I want to also add, I was hoping for some more differences between the civs and some more units. There are some random differences between Greek and Egyptian- archers vs slingers, battering rams vs siege towers, etc, but as you can see its mostly different versions of the same unit type. I guess the Egyptians have a more priest-heavy game as well.
There's a lot of cool units and things that I would have expected from Age of Empires II, even if you can't get exact analogues due to historical eras. For example, I don't see any Castles in the tech tree, or an equivalent from the era- like a Fort or something. I also wish they went a bit more all-out with stuff like walls and towers and so on because a lot of the appeal to me is the base building aspect of a game like this. Combat is pretty bog-standard "attack-move".
Speaking of which, is there a reason the "RIGHT-CLICK TO COMPLETE THE ATTACK MOVE" comes up every single time I press the A-key to use that command? I don't need that reminder every single time, really I don't.
The major difference is that egyptians can age up, and pump out units at a very fast rate, while greek units are stronger in general. Basically quality vs quantity.Originally Posted by FieryBalrog
I don't think ancient egyptians or ancient greeks built castles and forts at all, my understanding is that they walled off their cities as a whole. I could be wrong though...
They (Mycenaeans) built citadels which were part living quarters for the high caste and part fortified stronghold.
That said, AoE always had citadel/fortress type buildings, that's what I think he means.
But the fortress exists, it's even called that. It functions like the fortress from any AoE game.
Also, the sides are actually very different, more in the vein of AoM than AoE 2/3. Every unit beyond the basic spearman and axeman is different, as well as unit production. For example, the egyptians only have 2 unit production buildings, and their units tend to be more focused on countering enemy units. For example, their age 2 ranged unit is a counter-archer, as opposed to the regular archer of the greeks.
When you hit age 3, the sides basically look completely different in terms of army composition, with the egyptians having chariot archers and elephants versus the heavy infantry and cavalry of the greeks.
I felt the same way, it felt almost to the point of being pervasive with how much the game bugs you about premium content. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the game, but that irked me and I'm sure that there are plenty of RTS gamers who felt the same way.
Also with all the items and recipes available, there really should have been an auction house from the start as the crafting elements feels wasted unless you get really lucky with treasure drops.
Am I missing something? Is 2-player coop really the maximum amount of players in Age of Empires Online?
even more irritating is that if you right click it seems to do a regular move, but if you hit A and then left click, it's an attack move.
Age III has fortresses
I would've been fine with 2 player co-op, but the way they did it is actually very lazy. Your co-op partner just shows up with a town center on the map next to you, doesn't get anything else. Meanwhile you have this big sprawling base to start with. In practical terms it means your co-op partner isn't that useful since he has to start completely from scratch.
They really need to let people do versus skirmishes earlier and free of charge in the game. The game as it is has no pulls that make me want to spend money to get an edge.
Seeing as skirmish is the most important RTS game mode that sounds like a bargain.
There's definitely some money grabbing present here that doesn't come across well idd but it's a fun game and the style has totally won me over.
My only concerns are the question if there is some meta-game/persistent war concept coming up between the factions and how they'll keep people who only buy stuff at retail interested into other paid-for parts (not everyone has a CC). That first boxed set of contents is pretty neat but they should have one for each civ or so every time ideally. Some SupCom-like enhancements in the future would be nice too (strategic zoom, larger maps, more players per map, higher unit cap, etc.).
I like a lot of stuff about this game, but I'm just struck by a feeling that all the multiplayer components were almost an afterthought. I mean this has some of the most limited multiplayer options of any RTS I've played. I just find it baffling that for a game that is built around "Online", there was literally nothing that my two friends and I could do together. We could do two player coop while the other friend had to sit out, its downright weird to me.
There's also waaaaay too much grinding for basic shit. I mean its pretty fucking dull doing 20+ missions where all you can do is build a melee guy and a ranged guy.
I also find the quests to be mind numbingly easy so far, at level 13, yet when I tried an Elite, five spearmen rolled through about 18 axemen (their counter!) with priest support... and wrecked my town hall to boot, all in the first few minutes. Oookay?
Yeah, the elite units I think are a little much. Also I hate how it seems like the AI is playing a different game then the players with how quick they can reinforce. Was doing a quest earlier where the AI was sending groups of 6 cavalry units every 30 seconds.
Elite expects you to be using consumables which you can craft in town. This is totally not a standard RTS.
I don't know why the developers felt the need to put elite units in normal quests as they come close to unbalancing the game. When you have elite units showing up in every wave that can kill your units in a few hits, it's more frustrating then it is challenging.
The problem is, at level 13, I dont have any consumable that can stop units that powerful. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I have my two crafting schools with associated recipe stores but there's nothing in there from stopping waves of pwn from demolishing my town center in 20 seconds.
What happened to Tom's review for Gamespy? Did it get Deus Ex'ed? Is Ryan Scott secretly a massive Farmville fanboy?
I noticed that the jump from level 1 to level 2 walls is huge for defense and with towers or ranged units as back up, you can sometimes stop them before they get close.
I also did the mission that unlocks cyprus missions. That mission was poorly designed imo. Each base has 4 stables pumping out an unending wave of cavalry. Even with mass spearmen my partner and I were constantly overwhelmed to the point that I just said" screw it" and marched straight to each town center to kill it before our base got destroyed.
Is there a trick to unlocking the Crete booster? I bought it but all i get there is a demo quest... I'd ask on their forums but for some reason I'm having issues logging in there.
Click the building behind the quest giver. We, er, forgot to put a little icon thingy above the building.
I'm told that it will run, but I'm not sure when. My understanding is that my review will be posted as the perspective of a "hardcore" gamer, while someone else will write a separate review from the perspective of a "casual" gamer. My guess is that they're waiting on the casual gamer's review.
-Tom
Ouch. I don't mean to be rude, but that really sounds like they're almost dismissing your ability to write a review for all audiences based on the quality of the game.
Ahhh, thank you, Steve!
Does anyone know details on the skirmish hall? Will we be able to play a little more... standard AOE map, i. e something like 8 player? I see mention that you will "set your teams", I'm just hoping its more than 4 player total.
Reading those two reviews will be interesting.
Sounds more like they want a positive review on this for whatever reason and are giving Tom something rather then just refusing to print his review at all, which goes someway towards showing how much they appreciate him.
Personally I've been avoiding this for the time being, it doesn't look like something I want to sink money into which apparently you have to do if you want to play the game to a reasonable degree (something I'm strongly against in F2P games). It will be interesting to read Tom's review.
FWIW, my two friends played the game for most of the weekend and haven't paid a time. They had a good time and enjoyed themselves, so that's quite a lot of game for free right there.
Personally I have very little problem so far with the payment plans, but I have big issues with two areas of the game design:
1. It takes way too long to get to the point where you have a decent set of units to work with. I'm thinking it has to be somewhere like... what 10 hours or more before you can even build a siege unit of any kind? Unacceptable, IMO. The "grinding" should be about finding cool advisors and items and materials, it shouldn't be about unlocking basic functionality like transport ships.
2. The multiplayer absolutely sucks right now; it's a single player game with the occasional tacked on coop (for one friend) option in some missions. I have no idea why I'm playing "Online" when I can hardly do anything with my friends, and certainly nothing with more than one at the same time.
I don't regret the money I've spent so far, though, it's a fun enough game but I'm hoping it grows into something better.
Last edited by KevinC; 08-22-2011 at 06:03 PM.
Ok Kevin, I'll give it a try then. It's just from the Giantbomb quicklook, combined with other things I've heard people saying, I got the impression that you are gimped (on some level) at every turn if you are playing for free.
The business model is the least of this game's problems. The bigger problem is the mandatory grind with crappy units and the minimal reward you get for your grinding. In a way, Age Online deserves credit for letting players see how absolutely horrible it is before asking them to spend one red cent. You are gimped for playing the free version (i.e. demo), but at least you haven't been tricked into thinking you're getting an actual full-featured RTS for your money.
-Tom
Once again just so its not buried in the "Don't waste your money on this" comments. There is an enjoyable relaxed game here, if you are expecting top of the line RTS balance and strategy this game isn't it. It really is an ARPG/RTS/Farmville hybrid - and has many of the benefits and flaws from those genres.
Maybe AoE is a beloved franchise for some and that's the source of the disappointment.
I can see Tom's vision not being run as the site's "official" review because frankly its a review from someone who clearly is put off (to a weird degree) by the type of product it is. Complaints about no siege units till xx level just don't matter to the vast majority of people that played through SC2 single player and haven't stepped online or have an interest in playing multiplayer (which iirc is what most copies did).
Last edited by Wolff; 08-22-2011 at 06:46 PM.
Well, RTS is Tom's baby, at least from what I've seen. You tend to be very protective and have strong feelings about your baby. I can see why the game really irks him, which is probably made worse by the fact that A) It's Age of Empires, which is a classic series, and B) There's not a whole lot of RTS coming out these days.
Personally I'm kind of liking the game because it's, to my experience, a unique take on the genre. I've wanted a RTS for a long time that has some continuation to it rather than just a series of skirmishes and AOEO provides that... granted, it's not implemented in the way I'd like a lot of the time, but it's an interesting take on the genre. AOEO has a lot of room to be a better game, but now that GPG is running the show I'm gonna sit back and see what they do. I just hope Microsoft doesn't have them too hogtied in terms of what they can and can't do with the title.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote