Where do you think they went wrong with age 3?

[Albi]

If you compare age 1 and 2 with this you all know this game went in the wrong direction.

[Captain Wolverstone]

I'd say the biggest weakness of AoEIII is the lackluster campaign. They should have stuck with the AoEII campaign formula.

Otherwise it's a stellar addition to the series and deserves more love than it gets.

[Jackkel Dragon]

I feel like there are a number of opinions being presented as fact here. I far prefer Age of Empires 3's mechanics and the DE's modding capabilities to the base mechanics of Age of Empires 2. Nostalgia and the campaigns are what keep me playing 2, while 3 is more fun for me to play overall. Trickles, shipments, minor civs, more unique units/buildings per civ, no more stone... it's a lot more to work with than micromanaging villagers and waiting for them to get home. In 3, I feel like I'm almost overwhelmed with strategic choices. In 2, I feel like I'm mostly waiting for resources to come in so I can build my standard army and steamroll things. (Which is why I only really play campaigns and scenarios in that game now, since they mix things up a bit.)

[.:Jj:.]

Originally posted by HammerdinPally:

If you compare age 1 and 2 with this you all know this game went in the wrong direction.

I'm not sure how 1 is a better RTS than III, in any way. Weird comparison.
It's a different flavor than II for sure, that doesn't make III bad or lesser by default.

If you're asking what are the biggest problems and issues- for me undercooked map editor that makes RMs or even scenarios much less easy and intuitive to make. Also, map selection focused on real-life locations, that exclude weirder and artificial designs which results in narrower selection of map types. Especially for people that come have many other RTS games in mind, not only AoE II. There should be both real-life AND 'classic' sections.

AoE III is a fantastic game and one of the best RTS I've ever played and I wish it got a sequel years ago, with even deeper homecity card system, better city customization, improved physics, destruction models or mentioned both enriched map type selection as well as map sizes that give more that 'default' and few 'bigger version'. Not gonna mention obvious ones like better AI, maybe with personalities.

Pretty much all unique system added in III I like, at worst- don't mind them. Never had any issues with cards, trading posts, native camps, treasures (much deeper and more fun take on gathering livestock...), separate systems for certain cultural groups (exports resource) or rebuild naval combat that is just more fun and interestingly- more realistic than one in II.

[Lilim]

Originally posted by Jackkel Dragon:

...no more stone...

I miss the stone .

[McLerristarr]

They just went too big. Too many new features, too many unique units. It's a complicated game to master compared to the previous ones. People also didn't like the levelling system (I did), which is why they basically removed it in DE.

[DeuxVult]

the non historical campaign i believe

[.:Jj:.]

Originally posted by Lilim:

Originally posted by Jackkel Dragon:

...no more stone...

I miss the stone .

it is streamlining for sure, but I don't think stone would fit. Or rather- be the best choice. It's the industrial revolution we're talking about.
Stone was used ofc, still is, but considering all things it would be much more appropriate to use like 'iron' as 4th resource (or 5th! You have exports for Asians. If you want to be picky you maybe can count manpower- fire pit dancers, or community plaza workers now- it translates to units, other resources, bonuses...).

If you think about all types of artillery, guns, sophisticated elements used in ships etc- it's various types of metals/alloys.

Iron would be cool.
Hey- I'd be fine with 6 base resources, but some metal should have priority

[Chrinchy]

Originally posted by HammerdinPally:

If you compare age 1 and 2 with this you all know this game went in the wrong direction.

I enjoy the colonial era more than mideival era so I don't think it went in the wrong direction, they just wanted to try something new, fresh and exciting.

[Whakahoatanga]

It sometimes feels more like a sequel to Age of Mythology than to the main AOE franchise. Don't get me wrong, I get enjoyment out of AOE3 too, but not as much as I do with AOE2 sadly.

[.:Jj:.]

"-Very limited civ roster."
It had 8 where II had 13. But differences between them in many spots were bigger than between ones in II.
"-Extremely fantastical stats for Nat-Am units."
care to elaborate?
"-Colonialism instead of empire building."
what does that even mean? What empire building. Am I missing a game mode in AoE II?

[Chrinchy]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Aztec Coyotes can beat plate-armoured Pikemen in Melee, Arrow Knights that can deal more damage to buildings than a Culverin, Lakota Aze Riders almost naked with better defensive stats than European Hussars and full Armoured Asian Cavalry units...

In AoE2, your Town actually looks like a Medieval Town, in AoE3, they even limited the amount of Houses you could build, so it is always a miniscule Colony.

That was their original idea at first, smaller colonies, smaller engagements, hence why they never touched on the Napoleonic wars or other major conflicts at the time.

They wanted to do something different nothing wrong with that. If they made it a complete copy of AoE 2 it also wouldn't have been popular because people would complain that it was just a copy and players would still stick to 2 anyway.

Players and people generally want faster games now, not games that take an hour.

I don't think the Colonial era was 100% a good choice for this type of game style but it was the next progression and of all the games to feature the colonial era specifically, it is still around and the most popular still so there's something.

[R.O.T.O.R.]

A number of the ideas in 3 were first used in Age of Mythology (the more story focused campaign for one), AOE 3 really shares more in common with AOM than it does with AOE 1 or 2.

[Chrinchy]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Chrinchy:

That was their original idea at first, smaller colonies, smaller engagements, hence why they never touched on the Napoleonic wars or other major conflicts at the time.

They wanted to do something different nothing wrong with that. If they made it a complete copy of AoE 2 it also wouldn't have been popular because people would complain that it was just a copy and players would still stick to 2 anyway.

Players and people generally want faster games now, not games that take an hour.

I don't think the Colonial era was 100% a good choice for this type of game style but it was the next progression and of all the games to feature the colonial era specifically, it is still around and the most popular still so there's something.

If this was true, then AoE2, a SLOW game, would not be the flagship of the franchise.

The vast majority of thye RTS playerbase, hates fast MP-centric games, which is why those fail most of the time.

That's why I said the word generally and I was saying it from a game development stand point.

SC and SC2 is faster paced than AoE 1,2 and possibly 3 depending on the game, and it's a much more popular game.

I can't think of any other RTS that are as slow or slower than AoE and are popular still with tournaments and content.

[Stone]

I personally really enjoy the campaigns (although the final level in the Asian dynasties with india crashes my game everytime), I like the cutscenes and storyline, it is quite fun to play, even if not historically accurate.
The whole city deck thing is a bit of a weird one, but I personally enjoy it, being able to add another level of diversity to your favourite faction.
The amount of unique units I think is good because it makes each faction feel more its own, rather then all factions having the same type of spearmen and stuff like that.
The removal of stone makes perfect sense, but they could of replaced it with a metal or actually called it Iron, but it isn't too much of a bad thing to me, but would of made the game a bit more interesting if they did add Iron or a over arching name like "metal" as a resource (maybe make it so silver and gold deposits also give a portion of metal as well as having specific iron deposits that are purely metal).
Overall in my opinion, I quite liked the experience of AoE3, when I was younger, I played the ♥♥♥♥ outta AoE1, then when I got older, I decided to get AoE2 before definitive was a thing and I enjoyed it a lot (although the AI are brutal in that). I had Played AoE3 when I was really young as well, but didn't enjoy it (might of been because of my younger brain not being able to handle so much at once), but now recently picking up AoE3 to give it ago, I very much enjoyed the whole experience (still waiting for the crashing thing to be fixed), I am currently playing the historical gamemode and also enjoying that a fair bit till the India thing is sorted.

TL:DR
I enjoy AoE3's mechanicals a lot, I played all the previous games, but the story of AoE3 hits in the right places for me and I enjoy the uniqueness of each faction and being able to make it even more unique with deck choices.
Should maybe of replaced stone with "metal" or iron, but I still feel it is fine without that resource.
The campaign is still quite enjoyable and the scenarios are fairly fun to play through.
All in my own opinion, but I rather enjoyed the whole experience of the game.

[Chrinchy]

Originally posted by GS Stoniest Stone:

I personally really enjoy the campaigns (although the final level in the Asian dynasties with india crashes my game everytime), I like the cutscenes and storyline, it is quite fun to play, even if not historically accurate.
The whole city deck thing is a bit of a weird one, but I personally enjoy it, being able to add another level of diversity to your favourite faction.
The amount of unique units I think is good because it makes each faction feel more its own, rather then all factions having the same type of spearmen and stuff like that.
The removal of stone makes perfect sense, but they could of replaced it with a metal or actually called it Iron, but it isn't too much of a bad thing to me, but would of made the game a bit more interesting if they did add Iron or a over arching name like "metal" as a resource (maybe make it so silver and gold deposits also give a portion of metal as well as having specific iron deposits that are purely metal).
Overall in my opinion, I quite liked the experience of AoE3, when I was younger, I played the ♥♥♥♥ outta AoE1, then when I got older, I decided to get AoE2 before definitive was a thing and I enjoyed it a lot (although the AI are brutal in that). I had Played AoE3 when I was really young as well, but didn't enjoy it (might of been because of my younger brain not being able to handle so much at once), but now recently picking up AoE3 to give it ago, I very much enjoyed the whole experience (still waiting for the crashing thing to be fixed), I am currently playing the historical gamemode and also enjoying that a fair bit till the India thing is sorted.

TL:DR
I enjoy AoE3's mechanicals a lot, I played all the previous games, but the story of AoE3 hits in the right places for me and I enjoy the uniqueness of each faction and being able to make it even more unique with deck choices.
Should maybe of replaced stone with "metal" or iron, but I still feel it is fine without that resource.
The campaign is still quite enjoyable and the scenarios are fairly fun to play through.
All in my own opinion, but I rather enjoyed the whole experience of the game.

Hey glad you like it! You make good points, I also really enjoy the card/deck system, it really captures sending supplies and shipments to your colony in a unique way. Gives it a trading card game system which I like.

Having 3 resources also doesn't bother me either, and having units not have to walk back to drop off points. I know it looks silly compared to AoE 1 & 2 and I get that but I like it better myself. The hunting mechanic is cool.