What do you think if Age of Empires III?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
think. Any thoughts?

Regards,

javajeff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

"javajeff" <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:T-6dnbTpQKw04YLeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
>I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
>think. Any thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> javajeff


I'm downloading the demo as I type this. I'm very curious to see what the
single player skirmish is like compared to Age of Mythology, and if any
handicaps have been implemented in skirmish mode. On the lowest difficulty
setting, AoM was far too easy, but I never had success beating the AI on
anything higher. Thankfully, work-arounds were suggested to get the
multiplayer mode to work for single player, but the AI was still far too
strong for my liking in AoM above the lowest setting.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

javajeff wrote:
> I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
> think. Any thoughts?

I still haven't decided if I'm going to even bother downloading the
demo. I'm kind of burned on the whole concept of RTS, and I was never
all that fond of the Age of Empires series after I grew tired of the
first one. I did buy Age of Empires 2 but never really spent much time
playing it. Didn't even bother with Age of Mythology.

Besides, if I want RTS I already have several that I recently got cheap
that I haven't played yet, Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War and Battle for
Middle Earth are sitting ready to play. I actually reinstalled WC3 and
was playing through it because I never did finish the campaign for it
back when it was new. Dated graphics but it's pretty entertaining. It's
kind of cool to see all the creatures in WC3 after having experienced
World of Warcraft and noting how they translated to the MMORPG.

Knight37
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

"NightSky 421" <nightsky421@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "javajeff" <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message

>>I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know
>>what to think. Any thoughts?

> I'm downloading the demo as I type this.

It took 40 minutes for 365 MB. Hopefully, doubling my DSL speed
this month will help speed up downloading files... OINK! OINK!

> I'm very curious to see what the
> single player skirmish is like compared to Age of Mythology,

I will be happy if it is a well done continuation of real-time
strategy (RTS).

I expect to need a new video card for the full game.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

I downloaded it. RTS is not my favoritve genre, and never has been. Still,
I have enjoyed more than a few of them.

This doesnt seem to break any new ground though and didnt grab me at all.
It felt like RON.

olaf
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

NightSky 421 wrote:
> "javajeff" <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:T-6dnbTpQKw04YLeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
>
>>I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
>>think. Any thoughts?
>>

I've fiddled with it a bit and it seems pretty much the same game I've
played 100 times before.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

"Jamie_Manic" <yeahbutno@slag.com> wrote in message
news:4320c06c$0$6471$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> NightSky 421 wrote:
>> "javajeff" <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
>> news:T-6dnbTpQKw04YLeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
>>
>>>I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
>>>think. Any thoughts?
>>>
>
> I've fiddled with it a bit and it seems pretty much the same game I've
> played 100 times before.

As long as you don't shell out the same cash as you've done 100 times
before, otherwise they will keep cranking out the same games you've seen a
100 times before.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

Uzytkownik "Jamie_Manic" <yeahbutno@slag.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:4320c06c$0$6471$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> NightSky 421 wrote:
> > "javajeff" <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:T-6dnbTpQKw04YLeRVn-rQ@adelphia.com...
> >
> >>I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
> >>think. Any thoughts?
> >>
>
> I've fiddled with it a bit and it seems pretty much the same game I've
> played 100 times before.

I was simply amazed how the EA can simply LIE about the game look: I'm now
watching AOE3 screenshots on Gamespot and comparing it to what can be seen
in this game - simply ROTFL, it looks like 100x worse in real. (all options
set to highest possible in demo)

M.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

> I was simply amazed how the EA can simply LIE about the game look: I'm now
> watching AOE3 screenshots on Gamespot and comparing it to what can be seen
> in this game - simply ROTFL, it looks like 100x worse in real. (all options
> set to highest possible in demo)

I thought the same, it looks stunning in the screens, in reality it
looks a bit average and I can run it with everything on high at 12x10,
in terms of looks not all that better than AoM.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

Mandella wrote:
>
>
> I was simply amazed how the EA can simply LIE about the game look: I'm now
> watching AOE3 screenshots on Gamespot and comparing it to what can be seen
> in this game - simply ROTFL, it looks like 100x worse in real. (all options
> set to highest possible in demo)
>


Don't forget that it uses video card capabilities that your current
video card may not support. You'll need the latest nVidia card or the
ATI R520 if you want it to look like the screen shots...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

Jamie_Manic wrote:
>
>> I was simply amazed how the EA can simply LIE about the game look: I'm
>> now
>> watching AOE3 screenshots on Gamespot and comparing it to what can be
>> seen
>> in this game - simply ROTFL, it looks like 100x worse in real. (all
>> options
>> set to highest possible in demo)
>
>
> I thought the same, it looks stunning in the screens, in reality it
> looks a bit average and I can run it with everything on high at 12x10,
> in terms of looks not all that better than AoM.

I thought it looked more like a cartoon. I feel like I am playing a
kids game. The interface is huge and takes up way too much screen. I
only played it once so far, so I may give it another try soon.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

I found it to be different enough to make me want to play some more. The
home town sending you goods and cards that can be changed is a good thing.
Gameplay is still the same & trading posts earning xp points is cool. Any
RTS fan will enjoy it I think
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

I really just wanted a no frills rock paper scissors game with a new
graphic engine in a historical setting. I dont like the cards or the
home city. RPG in my basebauilding RTS game is unwelcome. I just want to
build and fight...not make decisions about bonuuses. It is a matter of
time before all the imbalances from stupid "build orders" come out with
this terrible design. Also, the interface is clunky and uncomfortable
and takes up too much screen. I play WOW for my RPG kick. Please stop
with POWERUPS, UBERWEAPONS, SPENDABLE POINTS, AND OTHER KIDDIE GAMEPLAY
GIMMICKS in an RTS game. ROCK/PAPER/SCISSORS only.

I know this is a demo, but the game design is a huge disappointment to
me more than when AOM was released. I am really looking forward to the
Rome Total War Expansion. Basebuilding RTS games are worse to me, and
the last few years has really made the genre boring. Bring back updated
games like Total Annihilation, Age of Empires 2, and Starcraft.

I am done venting.

Regards,

javajeff
 
M

marcus

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2001
210
0
18,680
Archived from groups: (More info?)

javajeff wrote:
> I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
> think. Any thoughts?
>
> javajeff

Utter garbage.

And no, I won't bother to back that up with some factual statements :p

If it helps, I consider Kohan to be the finest RTS released to date.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

javajeff <javajeff@NOSPAMadelphia.net> wrote:

> I really just wanted a no frills rock paper scissors game with a
> new graphic engine in a historical setting.

And a better interface.

Some basic adjustments would be nice, like an adjustable size
minimap. I wonder why Microsoft wouldn't do that.

> I dont like the cards or the home city...I just want to build
> and fight ...Also, the interface is clunky and uncomfortable and
> takes up too much screen.

If it isn't already, it should be adjustable like things are in
Windows.

> bring back updated games like Total Annihilation

I guess that's been shelved.

The biggest improvement to real time strategy (RTS) IMO would be
to get the user interface out of the way of strategizing. I do
that now through speech recognition combined with scripting.

Usable voice scripting could be added and would serve the majority
of users since recognition would be limited to perhaps 100
commands. That number is a tiny fraction of what
speech-recognition currently handles so recognition capability
should be easy. To make speech recognition very reliable,
they could even have preassigned words just like there are
currently preassigned keystroke combinations. The words might be
generic but would provide many times more activators than
keystrokes currently provide, and probably would be much easier to
remember. That will happen probably when pigs fly, if not later.

Scripting relieves the repetitive base building without changing
anything at all. After the script is issued, the commands take just
as long to execute, but units are being produced and ready for use
almost immediately. Even if units weren't ready to use in a hurry,
you could easily spend that time contemplating the random map. The
frantic pace of RTS is impressive even with full scripting
capability. The strategy content of RTS is amazingly deep and I'm
loving it as always.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

Im not the slightest bit interested in playing American history myself.
Nats

"Fordy" <fordysnospam@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4320bf4c@quokka.wn.com.au...
>I found it to be different enough to make me want to play some more. The
> home town sending you goods and cards that can be changed is a good thing.
> Gameplay is still the same & trading posts earning xp points is cool. Any
> RTS fan will enjoy it I think
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

Smart Feet wrote:
> Mandella wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I was simply amazed how the EA can simply LIE about the game look: I'm
>> now
>> watching AOE3 screenshots on Gamespot and comparing it to what can be
>> seen
>> in this game - simply ROTFL, it looks like 100x worse in real. (all
>> options
>> set to highest possible in demo)
>>
>
>
> Don't forget that it uses video card capabilities that your current
> video card may not support. You'll need the latest nVidia card or the
> ATI R520 if you want it to look like the screen shots...

I have an X800 XT and it still looks fairly average.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

Jamie_Manic wrote:
> Smart Feet wrote:
>
>> Mandella wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was simply amazed how the EA can simply LIE about the game look:
>>> I'm now
>>> watching AOE3 screenshots on Gamespot and comparing it to what can be
>>> seen
>>> in this game - simply ROTFL, it looks like 100x worse in real. (all
>>> options
>>> set to highest possible in demo)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that it uses video card capabilities that your current
>> video card may not support. You'll need the latest nVidia card or the
>> ATI R520 if you want it to look like the screen shots...
>
>
> I have an X800 XT and it still looks fairly average.


The X800 XT doesn't have Shader Model 3.0. You'll have to upgrade to a
R520 if you want it to look like the screen shots...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

I just played the demo today. It was neat. Not terrible, but nothing
stunning. The availability of a shipment from home was annoying. That
damned flashing red coin thingie was just a distraction.

Also, is there any way to force an "attack ground" with the siege
weapons? I didn't see any way to do it in the demo. I always like to
have my idle siege units randomly bombard all the choke points from
their maximum range, in order to discourage tresspassers. I like to
"turtle." :) Admittedly, it is kind of a cheap tactic, but I usually
play single player, so I'm not spoiling anybody's fun.

Oh, and it's fun to just watch the explosions.

The limited sites for trading posts were annoying, too. Grab the
trading posts, then turtle, and your opponent can't do much because you
can use the resources from trading posts to advance faster than them,
and build more defenses. Then, when good and ready, have expensive
army attack crushingly. I found the Empire Earth II demo similarly
annoying with the territory system. Get more territories than your
opponent early on, and you will have more universities, so you can age
up faster and crush him. I liked RoN's territory system much better,
because it didn't limit the number of cities you could build. Holding
territory was important and beneficial, but it wasn't so unbalanced.

Well, there is always Moon Project. It isn't a great game, but it's
not so much worse than the new ones I've seen that I feel compelled to
buy them to play instead. Anything similar to Moon Project coming out
that I should anticipate? (Specifically, no annoying territory issues
like EE2, and customisable units) I love the unit customisations in
Moon Project. Reminds me of Stars. I really want a Real Time Stars.
:)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

I too am disappointed with newer real time strategy games. I was
thinking about getting Earth 2160. I may end up getting no RTS games
this year. I am looking for classic RTS gaming with new graphics, but
everyone feels the need to innovate. I think the new features are more
annoying than innovative. I am likely done with the genre since no
company wants to make a really good and balanced RTS game.

Regards,

javajeff
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

On 13 Sep 2005 11:49:24 -0700, "javajeff" <javajeff818@gmail.com> wrote:

>I too am disappointed with newer real time strategy games. I was
>thinking about getting Earth 2160. I may end up getting no RTS games
>this year. I am looking for classic RTS gaming with new graphics, but
>everyone feels the need to innovate. I think the new features are more
>annoying than innovative.

Actually, RTS genre needs new features.

As an example, try playing C&C classis today. The games that implemented
features to make unit management easier will make that game tedious to
play.

>I am likely done with the genre since no
>company wants to make a really good and balanced RTS game.

Balanced is almost always impossible to perform - even if factions are
exact, players will always try to hammer out the best playing pattern for
perfection.

One of the best fixes is to always ensure that there as a faction strength,
and a counter to that strength. Even then, there will always be the
equivlent of a zergling rush tactic.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

javajeff wrote:
> I only played the first mission in the demo, and I do not know what to
> think. Any thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> javajeff

When I saw the interface I thought I had downloaded a Rise of Nations
II demo, not an AOE III demo. I played both the campaign and the
skirmish games in hopes it was AOE. It was more RON than AOE. Oh
well.

No surprise why they are marketing it as AOE III instead of RON II.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

cedarcct@gmail.com wrote:

....
> When I saw the interface I thought I had downloaded a Rise of
> Nations II demo, not an AOE III demo. I played both the
> campaign and the skirmish games in hopes it was AOE. It was
> more RON than AOE. Oh well.
> No surprise why they are marketing it as AOE III instead of RON
> II.

Because rise of Nations was bad?

Genuinely curious.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:14:44 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
wrote:

>cedarcct@gmail.com wrote:
>
>...
>> When I saw the interface I thought I had downloaded a Rise of
>> Nations II demo, not an AOE III demo. I played both the
>> campaign and the skirmish games in hopes it was AOE. It was
>> more RON than AOE. Oh well.
>> No surprise why they are marketing it as AOE III instead of RON
>> II.
>
>Because rise of Nations was bad?
>

It was popular (enough) when it was released, along with enough settings to
let it appear to emulate a slower strat game - before a player begins to
research the ultra-techs (with Supercollider).

Reviews from users were glowing for the AI, multiplayer, and skirmish
settings - with the campaign considered uninteresting. You could probably
just play the demo.

>Genuinely curious.

The AOE franchise is expected to cover medieval history, the absolute
latest being ~1800 era tech. (It might be higher, but there's no visible
confirmation on anything beyond cannons.

RoN simply went ahead and spanned the whole range of development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom