Age of Empires 2: The Age of Kings

[McBeverage]

Since, as of the past week or so, I've spent a couple hours playing this online with some fellow Warbanders, I figured I'd create a topic dedicated to talking about this awesome game.
Talk about the game here, in other words.

 

[Buxton]

Great game 

 

[Llew2]

Great game 

Pretty much.

 

[havoc]

I liked it, but am i the only one who likes number three better?

 

[Archonsod]

No, I too prefer III, largely because it's exactly the same ****ing game with a graphic overhaul.


Yeah, my feelings on AoE III are a little conflicted between "it's a great game" and "more of the same *yawn*".

 

[arbites_augmented]

Why fix what isn't broken?

 

[Archonsod]

Who said anything about fixing? In this case it's a distinct lack of modernisation. Consider the last big RTS prior to AoE III was Rise of Nations. Then wonder at how the ****wits at Ensemble were happy enough to lift the economic model straight from RoN, but didn't think the "drag select only military units" feature was worth taking.
It's not surprising they were put out to pasture.

 

[HTAPAWASO]

To be honest I liked Age of Empires more than either of the other two, mainly because of the setting.

But things like miners automatically mining after building a mining pit etc. are really hard to live without. Tiny things which just make playing so much less like work...

Didn't care for III at all, too little too late. The fact that it still has such a restrictive population limit annoys me. Cossacks, made around the time of AoK, has an 8,000 soldier limit!

 

[havoc]

When i think about it i did only like three better for the graphics, the setting didn't matter to me just as long as i could play brittain or england.

The ships look cool in AOE3.

 

[Elenmmare]

Age of Empires was moments of good surrounded by utter ****. The need to constantly replant your fields? ****.

 

[Archonsod]

Truth be told, I think Empire Earth I & II were superior to AoE I & II.

 

[Elenmmare]

I can agree with that. Rise of Nations trumped both series, however.

 

[havoc]

Truth be told, I think Empire Earth I & II were superior to AoE I & II.

Never played AOE 1 but empire earth 1 and 2 were far better than AOE 2 and 3.

 

[McBeverage]

Empire Earth was a pretty good game, but it took a long time to play it.

 

[Highelfwarrior]

Age of Empires was moments of good surrounded by utter ****. The need to constantly replant your fields? ****.

If you have the conquerers expansion, you don't need to do that.

 

[Temuzu]

Age of Empires was moments of good surrounded by utter ****. The need to constantly replant your fields? ****.

If you have the conquerers expansion, you don't need to do that.

This. The villagers plant them themselves. As long as you order them to do so.

 

[Archonsod]

And spent the wood. The point is replanting the fields is a ****ing stupid mechanic in the first place, not whether it was easy or not to do so.

 

[Highelfwarrior]

How is it a stupid mechanic? It keeps you involved, which is a good thing in a game. It's better than just having a bunch of villagers assigned to do something and then never look at them again: if all games were built like this, they'd essentially be big-ass cutscenes. The conquerers at least gives you the opportunity to stack them. If you lack the wood to do so, it might be better to revise the way you play anyway

 

[Archonsod]

How is it a stupid mechanic? It keeps you involved, which is a good thing in a game.

No, not in this case. The point of the game is not micromanaging fields, and nobody wants to flip back to their farms right in the middle of an epic showdown against the Koreans because their villagers are too dense to implement the Norfolk rotation system. I mean if it was Agricultures of Empires then you would have a point, but in general terms mechanics which keep the player involved in the actual meat of the game are good, those which detract from that are bad. This is a mechanic that definitely detracts.

It's better than just having a bunch of villagers assigned to do something and then never look at them again: if all games were built like this, they'd essentially be big-ass cutscenes.

Rise of Nations does this, it even (shocking idea) finds a job for any idle peasant should you not assign them one. In fact, you can stack up a bunch of peasants at the town hall and never have to return to that town again unless you want to build something. And yet RoN is a far more exciting than AoE, possibly (and I'm just hazarding a guess here) because I got to enjoy the trepidation of pushing back the FoW with my scout, the visceral and bombastic spectacle of armies meeting in the field or the nitty gritty of diplomacy and trade rather than spending a quarter of the game right clicking on various resources. Don't get me wrong, the trees in AoE II and III looked lovely, but the peasant vs tree struggles lack a certain something you tend to find in the swordsmen vs cavalry combats.

 

[Highelfwarrior]

My experiences were (before the conquerers) when I went out on a military conquest to some other town, after the battle when I returned to my city I saw all the dead fields, (since I didn't have time to replace them) which gave me a sort of illusion of the effects of war on a city. If anything, I liked that. :p I think the point of the fields is that you DONT replace them in the middle of a fight with koreans (I agree that would be anti climactic), but rather suffer the consequences of war. (i.e less food)