Why did Age of Empires III "suck"?


#1

I personally enjoyed the campaign - it was quite fun!
The multipayer is good too, so why does everyone hate it?

Care to give any insight to my situation?

Also if you wanna go add me on AoE3: ImTheRealSlayer :wink:


#2

@ImTheRealSlayer said:
I personally enjoyed the campaign - it was quite fun!
The multipayer is good too, so why does everyone hate it?

Care to give any insight to my situation?

Also if you wanna go add me on AoE3: ImTheRealSlayer :wink:

Hello! I personally consider AoE3 a wonderful game! I played for many many hours, and I achieved very good results in the multyplayer! I do not think he is hated by many, but I have read of several people who appreciate more AoE2! Because? Surely AoE3 compared to the precedor implements a superior graphics, enjoys less civilization but more different from each other and these are definitely advantages! But maybe AoE3 has lost a bit of strategic depth compared to AoE2 (mind you, it will also be less strategic than AoE2 but still an excellent RTS), just look at the countless options “attitude” of the unit in AoE2 compared to AoE3! Another thing that everyone did not like in AoE3, are the expeditions of the mother city. I really liked this feature, but many did not like it completely. Last but not least, the historical era: cannon balls, muskets and a form of advanced gunpowder, have not convinced as the swords / shields and arrows. Technically a ballista can be compared to a cannon on horseback and a trabuco to a mortar, but the impact that the “modern” units have had on the tradition of AoE1-2, for some it was … explosive? lol … That said, I love AoE3, and I hope the definitve edition comes out soon!


#3

@CostlierParrot3
Thanks for the response! I personally enjoyed the campaign, but sometimes multiplayer feels a bit empty.


#4

@ImTheRealSlayer said:
@CostlierParrot3
Thanks for the response! I personally enjoyed the campaign, but sometimes multiplayer feels a bit empty.

do you mean empty people? In fact, if you see the steam statistics, users who play AoE2 are more than the players on AoE3.


#5

To be honest, I can’t understand it neither.
I personally really enjoy AoE III, although I grew up with I and II. The campaign is historically well done, and makes a lot of fun.
Singleplayer gives you the opportunity to improve your own skills and tactics, until you soon change to Multiplayer. And there, nobody is really toxic, I made a lot of friends and enjoy every game itself.

So, long story short: I can’t understand the whole hate. And as mentioned above, I used to play AoE I and II (still playing though), and I still keep my opinion, that AoE III is a wonderful and great game!


#6

Main prob for me was the way too close camera (in compination with the too large ui).
You just couldnt see enough of the battlefield!

Other than that i didnt like the reinforcments form the home cities in multiplayer.


#7

@CostlierParrot3 said:

@ImTheRealSlayer said:
@CostlierParrot3
Thanks for the response! I personally enjoyed the campaign, but sometimes multiplayer feels a bit empty.

do you mean empty people? In fact, if you see the steam statistics, users who play AoE2 are more than the players on AoE3.

When i mean empty, it feels like there isn’t too much to do. thats just my opinion though.


#8

@arapiCOMMANDER said:
Main prob for me was the way too close camera (in compination with the too large ui).
You just couldnt see enough of the battlefield!

Other than that i didnt like the reinforcments form the home cities in multiplayer.

There is a “Minimised UI” option by the way. If you’ve got a “good enough”* computer then try it out!

*“Good Enough” is the mid-range pc specs of 2009


#9

@ImTheRealSlayer said:

@CostlierParrot3 said:

@ImTheRealSlayer said:
@CostlierParrot3
Thanks for the response! I personally enjoyed the campaign, but sometimes multiplayer feels a bit empty.

do you mean empty people? In fact, if you see the steam statistics, users who play AoE2 are more than the players on AoE3.

When i mean empty, it feels like there isn’t too much to do. thats just my opinion though.

empty people I mean that there are not many people online than AoE2 … in fact the steam statistics show that AoE2 is more played than 3. This does not mean that AoE 3 is a bad game … sincerely my favorite!

P.S: why did you put “I do not agree” in the previous post?


#10

@arapiCOMMANDER make sure you set the camera zoom to “very far” in game options, along with switching minimized UI on as mentioned. This makes a huge difference.


#11

i believe they disliked it because of the time era the game took place in is overtaught, teachers love this era and to be kind its a lil boring. I personally loved the game its control was great and I loved how they managed to keep firearms balanced when lets face it they’re kinda op, but look at how they presented the era, it was far less romanticized than the medieval ages or the bronze or iron age, which most of their other games took place in. I guess it all falls back on to what we personally view to be powerful or romantic or even just simply cool. for example, Spartans and the group of city-states known as Greece is very romantic and powerful when they stood as a whole against say Persia. 300 Spartans holding back an army that easily outnumbered their entire city-state, sounds pretty powerful. id have loved to see the look on the Persians faces when they realized that the 300 wasn’t even a fraction of their military might as 22,000 marched on them. anyways back on topic guns really just kill the awe factor of a game compare if you will a phalanx to a firing line…which looks and feels cooler and more powerful.


#12

@CostlierParrot3 said:

@ImTheRealSlayer said:

@CostlierParrot3 said:

@ImTheRealSlayer said:
@CostlierParrot3
Thanks for the response! I personally enjoyed the campaign, but sometimes multiplayer feels a bit empty.

do you mean empty people? In fact, if you see the steam statistics, users who play AoE2 are more than the players on AoE3.

When i mean empty, it feels like there isn’t too much to do. thats just my opinion though.

empty people I mean that there are not many people online than AoE2 … in fact the steam statistics show that AoE2 is more played than 3. This does not mean that AoE 3 is a bad game … sincerely my favorite!

P.S: why did you put “I do not agree” in the previous post?

Truely is! My uncle from down south brought a cracked version up on a USB. I had fun with the singleplayer (until the game was left unplayable and deleted itself… rip)

I did?!? :open_mouth: I’ll fix that right away. I meant to hit Agree.


#13

It sucked and died because of the historical era, small circular maps, no drop points for resources, home city, decks, shorter and faster and shallower gameplay, less strategical depth than AOE2, not having the feeling you were building and empire but a small village instead, and overall inferior to AOE2 in almost every aspect.


#14

@IamDalv said:
It sucked and died because of the historical era, small circular maps, no drop points for resources, home city, decks, shorter and faster and shallower gameplay, less strategical depth than AOE2, not having the feeling you were building and empire but a small village instead, and overall inferior to AOE2 in almost every aspect.

hello, I can understand when you say that AoE2 liked you more than AoE3 (personal tastes), but to say that AoE3 sucked … I do not think so … The game has sold well in the world, it means that people liked it . Maybe as you say, for many people it was not as good as AoE2, but if all the RTS games were like AoE3 there would be no rubbish of RTS around!


#15

@IamDalv said:
It sucked and died because of the historical era, small circular maps, no drop points for resources, home city, decks, shorter and faster and shallower gameplay, less strategical depth than AOE2, not having the feeling you were building and empire but a small village instead, and overall inferior to AOE2 in almost every aspect.

  1. It didn’t die, still one of the top active RTS games with a steady playerbase.
  2. Shallower gameplay, less strategical depth? Surely you must be joking, or you haven’t actually played/understood the game. In AoE2 you essentially have one civ copy pasted dozens of times with like one unique unit/tech and some bonus. In AoE3 many civs literally share no units and on top of that you get cards, trade routes, treasures, native allies… The strategic options are endless, players are constantly finding new ones to this day.

#16

I loved AOE 3. Most from AOE 2 seemed to think it was not the direction they expected… imo i preferred AOE3 multiplayer but AOE 2 campains.


#17

I felt AOE3 was more linear with its maps (felt like everything had a place for it, not place it where you wanted too – I mean it COULD go there but it really belongs over there)

I know this sounds strange but visually it was also the least appealing to me too.


#18

age of empires 3 game mechanics is best of the franchise


#19

The multiplayer in AOE3 just feels less interesting than AOE2s. Everyone having guns is just kinda… meh. I don’t AOE3 at all (I play it a ton), but every match online is just about the same.


#20

Wow, i didn’t realise that this post would gain some traction!
I must say that i do like the Home City system, it adds a fair bit of depth into the game. The more you work, the quicker you can order another shipment.
For example,
You are in dire need of food. Kill some treasure guardians and boom new shipment available. order some food and it’ll be there in about 30 seconds.

Age of Empires 3’s strongest point is in the case of its gameplay - Age of empires II’s Strongest point is in the case of its Civilization number.

so tell me, what would you prefer?