as good as they should be.

Quote:

Never seen it in any game before.

Quote:

Your opinion < my opinion. Stop whining, it's great.

Quote:

You don't battle all the time. The graphics are great everywhere, and ESPECIALLY water and snow.

Quote:

I don't think that other music types could give the same feeling... It fits perfectly into the game. If you don't like it, change it.

Quote:

They are great, you must be smart to gain the benefits from them. They are many times as good as relics, because they vary so much. And adding random starting resources is just as stupid as your arguing at this point.

Quote:

Could you make up your mind?

Quote:

You can create VERY large cities if you use your fantasy. Large AND nice AND very "eyecandish".

Quote:

I don't see the connection.

Quote:

Then don't.

Quote:

You will notice the graphics all the time. It is the best graphics ever in a RTS game, and possibly the best graphics in ANY game.

Quote:

Quote:

Also here... Could you make up your mind?

Quote:

Ottomans is weak later on. Only the French are OP.

Quote:

Well. they are trying to fix it. If you can't stand waiting, stop playing.

If you don't like AoE3, then don't post here. There's no reason for you to post here if you don't like it, and noone's pressing you to it.

Quote:

In your opinion!

Quote:

Leave him alone

Quote:

Seriously, AoE3's graphics are just amazing. Would you rather it was 2D?

Quote:

I admit that I don't really like the standard music, but it's still better than all the other RTSs I've played.

Quote:

He didn't say they changed a lot, just that they help with variation. A lot of strategies are based on certain politicians, especially the first tier.

Quote:

Treasures leave a sense of "wanting to explore". It's kind of like a treasure hunt too (literally). If you explore better than your opponent, chances are you will be boosted in economy.

Quote:

Not skillless, but just with less skill. Still, I think it was a good decision on ES's part. It makes the game more fun as well.

*phew*

Agreed^

Bk 101 , your post really lacks arguments for your viewpoint.

I like the game, the campaign rocks, and the homecity quells my thirst for RPG's a bit.
At least I'm no MP-machine who's sole objective in life is get an X amount of units in X amount of time to kill X amount of players, I take time to actually enjoy the game.
(And I surely do!)

Played some this morning. At a couple points during the match I got the "Age feeling"--I can't really describe it, but to me it made this one on par with the others.

The HC isn't really too big of an issue as far as I'm concerned.

The graphics and physics visuals aren't the central feature of the game, but they are a nice touch.

I do wish they had included some purely historical campaigns.

For most people, I think it goes...

It sucks because it is AoK/AoM.

Or...

It sucks because it isn't AoK/AoM.

That's what it boils down to. As for me... I'll be installing it sometime today.

Could someone explain what's actually so damn terrible about the HC system?

My main complaint is that the civs aren't balanced. But then, I haven't played the campaign, and I don't care about the editor.

Once you get past trying to play it the same way you play AOK/AOM, you'll notice that there's a lot more options and that it's a lot more interesting. In AOK/AOM there was really only one way to play each civ and the question was which player plays his civ better, whereas in AOE3 there are a lot more options and strategy (the S part in RTS) actually makes a difference. AOE3 also seems to have much better balanced costs for technologies and units - there are very few units that can be considered underpowered and very few technologies that can be considered useless. However it's easy to pick up a civ like the French that plays like AOK/AOM and do well with it, then say that the game is too much like AOK/AOM.

The civs in AOE3 are actually fairly well balanced except for a few that are slightly worse like Portuguese and British, and a few that are slightly better like Ottoman and French. The problem is that you have to play each civ differently against each other civ. What is unbalanced is some of the units, like Abus Guns, Lakota, Cuirassiers and Skirmishers, but usually there are ways of dealing with these.

It sucks because
- Single player sucks. The campaign is actually decent in my opinion but it's very short, and the AI is pretty boring.
- Leveling your home cities to unlock the full potential of your civs sucks, unless you have tons of free time. I still don't have any city past 25, though I have lots past 10, because I want to play different civs.
- There is no rating system. This is especially annoying because people now think win% = skill and just host lots of noob-bashing games to increase their win%.
- The editor is very incomplete and buggy, RMS is as annoying as ever, custom scenarios don't even work in multiplayer (though custom RM's work) - basically there is almost no potential for the fan-made content that made the other games last so long.

[This message has been edited by Matei (edited 12-25-2005 @ 12:41 PM).]

I think Matei hit the right points over here.

In the end its upto your personal opinion on a game, play it and then form a opinion.

But I do beleive, that MP in AoE3 is a lot more fun than the other age games.

It's an awesome game, especially multiplayer. I'd recommend you buying it.

bk101 has his opinions, but those are his, and you can see that quite a lot of people love it.

I'm also not sure why people care about the rating system. Granted, I'm not a particularly competitive player in this game, but really, who cares what someone else thinks? If they think you suck and they're wrong, whoop their asses in a game.

Quote:

Dear lord you must be isolated.
The trees look horrible, everything looks like its made of plastic and most of the textures/models are low quality and dull.

Quote:

Errr... that's because you have a crappy graphics card, Shan.

Get a good video card Centy.

I agree with you there, Matei, you have a lot of good points. But...

Quote:

The HC levelling is very smart. Without it, the game could be more boring.

Quote:

I've played a lot of games, from Warcraft 3 and all Age games (including Age of Wonders 2) to Flash games, Worms and MS-DOS games, to Counter-Strike and other shooting games, PlayStation, some RTS and even more I don't remember, including that I've seen screenshots from a lot of other games, so I have seen a lot of different graphics.

Quote:

Nah, I agree with Matei on that one. I being level 70 have access to a lot more politicians than a level 20. So I can advance to third age a lot faster, or perhaps get 7 skirmishers on age up as opposed to 4 doppels a level 20 can get. I can't just go to another civ and try their strategy, I have to keep playing the one I'm highest level with so I can get better stuff.

And the whole levelling up thing gets boring at level 70+ .

Yeah, they could have added a lower limit (is there a limit?) but else the levelling is a good feature.

Levelling has come to annoy me.
I now play very rarely - once every couple of weeks and only with people I know.
It's very annoying that I have one level 17 HC, and one level 7 - the rest on level 1. I can't compete with everybody else's high level Cities, and it's annoying for them to keep having to use low level ones.

Oh wells.