What you guys show around here is “Sparta - Ancient Wars” from 2006. And no, thats what it looked like back in the day. Ancient Wars - Sparta (Wikipedia)
Did they honestly try to raise money using an existing game? Idiots. Nice to see that they failed with it. The original game is actually still floating around as abandonware. So not sure who even holds the rights to that.
You can design your own units by equipping base soldier classes with different gear… that’s about the only interesting thing in the game.
“The golden horde” from 2008 is its successor. The same game set in medieval times with Teutonic Order/Mongols/Rus.
This exactly. The fact there are multiple people trying to peddle this game on this forum is pretty sad honestly. Then again maybe they are one of the 30 people that got scammed on kickstarter by this “project”.
There is not a game of this generation that was not released with bugs / some technical failure, if there is an example of the opposite, it is a very exceptional case.
The game will have improvements after its release because it is a damn AoE, not a DOW3.
The game will be fun for a lot of people and after the initial boom you will have a solid player base.
This is the hope of the RTS in the medium term, if it is not supported, the genre will die more.
Exactly! The game must be successful even though we don’t like some things. Well, in his hands is the RTS genre and the AOE saga. After having a possible success we can ask for more things in the future such as a reinvention of AOE-1. I would love a game focused on more elaborate classical antiquity.
The game is good enough to hold your attention for a couple of weeks.
But it doesn’t look like it has enough in it to keep a “Single Player” player like me hooked for too long. I pre-ordered it anyway to support AoE.
Granted there will be a huge campaign. But once I finish that, don’t know how long I can keep playing this game.
In case, I am one of those people who like geeking out about AoE games more than actually playing them (I play maybe a few hours a week but I’ve been playing since 2002), and I don’t find too many things to geek out about here.
AoE2 is equally dry in my opinion. Hidden stats and shared unit roster in AoE2 just don’t keep it interesting for too long.
I find a lot of joy in the varied cards and decks and units in AoE3. Fun to try out various weird strategies against AI.
Of course, someone who plays a lot of multiplayer will have very different opinions.
From my personal experience in multiplayer AoE3 years ago where a game would drag on a lot if both sides had managed to gather a lot of resources and have a lot of training buildings.
One often had to make a forward base almost next to the enemy to keep up with the defenders home advantage of having his production closer.
I dunno maybe it was something that changed after if I stopped playing AoE 3 multiplayer in 2006
Fights can drag on in the late game? What are trash wars? I’m sorry but this conversation gets irritating really quickly. Aoe2 players are so into their game they forget about all the things people took issue with. In the past few posts we’ve argued that aoe3 is bad because fights can drag on but Aoe2 is good because fights drag on.
I like all the age games and I wish aoe2 purists would recognize the good things that other games brought. Instead I worry that they’ll try to drag the game backwards like the people who go around arguing for carburetors to get put back in cars.
Compared to AOE2, AOE3 is too complicated (cards, unique units, complex counters) and also too simplified (no resource dropoffs, counters based on ratios), too realistic that violates good gameplay (the totally unnecessary manned artillery and different regional units) and too unrealistic for the sake of gameplay (superhuman natives with stone weapons, and lacking the must-have resource dropoffs ), too fast paced and also drags on, too easy and too difficult. That’s why it’s bad.
No, that’s why you, and some other people, don’t like it.
These ideas and elements of gameplay design are interesting and executed rather well. It’s 100% percent fine to prefer AoE II, but the only reason you don’t like these changes because they are compared what you already know and are used to.
Over the years III won over many people
AoE III Steam score: 90%
AoE III:DE Steam score: 75% (mostly due to launch window issues, or ‘political’ content changes- you know what).
it’s not an image of a bad game. Less preferred, less suitable for certain gameplay mode? Sure.
What is ‘complicated’ for you in AoE3 like cards, is a godsend for somebody else that is bored and weary after playing roughly the same game they’ve been playing since 1999
I would suggest for people to move away from the aoe3 vs aoe2 debate as that will probably go nowhere.
Argue purely on merits of a feature you want instead of defaulting to saying “aoe game is bad”.
At the end of the day the two games are a completely different setting and art direction.
The only thing that holds them together loosely is that they’re an RTS with the aoe name.
I guess I didn’t catch it. What you wrote are legitimate, potential issues and just because you have things from both ends of the spectrum (simplified economy and like complicated, very wide and diverse unit roster) doesn’t automatically make it’s 100% obvious sarcasm
that is the best part anything mainstream is often ultra trash made for the masses with no brains. Anything has a popularity in pop culture, entertainment, that thing will mostly ultra generic and trash thankfully AOE 4 is not that.
Because I was tired of seeing people picking different minor points about a game to prove it’s bad, with definitive claims, and often they are on opposite spectrum.
I wouldn’t argue if someone thinks resource dropoff is necessary. But that often comes with claims like “Games need to have more micros and depth. That’s why aoe3 is bad”.
On the other hand, one may also argue “Games need to be simple and straightforward. Diverse unit is bad. That’s why aoe3 is bad”.
Then they would mostly agree with each other.
Just a personal opinion, but I feel that several of the things that were attributed to AoE3 were already pioneered in the Age of Mythology + expansion. Just getting that out of the way.
I am not sure why AoM seems to get so few mentions.
Also to clarify what style of Aoe3 I played most of the time, I preferred the “treaty” style gameplay which is where the spam seemed to happen. Maybe it would not be the same in a regular match where people were at each others throats for as long as possible, never letting the other collect a large excess of resources.
I apologize for being vague I did not meant to upset you.
AOEM was ultra casual and extremely boring, they made features like auto que which automates production and turned the game into a complete snoozefest.
We need an update for the meme, like AoE4 is a modern “energy saving lamp”^^
While old lamps and candles stand around.
I used it for example, what happens if you try to pull off a game that looks like AoE4.
In such case, they would not have had put a fixed release date.
And they would have had started with open beta at least 6 months prior to games release.
All just wishful thinking. Not based on anything. Ironic that you would point fingers at DoW3 in that regard when the same studio makes AOE4 x]
Is that so? People keep preaching that it will be great, but we saw exactly nothing of that so far. They must have had access to @Adribird90’s crystal sphere : P
I did not meant to upset you.