|
|
#21
12-10-2005, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AGE OF THE EMPIRES
Plus, best storyline ever. Singleplayer = amazing for RTS, plus so damn balanced for non-abusiveness.
|
|
#23
12-10-2005, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AGE OF THE EMPIRES
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Outdated well before it even came out. [/ QUOTE ] No way. Starcraft was the first game of the genre where the different sides were truely unique, yet still very balanced. This is what made is so damn fun. [/ QUOTE ] Big deal. An extra side. And it certainly wasn't the only game where people have felt it was balanced. The gameplay mechanics were amateurish and retro years before it came out.
|
|
#24
12-10-2005, 10:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AGE OF THE EMPIRES
[ QUOTE ]
its all about balance and gameplay imo. its a strategy game, not a real life physics simulator. [/ QUOTE ] Both of which can be greatly affected by how physics is handled. "Rules-based" physics are nowhere near as immersive or compelling as rules that let you do what you want and have it make sense instead of conform to some more or less arbitrary rule set. Having a reasonably balanced game is hardly a world-class achievement. The gameplay was decent RTS standard gameplay. Some people got off on the story(yawn). Some people thought a third side was mind-blowing(feh?). For many it was simply their first introduction to a RTS, or to one that had a large readily available online community to play against, which is pretty vital to an RTS. It was a competent and colorful RTS, promoted far more heavily and far longer and more broadly than any game I've ever seen.
|
|
#26
12-10-2005, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AGE OF THE EMPIRES
Every once in a while even Blarg is wrong. This is clearly one of those times =) Just because you feel the game is lacking in many areas you can't really argue its success. If the game is so flawed and its only strengths were its marketing, then how come it's still played by thousands of people? How many other games from '98 can boast this?
Swede
|
|
#27
12-10-2005, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AGE OF THE EMPIRES
[ QUOTE ]
Some people thought a third side was mind-blowing(feh?). [/ QUOTE ] Its not that the number of sides, its that each side was completely different. Hell, AOE has way more than 3, but they are all essentially the same. In other games the difference is that one side builds a litter faster, or one has a special unit... This was the only game of its kind where each side was truley unique.
|
|
#28
12-10-2005, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AGE OF THE EMPIRES
[ QUOTE ]
Every once in a while even Blarg is wrong. This is clearly one of those times =) Just because you feel the game is lacking in many areas you can't really argue its success. If the game is so flawed and its only strengths were its marketing, then how come it's still played by thousands of people? How many other games from '98 can boast this? Swede [/ QUOTE ] When did I ever argue its success? At least financially or in terms of popularity, which it appears you are getting at.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
