Everything I look up on this game is tons of praise. So is there a reason people love 2 more?

Everything I look up on this game is tons of praise. So is there a reason people love 2 more?

Attached: 220px-Aoeiii-cover.jpg (220x306, 20K)

Nostalgia mostly, 2 came out when the first major gaming generation was in their early teens and was a very approachable strategy game for that age group.

So there's nothing wrong with 3, it's just "I played 2 first"?

AOE2 is timeless, but 3 was a letdown for many AOE fans. Not sure where you're seeing "tons of praise"

Massive revisionism, 3 is inferior to 2 in just about every conceivable way unless for some inconceivable reason you like card deckbuilding in your strategy games.

>Not sure where you're seeing "tons of praise"
User review scores? Since I trust that more than critics.

>unless for some inconceivable reason you like card deckbuilding in your strategy games.
Well I mean the TW audience exists for a reason.

2 is simple and straight forward.
3 tries to copy that formula but with imperial age weapons. It's just not as fun. The best part about AoE3 is watching the cannonballs roll.

Yea but that's just, like, my opinion man. If I had to replay one I would go with 3 even though I started with 2. 3 Just has much more meaningful unit variety.

Can you be more specific? Also isn't the deckbuilding is optional depending what mode you play?

This is surprising to me. I have always seen it as a very mediocre game, especially in comparison to 2, and have heard the same expressed by other AOE fans.
Give it a shot if you're interested in it. I would also recommend playing 2, though. I don't imagine either are very expensive.

3 is pretty fun, but the mutiplayer is very flawed and you get easily steamrolled by other people who farmed their homecity level to 50+ and get 30 musketeers in the 3rd age on a whim

I already have the HD version of 3, I got it some bundle on steam years ago. I just never touched it until now. It was that or go back to Rise of Nations, and I still have PTSD in that game from Justinian nuking me out of nowhere.

Ultimately Stronghold/Crusader is the better game.

i wish i could agree but SH aged way worse than AoE did

On that note of sequels, how is Stronghold Crusader 2? Because if I look up all the old professional reviews, the main complaint seems to be
>WHY IS THIS GAME LIKE OLDER GAMES? WHY ISN'T IT MORE LIKE MODERN STUFF

1 has the best aesthetic.

2 has the most solid and balanced gameplay.

3 has the most varied and engaging mechanics.

I loved 3 much more than 2 because of the theme and setting but I recognize that gameplay wise it is inferior to 2 in pretty much every way.

Popularity/fan base wise.

I just played a few rounds of Crusader HD last week. Can't even put your fucking archers on the wall in AoE.

Where the fuck have you been looking at? Everybody says shit about this game, from it's non-historical campaign to locking down strategies by age, lack of castlespam, lower unit totals and deck system.
I loved the deck system, I even wish there was a starting hand with minimal bonuses and one per building/council member supercard that changed the way the civ plays, like a deck based revolution.

Good question.
I know other Stronghold games in the past have been buggy and uninspired but all of the negative Steam reviews for Crusader 2 suck.

Just looking at metacritic user reviews, everyone is saying "it's the same game as before, just with different graphics, therefore it's lazy because it did nothing to try and improve on the faults of the first game"

3's deckbuilding and XP mechanics mean that sustained play is an important part of the game's mechanics, while 2 is better for pick-up games

Games been broken, It rewards Fast Technical age strategies over early age mass Army strategies .. Higher age Better cards, not to mention muskets shoot through walls, buildings, and terrain giving them a decisive advantage over melee units, melee units have terrible pathfinding movement when attacking and not.. Terrible game, i was a spain main and i hated FF.

Attached: 90e944d8d332332321226b8208ef43e4.png (2000x2094, 1.63M)

>how is Stronghold Crusader 2?
it's shit, it has been streamlined to the point where you'd think that you're playing some Unit mod of somebody who was a fan of Stronghold but didn't have any clue what made the game great.
my personal gripe with Stronghold is, that the maps are way too small and the games are on average way too easy. The AI was way better in AoE II even though the modern AI of the HD edition spams just pikemen and hussars to the point that the whole map is full of them

AoE 3 was for me a fresh new experience after playing AoE 1 and 2, it has flawed mechanics like the deck building and added micro-management whit the initial explorer (war chiefs and monks for the expansions). And in his core the game still is based en the 3 ways of playing:
>Rushing
>Turtling
>Booming
although rushing is way more effective...
also deck building can lead into different ways of playing... if you care enough...
Also there's an enormous mod that changes a shit ton of the games, adds a lot of new playable "Civs" and is based in the 1800-1915

Attached: assyrianarmy.png (620x349, 414K)

I played both of these a lot but it was before I became RTS "woke" and started understanding the meta. I played both like a kid plays games, just going along with whatever happened. Like most people play Mario Kart. But here's what I have to say:

Both are really unique and atmospheric. 2 seems more varied and bigger in scale, but 3 is still one of the most beautiful RTS games and has great physics with rolling cannonballs etc. and that collapsing fountain of youth island was absolute kino.
However, I liked and played 2 a lot more because as far as I remember, units and factions were more varied and matches and even the campaign felt "more open" somehow. Like comparing a corridor shooter with an open world one. In 2 it felt like I was completely free to do whatever, be it smart or dumb. But I remember 3 feeling pretty restricted and rail-roady. Maybe it was the objectives during the campaign or how it was sort of on the move instead of orderly calm base building. I don't know.

So, basically, I think AoE2 is rightfully called the better game, but I definitely understand why AoE3 was underwhelming at launch but in retrospect is a beloved game.


tl;dr
>AoE2=Morrowind
>AoE3=Oblivion