|
jp's Age of Empires: The Age of Kings (DS)
|
| [October 3, 2006 10:22:40 AM]
|
It would seem that "buggy" is an understatement when referring to this game. I've already been stalled near the end of another campaign mission (which sucks, 'cause I was really having fun) because the game failed to realize that I had achieved the goals for the scenario.
Grrr...
So, I think I have given up on the whole campaign and have been enjoying myself with individual maps and scenarios. Well, enjoying myself from the point of view that I've been learning about how this game works and some of the interesting nuances it has, though the scenarios are REALLY easy, even when playing on "hard".
Now, to compare with Advance Wars..
Advance Wars is also really easy. It doesn't take much to "win" a scenario. However, the game has a very strict way of rating your success...and truste me, you really do want to get S ratings!
AoE, on the other hand, gives you some points at the end, but it isn't really clear to me how well I did (or how well I should have done). So, the end result is that you feel very non-plussed. Yeah, I won..big deal.
add a comment 
|
| [September 25, 2006 10:15:44 PM]
|
I finished the Japanese campaign and have started on the Mongol. Nothing terribly exciting though the final Japanese mission was extra fun!
I've slowly been reflecting on some of the fundamental differences between this game and Advance Wars. They're both turn-based strategy games but they are quite different to play. The most important difference, to my eyes, has to do with transparency regarding the units.
In Advance Wars, you generally have a good sense of how tough an opponents units are and what the results of a particular encounter (fight) will be. While there are differences from army to army (and CO to CO), altogether, there isn't that much variability between units. Units might take a little more, or a little less damage, but in the end it works out. This makes it easier for a player to learn how to strategize in this game. An advanced player will make use of the actual variability to gain an extra edge, but it isn' really that necesarry.
In Age of Empires, on the other hand, the variability is a LOT higher. There are many more factors involved in determining how a particular fight might go. Not only are there terrain factors, but also special abilities, upgrades that may hae been researched, current age, special powers, etc. In an infantry vs. infantry fight, the results are theoretically all over the place. This makes learning this game a lot harder since a lot of the information is no longer transparent to the player, and may also change throughout a particular scenario. (your opponent may research a certain technology that now gives him a 25% advantage).
I've noticed this difference a lot. The game designers also noticed this and included an advisor who tells you, before a fight, how things may go. He uses phrases that are flowery and metaphorical (we will mow them down like fresh grass), but I still feel that the end result is highly variable.
I've noticed that I have a hard time deciding which units to use when, and where. Some units seem to be really susceptible to certain attacks (when I have them, and I'm attacked) but really tough the other way (when I'm trying to take advantage). I haven't been able to figure out if its because of luck or other factors, but it is rather frustrating!
read comments (1)  -
add a comment
|
| [September 18, 2006 11:32:13 AM]
|
Hmmm...
The missions are rather long which isn't necesarrilly bad except that it takes me quite a few commutes to finish them. The length really sticks out when compared to Advance Wars although this game has fewer missions in total (Advance Wars is insane in that respect!). So which do I prefer? I guess the shorter missions simply because you get more of a chance to try out different strategies and setups. Once I finish an Age of Empires mission I don't really feel like playing it again (see what happened with the tutorial, I still haven't gone back to give that another shot).
Overall, the more I play this, the less impressed I am however I'm having trouble pinning down exactly why, other than my pro-AdvanceWars bias, which isn't fair on this game.
add a comment
|
| [September 18, 2006 11:32:10 AM]
|
Hmmm...
The missions are rather long which isn't necesarrilly bad except that it takes me quite a few commutes to finish them. The length really sticks out when compared to Advance Wars although this game has fewer missions in total (Advance Wars is insane in that respect!). So which do I prefer? I guess the shorter missions simply because you get more of a chance to try out different strategies and setups. Once I finish an Age of Empires mission I don't really feel like playing it again (see what happened with the tutorial, I still haven't gone back to give that another shot).
Overall, the more I play this, the less impressed I am however I'm having trouble pinning down exactly why, other than my pro-AdvanceWars bias, which isn't fair on this game.
add a comment
|
| [September 16, 2006 09:47:34 AM]
|
I guess that the days when console games where safe from show-stopping bugs are over. It seems that I've been running into these problems more and more, regardless of platform. I wasn't able to finish the 5th mission of the tutorial because the end-game conditions where not met...according to the game.
1. Destroy all castles? Check
2. Destroy all enemies? Check
I tried all sorts of other things like, build new castles to replace destroyed one..didn't work. Take Joan of Arc back to Orleans. Didn't work. Heal all units. Didn't work. Fix all buildings. Didn't work.
So, I guess I won't get to play the last tutorial mission because I've already started the first campaign: set in ancient Japan!
I've decided to do away with the stylus, I'm just faster with the buttons.
add a comment
|
| [September 11, 2006 04:22:00 PM]
|
I've almost finished playing all the tutorial (Joan of Arc) missions and I have the following things to say:
1. I'm SO glad the designers went for a turn-based design!
2. I'm SO glad the designers let you play this without stylus, if you want.
3. I'm NOT SO glad they designers went with an isometric perspective. It makes it hard to identify all the units and their location precisely. Since I haven't found a way to move (rotate) the camera...this is more annoying.
So far, I'm enjoying this. It's interesting to compare it to the Advance Wars dynasty. Some things are better, others are worse, but overall...there is a lot of difference!
add a comment
|
|
|
 |
jp's Age of Empires: The Age of Kings (DS)
|
|
Current Status: Stopped playing - Got frustrated
GameLog started on: Thursday 7 September, 2006
GameLog closed on: Wednesday 1 November, 2006 |
 |
| other GameLogs for this Game |
|
This is the only GameLog for Age of Empires: The Age of Kings. |
|
