Age of Empires 3 sucks

[DarkUnderlord]

Picked it up for $31. In the back of my mind was the thought "I know this sucks for some reason but I can't remember what, I still play AOE2 and wall my enemies in and canon them to death over a period of 4 hours and for $31 AUD why not?"

WHO PUT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF CANON TOWERS I CAN BUILD? WHAT KIND OF FUCKERY IS THIS?

 

[TheCowburner]

The food limit isn't enough, there just has to be a canon tower limit. In the future we will see a base limit. Happy days.

 

[Lingwe]

I think the real question is why can't you build gates over trade routes. They even have them in the scenario.

I remember someone asking about that years ago and senior developer responded that people would complain that the walls weren't strong enough. They don't allow you to wall over trade routes because otherwise people would complain walls aren't strong enough. Huh.

 

[MetalCraze]

Picked it up for $31.

Money well spent

WHO PUT A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF CANON TOWERS I CAN BUILD? WHAT KIND OF FUCKERY IS THIS?

As for walls - I wonder if the crappy wallhack was ever fixed - bullets could pass through walls like nothing happened.

 

[JarlFrank]

As for walls - I wonder if the crappy wallhack was ever fixed - bullets could pass through walls like nothing happened.

That wasn't a wallhack, that was a conscious design decision.
I think their argument was that they didn't want the game to become like Stronghold or Total War where huge walls are hard to destroy and playing defensive is much too easy
It's the same reason why they didn't want to make units able to stand on walls, cause it would make defense too easy.

That's probably also why walls and towers were total shit compared to the previous games. Heck, in Age of Mythology the Vikings had stronger walls than the ones in AoE3, and the Vikings had the weakest walls in the game.

I guess overall they just wanted to make it more "dynamic" and thus ruined the traditional AoE gameplay. Meh.

 

[Pliskin]

I guess overall they just wanted to make it more "dynamic" and thus ruined the traditional AoE gameplay. Meh.

Moar liek another case of single-player being raeped for the sake of multi-player.

 

[MetalCraze]

I think their argument was that they didn't want the game to become like Stronghold or Total War where huge walls are hard to destroy and playing defensive is much too easy

Because that was such a big problem in previous games.
Or rather morons baawwed that they need to build siege weapons to bring walls down from a safe distance instead of taking a huge army of units and rushing your enemy.
Was AoE3 multiplatform by any chance?

 

[thesheeep]

I prefer to play defensive in most games so that "decision" was a huge fail in my eyes.
Learned to live with it, though, as you can be defensive without walls being your no1 strategy

 

[Brotherman Bill]

There are many things it is reasonable to rip on aoe3 for but lack of cannontowers is not one of them.

I think the posters ITT would feel more at home with playing sim city or the sims rather than aoeX.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

There are many things it is reasonable to rip on aoe3 for but lack of cannontowers is not one of them.

Like the fucking retarded idea of setting the game entirely in the fucking American colonies.

And the lack of Austria-Hungary.

 

[Wise Emperor]

You got like charisma 19 DU. Now I need to find that first Age of Empires CD. Well done, I lost Sunday.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Like the fucking retarded idea of setting the game entirely in the fucking American colonies.

Oh, I don't know about that. Vikings allying with japanese to fight Mayans in the feudal age is not exactly historical whereas a hypothetical conflict between the great powers over a colony is at least fairly believable.

 

[oscar]

Yeah didn't like it as much as II. Towers seemed to be a complete waste of resources to build (and seeing fortresses go down in about four mortar shots was a bit odd). Population limit also seemed far too small for the amount of resources you had (guess this was because I just played LAN where we usually had long games).

 

[ever]

AoE2 was a fun defensive based RTS and AoE3 tried to make it more actiony. In that sense it lost what made it great and It didn't do too well with its goal but its not a bad game by its own merits either.

I had some fun playing it.

 

[Panthera]

My only real complaint about AOE3 is how fucking awful the campaign story was. The missions in it were pretty fun though.

 

[ever]

People who play rts for story:

Read a book

 

[RottingNaziSurfer]

People who play rts for story:

Read a book

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I used to play those choose your own adventure things. Then I was rolling dice working out of I won the combat and realised "WTF am I doing this for? If I die, story is over. It's not like I'm going to do that again. Fuck I'll just pick the win option"... Wasn't long after that that I'd just read the whole thing much like a normal book (only flipping back and forth between pages) and find out all the endings.

 

[JarlFrank]

I guess overall they just wanted to make it more "dynamic" and thus ruined the traditional AoE gameplay. Meh.

Moar liek another case of single-player being raeped for the sake of multi-player.

Not really. Focus on defense vs focus on offense was fun in the previous games. Now upgrading your walls from palisades to stone walls isn't even worth it anymore because one or two cannon shots or a mass army of infantry can destroy them in no time, anyways.

 

[JarlFrank]

There are many things it is reasonable to rip on aoe3 for but lack of cannontowers is not one of them.

Like the fucking retarded idea of setting the game entirely in the fucking American colonies.

And the lack of Austria-Hungary.

Wat
Austria-Hungary was founded, like, during the 1840s or 1860s. Which is about a century after the age AoE3 is set in.

Austrian Empire, yes. Austria-Hungary, no.

 

[Phelot]

I like how some of the villagers in AOE3 are black