DarthMuffin Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 NWN is first with a 96% WHAT??? NWN SUCKS!!! BG2 is sooo much better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 ...um...when did you first apply to the mental ward? Never Winter Nights is AWESOME. Also it has a HUGE mod community so you never run out of scenarios to play or anything. Plus BG2 is showing it's age just a bit by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 ...um... NWN's graphics are good, but BG2's story is a LOT better. I know BG2 is getting old, but it's still good (ok,ok and don't really play it every day but...). And I don't like this 3rd Ed D&D... it just doesn't fit with me... IMHO, NWN should not be in first place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted November 13, 2002 Author Share Posted November 13, 2002 Why Warcraft 3 sucks big time> General/Summary: This game is way overhyped for what it delivers,yes the last rweviewer was right about one thing the races are balanced but so are most other rts games out there.this game lacks in everything but the most important feature for me that it lacks in is upgrading your hero. is it so much to ask for a game to have more then a few upgrades??I am honestly wondering about if you guys that rave about this game know anything about rts games,obviously you dont.this game does have a minimal amount of stategy to it but nothing that hasnt been done and done way way better in other rts games. Gameplay: typical rts game which isnt really a bad thing ,but it lacks so many features like you only get a couple of categorys to upgrade ur hero in and ur hero limits out at level 10 what the heck is that??This game is not fun i liked it for about 45 minutes then it got lame because i started realizing there was nothing to this game u get a handful of different troops in each race to build big whoop.i agree that theres no strategy and its never more apparent then in multiplayer.one guy bragged saying we didnt like the game because people like him kick are butts all over battle.net.well sorry son but the game just sucks plain and simple.this game is ok for newbies and thats who plays games like this are newbies play wlbc2 if u got what it takes because this game was to easy. Graphics: graphics are ok nice and clear but the camera view sucks big time.u should beable to zoom out more but i guess blizzard was to stupid to realize that. Sound: very repetitive sounds and are probably the 2nd worst feature of the game after the gameplay.if your a newbie just getting into rts games it might be a good begginner game to get familiar with basic rts operation but for anyone else u wont like it,theres little to no strategy involved END of subject Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 dang. are you sure you played WCIII? If you did you really missed out because you obviously missed out on a good time. Also WCIII got editor's choice awards beyond numbering from every site and magazine out there (including PC Gamer...the best PC gaming mag out there) Also WCIII's campaign was a blast and then the new user campaigns out there are really good. AoM's campaign (from what I have heard) was pretty boring. Same stuff over and over and over again and again. Too many upgrades, to much base building etc. WCIII doesn't want to distract the players with base building. That is why they have 8 or so buildings per race with unique upgrades and researches. Each side does not have the same repetative researches like the Age series. WCIII has an almost totaly different feel from any of the sides you play. Unlike the the Age series where all the units seem to be the same except for the few unique units. I can not speak for AoM becuase I have not played it and do not intend to except I might play a few scenarios over at a friend's house sometime, but I can speak for WCIII which you apparently can not. WCIII is a great quality game and that is why it has such a huge following. For the first 3 months after it's release it was the #1 best sell with the collector's edition of the game being the #8-10. It is still on the bestsellers list currently at #6. If you can tell me that all these gamers are wrong and all of these PROFESSIONAL reviewers are wrong and are not drunk then I will help start a fund to send you to the mental hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I found AoM's campaing to be fun, and interesting. (I am also a like mythology so...). It was fun to see some of the myths I read about appear in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 AoM and WCIII are very different games. Why does everyone keep comparing them? WCIII is fast paced RTS, AoM is slower and more focused on economy than other RTS titles. Some like it the 'Age' way, some the 'Craft' way ... and there are even people who swear by the 'C&C' way. Respect that. I myself am more an 'ager'. If you want to compare AoM, compare it with Empire Earth. That game had to ambition to take the Age of Empires formula and to imrove on that (more recources, more buildings, more ages) If you do compare AoM with EE you can only take one conclussion. AoM owns EE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Young David i totaly agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Dammit Ackbar WC3 IS NOT a RTS. It's a RPS ROLE PLAYING STRATEGY It cannot be compared to AoM AoM is big army WC3 is micromanagement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Darth54 I totaly agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by NL_Ackbar Young David / Darth54 I totaly agree Then what was that crappy WCIII review all about, or that times you said WCIII is better than AoM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Ok, lets just forget about this. Btw, what is the best place to put a healing shrine? (norse) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted November 15, 2002 Author Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by Darth54 Ok, lets just forget about this. Btw, what is the best place to put a healing shrine? (norse) I totaly agree Healing Spring: placement. REMEMBER: The enemy can capture the spring, so putting it near your forwards is very risky. It can be a huge asset for your opponent, and a huge loss for you, if it is captured. It is probably best to put it near a defended area, unless you are positive that your forwards cannot be captured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted November 16, 2002 Share Posted November 16, 2002 Cool man, I finally got AOM up and running and it rocks, totally rocks! Anyone who wants to play a round just pm me. I can't host so let me know who's hosting or whatever. I should be home all weekend so lets go carve us some Kraken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted November 16, 2002 Share Posted November 16, 2002 I just finished the campaigns:D But I don't understans what happens at the end... Does Arkantos die and Athena resurect him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted November 16, 2002 Share Posted November 16, 2002 Athena turns him into a demigod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted November 17, 2002 Author Share Posted November 17, 2002 ESO Patch! Okay folks, here comes the very first patch to Age of Mythology. Curently this patch only addresses multiplayer connection problems and fixes a few exploits. This patch version however does not affect unit or civilization balance or scenario editor functionality (Maybe there is another patch for the rest). CLIENT FIXES Improved cheat checks for "zoom out" exploit. Fixed an Advanced Setup crash when changing public / private rapidly. Fixed a problem with Advanced Setup host dialog not closing when inviting others. Quick Setup games now default to 5 pauses maximum. Requests for in-game saves are now counted as a pause towards the maximum pause limit. Fixed DirectIP connection issues (see below for details). NETWORK AND ESO FIXES Improved login code: We have improved the ESO login code. Users should now experience fewer errors when connecting to ESO and therefore login on the first attempt. This patch includes fixes for the stats upload (2,4) problem. If you continue to receive this error message, please try shutting down any other applications or services you have running before launching AoM - the problem may be related to having other processes running in the background. We are continuing to investigate this issue. Improved NAT/firewall support on ESO: We have added more support for manually configured NATs and firewalls in this update. You are now able to place your machine on the DMZ, and/or manually open up UDP port 2300 and the game will do a better job of configuring itself in that environment. Improved NAT/firewall support for DirectIP: We have improved AOM’s DirectIP support in this patch for users who are running behind a NAT, firewall, or proxy server. There two ways to access this new support. This patch by the way is downloaded automatically once you login ESO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowtrooper Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Yeah!! I'm getting Age of Mythology this week... in fact... it is released today in my country ( I live in South-East Asia btw... naturally the release date would be longer ) Anyway: 1) What is the population limit in AoM? 2) I saw several screenshots of AoM and majority of the battle involved only 10 to 20++ units which is rather little compared to Age of Kings. Are we able to create larger armies like in SWGB... but not as many as in Cossacks though? Are the units as limited as in Warcraft 3?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by Snowtrooper Yeah!! I'm getting Age of Mythology this week... in fact... it is released today in my country ( I live in South-East Asia btw... naturally the release date would be longer ) Anyway: 1) What is the population limit in AoM? 2) I saw several screenshots of AoM and majority of the battle involved only 10 to 20++ units which is rather little compared to Age of Kings. Are we able to create larger armies like in SWGB... but not as many as in Cossacks though? Are the units as limited as in Warcraft 3?? 1) You are limited to build 10 houses, each gives you 10 more population limit. And each town center you build gives you 15 more pop (however, you can only build town centers on "settlements"). 2) The units takes different population, a villager takes 1 pop, a normal solider takes 2, and for example a Colossus takes 5. So it is less limited than Warcraft 3 but it is still limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Wait, you don't even get to build at least 200 units like other Age games ? I wonder who the moron is that came up with that idea :. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Max limit is 300. Get your facts straight . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treacherous Mercenary Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Max limit is 300. Get your facts straight . Does this mean I can go off and B**** slap someone now . J/k, j/k of course. Sounds like a great population limit for those intensive battles! This shall prove interesting on my new computer in Feb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 You can only have a bg population limit if you own a big portion of the map. You can't wall in on a small portion of the map and create this grand army. The settlements you need for that big population are spread on the map, see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 22, 2002 Share Posted November 22, 2002 The number of settlements aren't very high on the random maps, perhaps 2 or 3 settlements extra if there is 2 players. And you are limited to 10 houses anyway. There is no way you could reach 300 pop unless you build a map with 13 extra settlements close to your base. Even then it would be hard because you need a good deal of resources to build all those settlements, and cant expect to get such a large pop until quite late in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishflesh Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 you can't reach a 300 pop but you can reach a 300 pop limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.