37 replies to this topic

[Strategia]

True, true, all true.

[Areze]

 Rayburn, on 2 Aug 2007, 14:21, said:

If there was just a modern/near future epoch, goddammit!

Actually, that was lacking in Empire Earth 1 as well. It went from the Atomic Age (Modern) to immediately the digital age with radial differences. And EE2 has a modern epoch. 13, or whichever one when the Assault Rifleman comes in.


@Stategia:
Yeah, they got rid of the redundant and frankly useless Prehistoric age and made them make a little more sense.


@All:
How about you stop saying "IT SUCKS BALLS LOL". Because not everybody hates it, and your making yourself look stupid. I am not a fan of the AOE series, yet I don't parade or whore out dislike like that.

[Strategia]

 Nightshadow, on 2 Aug 2007, 21:03, said:

 Rayburn, on 2 Aug 2007, 14:21, said:

If there was just a modern/near future epoch, goddammit!

Actually, that was lacking in Empire Earth 1 as well. It went from the Atomic Age (Modern) to immediately the digital age with radial differences. And EE2 has a modern epoch. 13, or whichever one when the Assault Rifleman comes in.

Then what do you call the Cybers, in the Digital/Nano/Space Age? The Modern Atomic Age is the time we live in, the Digital Age is ~2050-2100, the way I see it, and the Nano and Space Ages after that.

Quote

@Stategia:
Yeah, they got rid of the redundant and frankly useless Prehistoric age and made them make a little more sense.

Yeah, OK, the prehistoric epoch was kinda strange and superfluous, but still. How do they make sense if they're just a number? At least in EEI you fought in the Middle Ages or the Atomic Age - WW1, not in "Epoch 4" or "Epoch 11". How would you react if they didn't call it the Renaissance after 1492, but Epoch 6 or something? It's just stupid.

[DreadNot]

 Alias, on 2 Aug 2007, 0:59, said:

 Grim Reaper, on 2 Aug 2007, 14:08, said:

The controls are easy to handle and the epochs don't really start changing until epoch 7. Overall, it's a fun game but nothing special.

Two games almost exactly like it:

Age of Empires III

Empire: Dawn of the Modern World

Apart from the fact Empires: DotMW is tenfold better than EE2.

The gameplay is almost exactly the same. I'll admit, it was fun for awhile until I realized how many other games were almost just like it.

[Areze]

 Strategia, on 2 Aug 2007, 15:23, said:

 Nightshadow, on 2 Aug 2007, 21:03, said:

 Rayburn, on 2 Aug 2007, 14:21, said:

If there was just a modern/near future epoch, goddammit!

Actually, that was lacking in Empire Earth 1 as well. It went from the Atomic Age (Modern) to immediately the digital age with radial differences. And EE2 has a modern epoch. 13, or whichever one when the Assault Rifleman comes in.

Then what do you call the Cybers, in the Digital/Nano/Space Age? The Modern Atomic Age is the time we live in, the Digital Age is ~2050-2100, the way I see it, and the Nano and Space Ages after that.

Quote

@Stategia:
Yeah, they got rid of the redundant and frankly useless Prehistoric age and made them make a little more sense.

Yeah, OK, the prehistoric epoch was kinda strange and superfluous, but still. How do they make sense if they're just a number? At least in EEI you fought in the Middle Ages or the Atomic Age - WW1, not in "Epoch 4" or "Epoch 11". How would you react if they didn't call it the Renaissance after 1492, but Epoch 6 or something? It's just stupid.

In the expansion they marked the names in the skirmish menu, also where it has the epoch's number (Roman Numeral) for a little bit it says what the epoch is (Synthetic age, Age of Enlightenment, Copper Age..)

He said near-future, cybers and big zappy things don't look like recent future last I checked. *Looks out window* nope, no 3 story robots with sound guns.

In neither games where there something bridging the Modern-Age, and the future, at least in EE2 that's what the 5th age did with the old age, and the middle-ages/renaissance. EE1 had some bridges as well, but not the modern/future.

Another thing, civilization differences was utterly non-existent in EE1, Greece and China looked exactly alike. At least in EE2 they separate the looks by region, which is another plus.

[Revan]

I, like many others in this thread, loved EE1, infact, it was the only one from all the games on that engine (you know, all the Age Of series, EE series, Empires, so on...) I only really enjoyed. So... like MDW, I was really looking forward to EE2, I imagined it as an EE with a lot of improvements and better graphics. Well, I was greatly disappointed. I admit, it had some very cool improvements and additions, all the territories things, etc... but it had soo few units and so much other fun things from EE1 weren't there, you have like 2 vehicles and they're upgraded in the next epoch, that's all. Then the graphics, they could've been so much better, but look at things like the nuke, it looked like a 10 year old cheap 2D nuke, could've been from Starcraft or something like that.
Well anyway, I long since gave up on anything similar to Age of Empires. The last one of those I tried was AoE3 demo, it looked a lot nicer than any of its predecessors but it was so similar and sucked, IMO, so I stopped even trying things, I wouldn't be surprise if EE 3 was bad aswell.

[General Kirkov]

I think it was ok... Haven't played it in ages but still ok.

[Rayburn]

I might give it a last chance with EE3 but if this one fails, I'll probably lose my all-forgiving attitude but then again, I'll probably say the same thing about EE4
What I'm looking forward to though is AoE4. Going by images in the AoE3 special edition booklet, it will be 20th/21st century combat and since I was not greatly disappointed by AoE3 - though it was unfamiliar - I have no reason to dislike this one.

[RaiDK]

Well after playing EE2, my expectations of EE3 went down about 3 levels... I'll wait and see what they come up with.

[Rayburn]

They should redo good old EE1. Give it better graphics, visually improve the factions to make them look more different and stick to the old map editor. For me, this game would be heaven. In EE2, I didn't care about the new stuff like territories because they didn't even manage to convey what was good about part 1.

[Areze]

Mixing the two might be the best, the territories, faction differences, UNIQUE UNITS (God those are awesome), and the tug-of-war feature in the expansion, and the playability of EE1.

To be honest I never really understood EE1 editor. I never figured out the triggers. One last thing, is it me or does EE2's editor look a lot like the World Builder for generals.

[Rayburn]

I don't know about the WB similarity but EE2's editor worked with scripts. Scripts that none could understand, making the whole thing a total mystery. EE1's editor scared me away on first glance too, I admit that, but when I got a new puter back then, and the game suddenly worked without uber-lag, I took myself the time to look through the whole trigger system and found it to be somewhat similar to AoE2's editor which I could handle decently. It's really simple, you can select objects or areas you want to work with (a tank for example) then you add an effect (like a kill effect to let the selected tank explode) and you connect this effect with a trigger (like a text message that says "boom"). Done. If you typed "boom" then the tank would explode. It's really simple once you understand the whole thing: Select objects, determine what's to happen with them, give it a condition, done. In EE2, you needed scripts for this kind of thing and EVERYthing else.

Edited by Rayburn, 03 August 2007 - 12:38.

[Areze]

I was saying on first glance they look a lot like each other. Also there is a tutorial for the EE2's editor somewhere...


EDIT:
It's somewhere on this site.

http://ee.heavengame...e2h/index.shtml

Edited by Nightshadow, 03 August 2007 - 15:15.