[QUOTE="1MaestroAKQ"]Looks its not my fault you subscribe to the coffee table RTS with three civs or less LMAO! None of the Relic or Blizzard RTS games you mentioned are known at their peak for substance. Make the distinction.
Starcraft had a small cult following. AOETC had a larger fanbase than Warcraft and Starcraft combined at their respective peaks, and AOETC peaked for a HECK OF A LOT LONGER. There were also over fifteen civillizations, which means more units, and maps, and architecture, AND a professional ladder that included a lot of war gamers that were older people. Medieval Total War is known for its epic quality. The new Total war will have more unit variations, skins, architecture ad stuff than three of these other cofee table RTS games combined. The other games you mentioend at their peak dont hold a candle. They have much less content, they arent known for being epic, or known for their substance.
aliblabla2007
Oh please. Don't talk to me about substance when you try and argue for the factions as being "different" due to "models, skins and architecture" crap that's all graphics based and don't affect the gameplay whatsoever.
Wrong. The untis are different. In AOETC Pikeman were weak units compared to other units, or special units. Though you could amass them and use that as a viable stragety. Their build tiems were faster, they worked against calvary, and they could tie up other ground units and they spread otu very quickly to cover more surface area. Inthe Total War series all units have equals or similarities to their respective ttype on another faction. But there are plenty of units with unidentical stats, or no clone on another faction. Some factions have different artillery. Some have differnt building restrictions or bonuses. There are tons of detailed differences that add up to replay value, a more epic feel, and overall a heck of a lot more strategy involved.
Since the civs are so identical in terms of stats and tech trees and such (literally, in AOE2 the ONLY difference between factions was graphics based and A FEW unique units to a faction).
I think the civilizations are more different than in all of these other three-faction-coffee-table-RTS-games. You keep saying they offer more strategy and actually have different units, but its the opposite. They are dumbed down and offer less strategies overall. They are based on rushing tactics, and a couple of other mundane tactics. They also actively elimnate turtling, which is an effective tactic. The games I mentioned with the exception of Rise and Fall, have more differences than any of the games you mentioned here. AOETC had plenty of different unit stats, as does Total War series. IN AOETC, people played all of the factions online, and they played VERY differently. AOE and Total War games have more tactics involved, more units, more architecture, more factions, more variety, and just flat out more strategy.
Also, I'd like to know where you're getting your "peaked higher and longer" from when Starcraft has well over ten million sold units and no Age of Empires title has even come close to that, meaning that the potential fanbase for Starcraft is larger. Especially when millions of South Koreans practically worship Starcraft (to this day) and are constantly watching a couple of game channels especially dedicated to Starcraft.
Starcraft might have a loyal following in Korea, and it might have sold a lot of copies. Lots of games sell lots of copies. That isnt grounds for it being a good game. At least not if you base it solely off of sales numbers. I said AOETC's player base on The Zone peaked longer, and was larger than Warcraft and Starcraft combined. There were over a hundred thousand players for it online, and the game stayed strong online for several years.
And no, no matter how anyone tries to spin it, "losers" count.
And I dont even know what that last statement alludes to.
Log in to comment