« Home | 1.TES III: Morrowind vs. TES IV: Oblivion » | Old PC games vs. The new one’s »

2. Age of Empires II vs. Age of Empires III

There is no real gamer who didn’t played at least one “Age of Empires” game. Those games are product of a genius. First one was revolution, second and it’s expansion was great. Third is just a RTS without soul

a) Age of Empires II

This game was made 1999. It was pretty like first AoE, with just enough changes to make it stand-alone game. Battlefield is now moved to medieval era, instead of ancient times (first game). Graphic quality is increased, so don’t expect from house to be larger than a soldier...

But graphic is on second place. Most important is GAMEPLAY. There are 13 civilizations: Britons, Byzantines, Franks, Mongols, Turks, Saracens, Celts, Vikings, Persians, Teutons, Goths, Chinese and Japanese.

In campaigns, you can free Scotland from English invaders (first campaign with William Wallace), fight with Joan of Arc against English invaders (second campaign, poor Britons...), battle crusaders in infernally middle-eastern deserts (third, Saladin’s campaign), try to conquer whole world (fourth, Genghis Kahn’s campaign), or try to reincarnate Roman Empire (last, Frederick Barbarossa’s campaign). Campaigns are interesting, with historical lessons between missions. One, and maybe only flaw is poor diplomatic options. There are only several: be ally, neutral or enemy, and send tribute. With more options, game would certainly become a legend. That’s it about AoE II.

Rate: 8.5/10

b) Age of Empires III

Sad part of the story. I don’t know, game is... just a ordinary RTS. To be honest, it’s totally OK, but it’s just... not AoE. Campaign is not historically correct, and story is somewhat stupid. If I remember, it’s about searching for something powerful magic item or location in South America. WTF? Magic? No, this can’t be! It’s a NIGHTMARE! MUUUUUUUM!!! HELP!

Graphic is good, it’s a fact. But another bad thing is Major City, and its improvements, which are almost useless. Crate with 300 food? Why the hell I need that? To build one soldier? Don’t make me laugh...

Rate: 7/10

Nice... :D

Get over it. Gaming has evolved, and if the form it is in now isn't what you like, you don't have to play it.

I completely agree with you bro, AOE3 is only a RTS. AOE2 was much much better. you could choose between different civilizations and each had unique abilities and features. The number of forts and towers was unlimited, whereas in AOE 3 only limited towers=14 and one fort. no matter how much gold food or wood. and the buildings collapse very fast. in AOE 2 forts and walls were stronger whereas AOE3 is like cardboard. All graphics and no game play. Well said bro.

Age of Empires 2 was awarded as the Game of the Year (2002). It was, no doubt, the best strategy game ever. But things are changing and Age of Empires is evolving. You will see soldiers and tanks in Age of Empires 4! So it's a change and we have to accept it.

I have played aoe2 and aoe3, and I have yo say aoe3 wins. Number 2 is just a 2d version of aoe3. Exploring the new world in my opinion is better then counquering a kingdom. Oh and to the person talking about the "magic", it's actually the fountain of youth which turns out to be a legend, so yeah, no magic.

Post a Comment

Links

  • AXA Games Reverse (<<)
  • BestGameWallpapers
  • Computers Blogs - Blog Top Sites