Why did Age of Empires III "suck"?


#21

AOEIII4LIFE <3

Both games are good but I enjoy AOE3 more than AOE2.


#22

I take time off every now and then, but am currently back on a hot streak of playing Age3, having owned the game now for 13 years. I loved the sheer quantities of civilizations in age 2, but the depth of choices and gameplay style in age 3 make it significantly better in my eyes. The circle map and countless other improvements lead me to prefer 3 over 2. Two things I don’t care for though:

  1. The ability to choose “random” civilizations. With the Home City system it doesn’t seem possible, but that was one of my favorite ways to play age 2.
  2. My other regret is that France and their Cuirrasiers were never balanced before the game was left to pasture. Seems like everyone and their little brother plays France or Japan just to spam the same O.P. unit game after game.
    That being said, I cannot wait for Age 4 to come out!

#23

1- Its smaller. or it just “felt” smaller back then.
2- Era of guns, isnt really interesting at all.
3- Game changed dramatically compared to previous ones. Its almost not age of empires. I think they did a bit too much innovation here and there.

With all those being said tho i expect a huge welcome from RTS players to an upcoming AOE 3:DE game. After adjusted zoom and better use of 3D technology, it will shine much better in 2018+


#24

Despite starting out playing AOE II and being set in a time period I’m more interested in, I much prefer AOE III. I love how the card system added a plethora of cool strategies and how each civilization was so unique because of them. AOE II civs just seemed copy and pasted with slight variations.

Rather have them start working on AOE III before II. Would make more sense imo.


#25

AOE 3 was a nice game. It just wasn’t really an “Age of Empires” game for me.

I wasn’t fond of the much smaller scale for one. In AOE 2 and even AOM, you felt like you were out conquering -cities-, establishing forward fortresses and bases, creating trade networks with other kingdoms and, in larger maps, dispatching forces across the land to fight grueling wars. You’d lay prolonged sieges to enemy towns, viciously fight over resources, and when it was all done, either lay waste to their nation or send your missionaries to convert them and truly ‘conquer’ it.

In AOE 3, you’re dealing with particularly small towns and outposts sending what feel more like war bands to enemy posts. Your trade routes are pre-set and entirely neutral points on the map, so no interacting with another nation in the same way. You pretty much only burn down the enemy town (which, to be fair, looks AMAZING), but can’t really assimilate it, and the sieges just feel less…satisfying? Certainly not like a proper siege the way you could have in AOE 2.

I was not too happy with how unit control felt stripped down. Formations were gone and merged into unit stance/ behavior, which I found VERY confusing and not as flexible a system as AOE 2 (in which I used the formation functions quite a bit).

I also found that resource accumulation in AOE 3 was far less a concern, when there were so many ways to automate it. Heck, most of your resources ended up coming in via infinite supply (except wood, but if you played the right Civ or had the trade posts, even that wasn’t an issue). As a result, I felt less “need” to go out and secure key zones once I had ‘enough’. (And before anyone says it, no I am not talking about ‘high level multiplayer’, I’m talking as a general player for both offline and online).

The Ages felt less distinct and more like they were forced into a game that shouldn’t have had them. The tech advancement between each one feels less distinct than it did in AOE 1 and 2, as you’re using basically the exact same tech across the timeline.

Finally, I thought the UI was terribly chunky.

Now, again, if this sounds like I’m railing on about how “AOE 3 is terrible!”, that isn’t the intent. I DO enjoy it for what it is, but its certainly not an “Age” game for me.


#26

AoE3 did not suck. It was a good game, but I did not like it as much as the previous AoE games for a couple reasons.

  • AoE3 had ahistorical campaigns. I would have liked to play as Napoleon or other great people of the era, not as some fictional people chasing after a fictional fountain of youth.
  • The editor was too complicated. I was not able to make a single functional scenario with the AoE3 scenario editor.
  • I’m simply more interested in the medieval and ancient eras than I am in the early modern era.

#27

My opinion :
No gather points, it just felt that was like cheating
Units have different pop size
Guns and cannons (especially this one) im more a sword and bow guy
you can’t build buildings far from ur base (if im not mistaken)
card things (doesn’t feel like aoe anymore)
idk what else, i did not play it for quite long time.


#28

@mouttie556 said:
you can’t build buildings far from ur base (if im not mistaken)
You CAN build buildings far from your base unless you play Treaty mode.


#29

@NiceKING said:

@mouttie556 said:
you can’t build buildings far from ur base (if im not mistaken)
You CAN build buildings far from your base unless you play Treaty mode.

… and finished the minutes of treaty, you can build where you want.


#30

@CostlierParrot3 said:

@NiceKING said:

@mouttie556 said:
you can’t build buildings far from ur base (if im not mistaken)
You CAN build buildings far from your base unless you play Treaty mode.

… and finished the minutes of treaty, you can build where you want.

Still sucks for me and I won’t be playing it again even if money was thrown on me.


#31

I have played AOE since 1996, and don’t think AOE3 sucked at all. I still prefer AOM actually. I mostly stuck with AOE1 for a long time, then AOM then AOE3. I actually felt AOK was a bit of a drag, seemed like it took forever to get anywhere and long games. I can still enjoy that gameplay, but not online multiplayer, only in LAN parties with a few people, so my friends and I mostly skipped AOK.

In AOE3 I was dickeroo, and while I didn’t play all that much was a “Major” for a bit. I actually liked the guns and cannons. Cannons were so cool. And the French horses never bothered my British musketeers. My musketeers would eat up almost any army in mass, as long as I managed them into units that would charge with the bayonets and others to be ranged with the guns for the different oppenent units. Most people massed bowmen as British, so usually attacked me with horses, which I welcomed.

The gameplay was a little odd with the shipments and then the trade routes being fixed, but it worked alright. I have not played AOE3 in many years though, one of my friends really enjoys AOEO, and since that recently got rehosted, have just started playing that again.

The only thing that really bothered me about AOE3, was the multiplayer rank, how it was based on amount of gameplay regardless of achievment. So a really bad or slow person could advance just by playing a lot and not really ever getting good, but since I didn’t log in and play often enough I kept getting demoted all the time just for not logging in. But since I mostly won and would have tons of kills it would put me back at Captain from Master Seargent or something like that pretty quick. But when you get paired with some Seargents thinking they are decent, it was really annoying when they didn’t age for 20 minutes or just never make much army. Meanwhile I would be trying to fight off 3 enemies for an hour, maybe eliminating one of them but never able to kill all of them by myself, especially when one of them was typically superior rank. So without a clan, which I never liked, it was tough to know if partners were noobs or just not play every day.


#32

I personally really enjoy the game. Actually, this game with Call of Duty 4 and Starcraft are the games that initially got me into gaming in general. I’ve always loved this game and was always a go-to when my day sucked.


#33

AoE III was probably my most favorite game from the franchise. I also loved the campaign.


#34

The multiplayer model was not conducive to competitive play. It was “grind to win.” The card system was/is ingenious but you had to play something like hundreds of games to have a complete deck. This puts players off from the game, naturally.


#35

I don’t think that age of empires 3 sucked, it just very different in a way from the other games in the franchise. I personaly enjoyed it.


#36

I personally enjoy playing it. The graphic is awesome and the buildings look so amazing. The special effects when you blow apart buildings with canon is also very satisfying. The game still has a deep gameplay and the hometown mechanic is quite fun.

But here are some issues which I cannot deny:

  • Campaign SUCKS! The first 2 games have you play as members of the Black family across history. What the hell is the Circle of Ossus? Where is the empire/kingdom/sovereign you are supposed to be building? The game is Age of Empires, not Age of Tycoons. Some campaigns that are inspired by history is very incomplete. They just skim through some important battles while giving us minimum context. I want Age of Empire campaign to be a history lesson and unfortunately it was not. In the Indian (in America) campaign, you have the Battle of Big Horn River but not the Wounded Knee. In the Indian (in Asia) campaign, the battle of Dehli which is arguably most important in the Sepoy Mutiny is missing.

  • Voice acting is terrible. I can pass the Rodelero speaking Spanish or the Landsknecht speaking German, but the entirety of the Native American speaking their own language is frustrating. Come on, Native Americans have good English skills too. Adding to that, units have very few quotes compared to Company of Heroes released just 1 year later, leading to spamming a few lines over and over again.

  • Game mechanic is a bit clunky. Unlike Total War where units of the same type group together into formation, in Age of Empires 3, mixed formation leads to pathing issues and a lot of frustration having to individually move one type of unit at a time.

  • Melee is quite weak in the game. Previous AOE games are more balanced between melee and range units, but AOE3 places more emphasis on range. This makes sense, however. Why bring a sword to a gunfight in the gunpowder era.


#37

The Card, i think the card levelling the player skill , this game is more funny without any card


#38

Throwing torches at a building to destroy it may be the single lamest graphic ever. I’m knocking down a building. It should look like it.


#39

Here where i rank it.

AOE2/HD> AOE 3>= AOE:DE> AOE 1

pretty much everyone gave why they hated or love and i share similar feelings. BUT i have to say, its graphics is still one of the most spectacular for its genre for the year it was released. So is the sound. Only department which lacks finesse is the game-play.


#40

You can always bring cannons if you really want to see destruction. Do you really think picking with swords or pikes any better? Not defending, but logic of unit destroying buildings in every age game is wrong. Therefore, all age games are lame? Including 2? Yeah? Is that what are you getting to?