What do you think if Age of Empires III?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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
>
>

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...

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

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.

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.

Great game but not good enough to pique my interest, that the most impress me is the HDR rendering effect, which is so amazing.

AOE III is a great game! The whole idea of having something to track your stats and keep you playing for a better civilization is genius, makes a lot of difference when you are playing your friends in a LAN.

Graphics are stunning. I thought the game looked average too until i realized i had everything turned down from before i upgraded my system. I turned everything on full and the HDL is amazing! and the water...wow, not since HL:2 have i seen water that looks this good. PS 3.0 does this game justice and if your vc wont support then dont complain the game looks lame cause without the stuff turned on it does look average, get a decent vc and enjoy some nice eye candy for an RTS.

AOM was a dumb game, basically AOE:II but with mythological characters, Titans was even worse because you just leveled up just to get the titan and then the game was over. LOTR:BFE is a great game if you are a LOTR fan but just average when it comes to game play for an RTS.

AOE:III does take some time to grow on you though...I will admit that when i got the demo two or three months ago i thought it was a stupid game and had no intention of buying the game. my buddy bought a copy and i cracked it and installed it because im a lemming and that's what everyone at our LAN was doing but after having to play it over and over because everyone else was i learned to love the game...but i dont know that it is worth the 49.99$...but IMHO few games ever are