AOE1 Better than 2?

[Kilmaat]

This isn't an opinion based on nostalgia as I had never played AOE before but grew up on blizzard RTS games

I'm enjoying AOE1 a lot but trying to get into AOE2 is frustrating with things like unit formations (units not doing what you tell them/moving as slow as the slowest units in their group) and the campaigns are a bit boring (not seeing many traditional base missions and too much story)

AOE2 probably has a higher playerbase and more people playing the multiplayer, but I just haven't been enjoying it so far.

Does anybody else prefer the first game?

[Luna]

i like the first one better when it comes to playing alone, going against players is just a sling rush nightmare. no formations is kind of a pain bc your units are just a big ball, which isnt an issue for ranged but it goofs up the expensive melee units

[FTWO]

I played original Age of Empires first in 1996 when the DEMO came out. Loved it! Played the crap out of it from 97 to 98 until I played the DEMO of AoEII. Loved it! Been playing AoEII ever since, down through all the DLC's, the HD version, to the DE version. I still love the original and this DE remaster, and AoEIII is not bad, but not entirely good either, but eh...

AoEII has a lot more players to it, that's for sure. It's got more things in it to do than either of the AoE's, and it's still coming out with DLC's... for a game that came out in 1999, that's impressive, wouldn't you say? If you give AoEII:DE a chance, and I mean a minimum 30 hours game play chance to truthfully experience real aspects of the game to truly determine if it's good or not... I think you'd be pretty satisfied.

[Kilmaat]

Originally posted by FTWO:

I played original Age of Empires first in 1996 when the DEMO came out. Loved it! Played the crap out of it from 97 to 98 until I played the DEMO of AoEII. Loved it! Been playing AoEII ever since, down through all the DLC's, the HD version, to the DE version. I still love the original and this DE remaster, and AoEIII is not bad, but not entirely good either, but eh...

AoEII has a lot more players to it, that's for sure. It's got more things in it to do than either of the AoE's, and it's still coming out with DLC's... for a game that came out in 1999, that's impressive, wouldn't you say? If you give AoEII:DE a chance, and I mean a minimum 30 hours game play chance to truthfully experience real aspects of the game to truly determine if it's good or not... I think you'd be pretty satisfied.

That's fair, I will give it another try but the forced unit formations is frustrating (which is funny because most people seem to hate the lack of it in AOE1)

[FTWO]

Yeah, I know what you mean. When I was fully making the transition from AoE1 to AoE2 back in 2000, I actually went through that frustration as well, going from no formations to forced formations and it irritated me. I was too used to the scattered assault of a big group I brought in when playing AoE1, it looked more genuine, more chaotic, which in the midst of a fight... I felt like it was more real than a beautifully marching group of units.

But I still enjoyed all the improvements AoE2 brought to the game, so I endured it. And over time, while playing with the formations, because there are a few variants you can choose from, it occurred to me that it is far easier to keep track of your units, as well as, form better strategies when planning your attacks, when you have the mass movement of units in a tight formation like AoE2 provides. I assure you you will get used to it and see the benefits to having the formations.

And on a side note to improvements between the games that I quite enjoyed, from the original AoE1, I think at most you could group up 20 units max. In AoE1:DE, they increased that grouping to 36, which is pretty big for a poor pathfinding game where you have units stuck behind resources while trying to march to the enemy. In AoE2, the max grouping was 40, which was awesome. In AoE2:DE, max grouping is 60... and when you get up to 60 in a group, the formations are a must. I mean hands down a huge time savor. Imagine sending 60 units in AoE1 and trying not to lose a unit to something on the map, be it trees, mines, berry bushes, or even cliffs, lol.

[Harrier88]

You'd be hard-pressed to find any reasons why AoE1 is better than the sequel on an objective basis, I believe, whether it's DE or the original. AoE2 is just improved on so many levels, but honestly, I personally kinda enjoyed AoE1 DE more.

AoE2 was a masterpiece when it first came out, I remember that I was more hyped for it back then than for any other game ever since, and it didn't disappoint even one bit when I got it in late 1999. Playing it today, though, I realize how heavy it is on micromanagement if you're trying to play well, and that's just something I don't enjoy that much anymore. It makes the game quite skill-based and gives it a great competitive appeal, and honestly, it's amazing to see what an active community this game still has - it's over 20 years old, after all, for goodness' sake - but it makes me prefer watching over playing.

While AoE2 relies on good micromanagement to beat it, success in AoE1 mostly seems to rely on how to best exploit the game's quirks - which is a genuinely enjoyable challenge, at least for me, but not really the sign of a well-designed game. I had a lot of fun playing through the campaigns in DE, but my winning tactics were often quite cheesy. Mass ballistas/helepolises with a couple of auxiliary units to protect them are nigh-uncounterable more often than not, tearing any unit type and even buildings to shreds, and turtling with towers and cheap ranged units usually gets you there until your eco is up. Triremes rule the seas, no need to build much else for your navy unless you like to take down towers with it too, in which case one or two catapult triremes already do the trick. Some bugs from the original around priests have been addressed, but they're still pretty OP, especially considering the game's tight population limit, turning conversions into a potential game-changer. And aside from spamming these things, much of my tactics involved using my units for blocking as if they were O-Liners in an American football match to protect vulnerable units (priests, mostly) by exploiting the game's pathfinding issues.

I do prefer AoE1's campaigns over the the sequel's. AoE2's narrated stories are great too, but I really like the 2nd person instructions and mission debriefings of AoE1, complete with Rise of Rome style failure texts for all campaign missions. What I don't like is how some of them only tell you about the fate of your "player character" (this also applies to some victory texts), when I believe the consequences for your civ should be the main narrative focus, but it's well done overall. I also really like the historical background information for each scenario, some of which were quite educational and made me want to look up more about them.

So yes, I did enjoy AoE1 DE (single player) more than the sequel, but I don't think it's an objectively better game.

[DutchGamer78]

Originally posted by FTWO:

I played original Age of Empires first in 1996 when the DEMO came out. Loved it! Played the crap out of it from 97 to 98 until I played the DEMO of AoEII. Loved it! Been playing AoEII ever since, down through all the DLC's, the HD version, to the DE version. I still love the original and this DE remaster, and AoEIII is not bad, but not entirely good either, but eh...

AoEII has a lot more players to it, that's for sure. It's got more things in it to do than either of the AoE's, and it's still coming out with DLC's... for a game that came out in 1999, that's impressive, wouldn't you say? If you give AoEII:DE a chance, and I mean a minimum 30 hours game play chance to truthfully experience real aspects of the game to truly determine if it's good or not... I think you'd be pretty satisfied.

My experience is exactly the same as yours even the years. AoE II by far the most played one over the years. I remember getting a new rig to run AoE III and was sort of dissapointed it wasn't more like AoE II.
Playing AoE after all those years is really fun, but nostalgic offcourse. It has all the ai / pathfinding glitches it had back then, amazing haha :-)
Great game for €4,99!!

[Chariots of the Gods]

AoE1 will always be better in most every way, aoe2 players dont play this because they simply cant, they are not good enough to. they come here and get demolished even with 2 months or more to train themselves.. anyone who says otherwise isn't fit to really play AoE in general.
dont @ me idc what your opinions are. Mine is truth.

[Mile]

I would not buy AOE2-3 Remakes because they have been created to be WOKE clones of the original games. Wish I could refund the package. AOE1 they thankfully did not do this too. I do not touch 2 or 3 because of what they did.

[Big Dik Macho Balls]

Only thing that it does not work with old mod for original game so you dont have all those alternate nation like Israel that people would make they need to let you mod that

[cs188]

Yes, I also prefer AOE 1 over 2. For me it is more nostalgic, probably because I played this one way more frequently as a kid. Plus I really enjoy certain unique units in this game - war elephants and ballistas to name a few. A bit simpler in terms of gameplay/features, too. (No garrisoning units inside of structures, etc.) AOE 2 is fine, but this one will always receive a higher fun rating from me.

[MangorushZ]

Originally posted by Mile:

I would not buy AOE2-3 Remakes because they have been created to be WOKE clones of the original games. Wish I could refund the package. AOE1 they thankfully did not do this too. I do not touch 2 or 3 because of what they did.

People sure love to throw that word "woke" around a lot that it starts to lose it's meaning.