I remember the first time I ever played age of empires... It was the last ;-) I didn''t like the way it handles the resources side of things. And it seems to be catching on2 other games, such as Empire Earth! Is it only me? Is there something I''m missing??? Or hav the games designers spent to much time down the pub and not enough time in there note books! :-D bangz

In order for this to be a fruitful conversation, you need to be more specific. What exactly about it did you not like? You imply that Age of Empires is somehow inherently and obviously bad. If this were so, the sequel would not have done so well. So you are obviously in the minority among that type of gamer.

Also bear in mind that the combat is only one element to the game - making Wonders and the like is another. Trading is one more. Resource management is therefore a lot more important in that respect.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Edited by - Kylotan on February 11, 2002 2:22:27 PM

"And it seems to be catching on2 other games, such as Empire Earth!"

AOE came out waaaaay before empire earth, IIRC...

Not that this is relevant to the current discussion (and so why is it here, you ask?), but the fact that AOE 2 was financially successful has little or no bearing on whether it or its predecessor were good games.

Apologies for throwing that flaming turd in here...

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
"And it seems to be catching on2 other games, such as Empire Earth!"

AOE came out waaaaay before empire earth, IIRC...

I''m thinking he probably meant ''it seems to be catching on in other games...'', but that''s just a guess.

I guess I am in a minority, its just every1 i ask seems to think the same. It just seems a little linear to me, as far as real time strategy games go... You collect resources, you get more resource collectors, you build armies and go2 war... I know thats exactly like C&C, Civ and other games of the genre but it doesn''t seem to hav the same tactical and fast paced element.

Often in a game of AOE or Empire Earth you get into a gridlock, where neither team can beat each other... This is mainly because both games are to targetted on defence rather than attack, which can lead to many frustating hours of slow gameplay.

It might be just a UK thing?!

oh, and ''it seems to be catching on in other games...'' is wot i meant! ;-) sry! But i suppose that might hav something to do with the designer being in the AOE team!


bangz

quote: Original post by Tacit
Not that this is relevant to the current discussion (and so why is it here, you ask?), but the fact that AOE 2 was financially successful has little or no bearing on whether it or its predecessor were good games.

I don''t want to get too off-topic, but a sequel only tends to do well if its predecessor was good. Otherwise, poor reviews and word of mouth will discourage buyers.



[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

quote: Original post by Kylotan


I don''t want to get too off-topic, but a sequel only tends to do well if its predecessor was good. Otherwise, poor reviews and word of mouth will discourage buyers.

Right, but a good game does not always equal a successful one, and vice versa. That''s my point.

I found Age of Empires to give a much more satisfying game than most so-called ''RTS'' games. It''s supposed to be played over a longer session, though. It''s not meant to be as fast-paced as most real-time battle games, so you''re comparing apples and oranges to a large extent. It''s supposed to be something in between Warcraft and Civilization, and I think it does well in this. Perhaps you''re diappointed because it''s not the kind of game you enjoy playing, but that doesn''t make it a bad game.

And there is no defence that cannot be worn down. And both units and buildings differ in the types of attack they are most susceptible to. This is where patience comes into play and emphasises that AoE is a slower, more strategic game.

And I''m from the UK too, so it''s not like it''s a cultural difference

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

quote: Original post by Tacit
Right, but a good game does not always equal a successful one, and vice versa. That''s my point.

And I never said that: I said that a successful sequel implies a good prequel. Different point entirely.