Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
That said, EE was a very good game for its time, but aged poorly, unlike Age of Empires II, which remains good because it relies on 2D sprites that didn't lose any quality over the years.
Empire Earth campaign was worse than AOE's... But the multiplayer was slightly better... so if you are only speaking on account of the single player, you are uninformed.
While Empire Earth was not the "chess game" that AOE is, EE was incredible in different aspects -- In fact, it was more like the game "Risk", as it was a 'vaster' game. It was about advancing through the (15?) historical "ages" faster than your opponnent. It was also vaster in both aspects of board/land control and miitary diversity. It brought war planes into the picture, cavemen, and robots. Cmon -- no other strategy game has succeeded so well!