Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mindmaker]

I surely wouldn't buy the game today in it's current state.

Eh, you're probably right.
I've just spend one and a half hours on it and it's more infuriating than fun.

Too bad Steam has a no-returns policy.
Or rather that policy has a loop-hole in europe, but I don't feel like quoting law-texts for a week until they give in, which isn't guaranteed.

[Greenbane]

Aside from some performance issues, I'm having a lot of fun with the game. I'm also a long-time fan who's played all the prequels, so I'm really not sure how some people are claiming AoW3 is allegedly only "average" compared to the earlier installments. Not to mention most of the same people have provided zero arguments to back up their claims.

Not gonna go into fanboy mode over this, but I've found it's a good blend of AoW1 and 2 with some new thrown in it.

I sense there's many rose-tinted glasses in use.

[umiman]

I've never played any of the AoW before and I still think it's pretty mediocre but these things are subjective.

If you're having fun then great. If you're not, also fine. It's not a particularly big deal. Look at Banished for example. Some people like that kind of thing. Some people don't.

In any case, my gripes with this game are:

1. Craptastic nonexistant AI
2. Combat is kinda boring after awhile, feels extremely unpolished
3. The empire building mechanics are terrible

[Greenbane]

Alright, that's understandable. I haven't played long enough to notice any glaring issues with the AI, at least, but we'll see.

I was mostly irked by the rose-tinted prequels-on-pedestal comments from other users.

[Biowraith]

I'm also really enjoying the game (I'm guessing mine was the "one positive post" mentioned earlier?). 

The AI needs quite a lot of work, but otherwise I've no major complaints - it's definitely giving me the one-more-turn feeling. 

Fwiw, I'm also a long-time fan of the series, having bought all of the previous installments when they came out.  I don't think the earlier assertion that only people new to the series will enjoy it holds water - there's people new to the series who aren't enjoying it and people who've been playing it since the start who are (and vice versa, on both points).

[Mindmaker]

I sense there's many rose-tinted glasses in use.

Considering I've been replaying Shadow Magic a month before launch, I doubt that's the issue here.

Also I've been adding a lot of specific complaint to my previous posts.
I might add that I'm annoyed on how tiny the combat maps are (melee on turn 2, or even one with mounted units), how stripped-down the combat system is (every attack hits and merely does varying degrees of damage, all elements just mean damage instead of adding things like status effects, that whole flanking system etc.), the lack of style and attention to details known from previous games (all of the units look generic, a lot of the flavour text is lacking, spells are nothing special, map is completely flat and terrain detail and elecavtion etc.).

[Teneb]

I too have been enjoying it so far and have played all the others, although I have to agree that the AI tends towards being passive. I don't think any AoW games so far had any exceptional empire building mechanics, to be honest. The focus has always been on the casting of spells.

PPE:

I sense there's many rose-tinted glasses in use.

Considering I've been replaying Shadow Magic a month before launch, I doubt that's the issue here.

Also I've been adding a lot of specific complaint to my previous posts.
I might add that I'm annoyed on how tiny the combat maps are (melee on turn 2, or even one with mounted units), how stripped-down the combat system is (every attack hits and merely does varying degrees of damage, all elements just mean damage instead of adding things like status effects, that whole flanking system etc.), the lack of style and attention to details known from previous games (all of the units look generic, a lot of the flavour text is lacking, spells are nothing special, map is completely flat and terrain detail and elecavtion etc.).

To be frank, the maps were also tiny on SM (except for sieges) and maps were always flat. Doesn't make it better though.

[Wiles]

1. Craptastic nonexistant AI
2. Combat is kinda boring after awhile, feels extremely unpolished
3. The empire building mechanics are terrible

I haven't played enough to get a good feel for it, but I've found that the AI has been adequate so far, especially the battle AI. I'd agree the combat can be repetitive, but that's a problem with every TBS game I've ever played (Total War series and Heroes of Might and Magic come to mind).

I've seen people bring up the empire building bit a few times, but  I feel as though that stems from expectations that the game is about empire building when it never has been a main focus of the series. It's kinda like saying the battles in Crusader Kings are boring.

[umiman]

Well, remember I don't really know anything about AoW. I watched a few videos and they talked about "empire building". I went in and there was an "Empire building" option right there, so I selected that. Then it turned out to be crap.

I later played a small map and it was way better. That's why I recommended earlier to go for smaller maps.

[Eduardo X]

The AI in the campaign seems inhibited, at least on the first two maps. The first map, the AI didn't move. The second, they do. And they kick my ass when I attack a certain city. AND they snuck aroudn behind me and stole my capital with 2 scout units. I was defending strongly in my cities closer to the enemy, thinking the AI would play like they did in the first scenario.

Friends who have played random maps seem to have a totally different experience, with the AI being cutthroat and having to play defensively so as to not lose quickly.

All in all, I've really enjoyed my time with this and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. I also played the previous 3 games, but maybe not as intensely as others who are disappointed in this new game.

[gimli]

Aside from some performance issues, I'm having a lot of fun with the game. I'm also a long-time fan who's played all the prequels, so I'm really not sure how some people are claiming AoW3 is allegedly only "average" compared to the earlier installments. Not to mention most of the same people have provided zero arguments to back up their claims.

Not gonna go into fanboy mode over this, but I've found it's a good blend of AoW1 and 2 with some new thrown in it.

I sense there's many rose-tinted glasses in use.

We're all subjective in this matter, it's allright. Perhaps I am disappointed, because I expected to play with an enhanced version of SM [obviously I am not talking about the graphics, but additonal gameplay mechanics..], and what do we have here? Some generic fantasy TBS. [I won't mention the bad AI, performance issues etc, since it's a standard in v1.0 games nowadays...sadly]

Even the class system [which is the only really good fresh and new idea] fails somehow. I totally agree with the Gamespot reviewer in this case for example:
"In the end, your class and race selections simply apply subtle variations on the same core set of units, and as a result, encounters can start to feel similar in spite of the game's elements of randomness."

IMHO they should focus much more on class/race & class specific spells/units/buildings/penalties/bonuses/etc. in AoW 3. That + some new & fun gameplay features. I don't even wanna mention that the battles and sieges -for example- are boring and unfun compared to SM battles and sieges. IMO again.
...but keep in mind, the game is not bad as a fantasy TBS, but I expected much more. It's freaking AoW afterall? It isn't Fantasy Empire v2.99, isn't it? That's all from my point of view.

[Greenbane]

I might add that I'm annoyed on how tiny the combat maps are (melee on turn 2, or even one with mounted units), how stripped-down the combat system is (every attack hits and merely does varying degrees of damage, all elements just mean damage instead of adding things like status effects, that whole flanking system etc.), the lack of style and attention to details known from previous games (all of the units look generic, a lot of the flavour text is lacking, spells are nothing special, map is completely flat and terrain detail and elecavtion etc.).

Let's be honest here. In AoW2 you also reached melee range very soon, and only in AoW1 did you have longer walking distances in battle. But that only added tedium to the combat, given the approach was seldom more than a filler turn. Personally, I haven't seen mounted units reach melee range in one turn in AoW3 unless both sides advance as much as they can on the first turn (which I rarely do).

As for the combat system, I really don't see how the things you point out constitute stripping-down. Given that most units now visually represent more than a single person, misses are likely represented by lower damage due to distance, obstacles and such. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's frankly more realistic than having eight archers in a single archer unit miss all their shots while being in effective range. Then, as for elemental damage, I believe all types have a chance to produce a status effect (stun for lightning, poison for poison, burn for fire). How's the flanking system, a new feature, somehow simpler than the flanking-less old games?

And regarding the genericness of things, have you played the prequels recently? How can AoW3's units be more generic than the previous installments'? How's the combat terrain practically flatter than back then, where elevation was slight and little more than cosmetic detail?

Belatedly, I'll grant the empire-building mechanics might seem shallow. The series' focus was always combat, with cities acting mainly as unit-spewing machines. AoW was never a Civ game in that regard.

[Astral]

I can't really tell from the skill samples given, but is there any type of necromancy oriented class? I like the undead race from the previous games, and tend toward them in others (Warcraft 3's undead, Starcraft's Zerg, etc) due to liking the idea of turning dead enemy units against their creators, among other things.

[Criptfeind]

No, which I think is a bit of a shame. If there was I probably would have purchased the game already. I hope they have something like that as DLC later on.

[Mindmaker]

To be frank, the maps were also tiny on SM (except for sieges) and maps were always flat. Doesn't make it better though.

Tiny how?
It took your slow foot soldier 2-3 turns of walking to reach your enemy (if he didn't move), you could get 1-2 turns out of archery out of that.
Now it's that if you are in range to shoot an enemy with ranged attack, then he's in range to bash your face in.
There's also no room to back off, you're pretty much forced to engage your enemy head on.
It really feels like Fallen Enchantress in this regard, instead of AoW.

The maps weren't flat, AoW:SM even showed you the elevation numbers when using ranged attacks.

As for the combat system, I really don't see how the things you point out constitute stripping-down. Given that most units now visually represent more than a single person, misses are likely represented by lower damage due to distance, obstacles and such. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's frankly more realistic than having eight archers in a single archer unit miss all their shots while being in effective range.

You could of course explain it with multiple units, although it baffles me why they added them in the first place (except maybe to cut a piece of the popularity of multi-model units in other fantasy TBS).
Not realistic? Arrows aren't homing missles. If you want a more realistic representation of archers look at Dominions and maybe even Total War.

How's the flanking system, a new feature, somehow simpler than the flanking-less old games?

Together with unmissable damage it allows you to destroy most units in a single turn, making your units even more dispensable.
It doesn't make it simpler, but it certainly doesn't make up for all the stuff they removed.

How can AoW3's units be more generic than the previous installments'?

Models have less details in my opinion (well most games transitioning from 2D to 3D suffer from this), also theres a lot less flavour text in general.

Adressed your other points in the first quote.