Holey crap does AOE 3 suck or what?

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 14 Nov 2005, 11:42

I mean seriously, satan hath unleashed his demon of concentrated lameness and thy name is AOE3.

mikedep333 · Post by **mikedep333** » 14 Nov 2005, 12:17

There are meaningful conversations about games where we discuss all the good and bad parts of various design decisions, and then there are people that just say "something sucks" without mentioning any reasons at all.

But since you don't seem to care for details, let's look at the big picture: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... ofempires3
It has a metacritic score of 81%, much better than the average game. The majority of computer game experts (if there are such a thing) seem to think it's a pretty good game.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 14 Nov 2005, 13:04

it looks awesome. the demo was crap but EA are making it look convincing. personally im staying away from EA until BFME is fixified (and luckily EaW is by petrograph :))

FizWizz · Post by **FizWizz** » 14 Nov 2005, 16:37

mikedep333 wrote:...
It has a metacritic score of 81%, much better than the average game. The majority of computer game experts (if there are such a thing) seem to think it's a pretty good game.

...and if you'll notice, next to the metascore is a user score of 6.4 out of 10.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 14 Nov 2005, 17:46

lol....the people who rate it aren't classed as players...lol

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 14 Nov 2005, 20:48

Min3mat wrote:lol....the people who rate it aren't classed as players...lol

I'd choose them any day over the lamebag sellout "video game experts"

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 14 Nov 2005, 23:02

I like the reasons given for most of those 70's scores

Computer Gaming World
Delightful, disappointing, and frustrating.

GameBiz
The single player campaign is very playable, very enjoyable, and also very long.

are my favorites.

I myself lost most interest in this series with AOE2 since it hardly did more than repackage AOE1. When I heard about 3 I hardly cared, and with news of SupCom at the same time decided I wasn't getting it.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 14 Nov 2005, 23:06

Yeah. AOE III takes the "if it aint broke" mantra to an insane degree. The pysicis is all that will be remembered from this disapointingly forgettable game

mikedep333 · Post by **mikedep333** » 15 Nov 2005, 18:09

Zoombie wrote:Yeah. AOE III takes the "if it aint broke" mantra to an insane degree. The pysicis is all that will be remembered from this disapointingly forgettable game

gamezone wrote: There are so many new additions in this game that it will boggle your mind.

I actually disagree with that, but there are some cool additions like the entire card system to let you customize your civ. It's rather fun to do it.

Unfortunately some of the changes aren't as good, like the new trade system that replaced the old one. It was really fun to work together with a teammate on your economies.

BlackLiger · Post by **BlackLiger** » 15 Nov 2005, 20:47

so basicly, it robs the civilisation customising from Empire Earth?

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:04

Theres another game they fucked up the sequal too, EE2.

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:12

Now.... Rise of Nations kickes ASS!

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 15 Nov 2005, 23:25

O,o that was the worse game i EVER played! x,X even the original EE was better IMO, hell i think EE owns all AoE's alone by its fun level

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 16 Nov 2005, 00:02

Rise of nations was neat, had some cool features, but all and all was just a tad disapointing.

Archangel of Death · Post by **Archangel of Death** » 16 Nov 2005, 00:07

Yes, EE did own all AOE's. Guess it helps that it was led by the same person who led AOE1, and thus was an actual evolution and not stagnation of the concept. Just guessing, but did Chris Taylor lead EE2?

Zoombie · Post by **Zoombie** » 16 Nov 2005, 05:36

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra wrote:Rise of nations was neat, had some cool features, but all and all was just a tad disapointing.

Whaaaat are you talking about? RON was fun, cool and the best part was when you lost your battle and it played mournfull piano music.

Add to Spring!

[K.B.] Napalm Cobra · Post by **[K.B.] Napalm Cobra** » 16 Nov 2005, 06:37

The unit limit was too low, plus the mechanics of combat were kinda lame, instant hit cannons, etc.

And arch, I would have a serious sence of forboding about supcom if Chris Taylor led EE2.

raikitsune · Post by **raikitsune** » 16 Nov 2005, 11:31

i've got it and it has the wonderful crash due to a corrupted mp3 which i renamed and then after a while it crashed because of somthign else luckily the new crash is much rarer.

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 16 Nov 2005, 14:42

Min3mat wrote:it looks awesome. the demo was crap but EA are making it ...

Is AOE3 EA's? That certainly explains it...

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 16 Nov 2005, 17:48

Zoombie the battle in TA or spring or EE or even EE2 (which i dislike) is WAY better than AoE games in AoE everything is 'perfectly balanced'...which is pretty boring and the battles are crap coz of the lack of blood the lack of fun, the lack of good graphics, the crapness of missions the retardidness of the AI hell i could go on for hours the only times i played AoE was with my friends making huge custom scenarios and stuff, and even that wasn't fun. we soon gave up and discovered the wonders of Dynasty Warriors (w00t!)

Spring RTS Engine

Holey crap does AOE 3 suck or what?

Holey crap does AOE 3 suck or what?