You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.40 replies
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » AoM VS Warcraft III...showdown!
Bottom
Topic Subject:AoM VS Warcraft III...showdown!
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Mr_Unadventrous
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 02:01 PM EDT (US)         
Which do you think is better, gameplay wise? I personally prefer AoM: I think WC3 is too slow. But what do you think (Q: does this belong in Heluiim)
AuthorReplies:
severijn
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 02:07 PM EDT (US)     1 / 40       
This is a aom forum, so, aom will win anyways...
vote: aom
why?
WC3 control = inferior
WC3xp control = copy aom
aom = strategic
wc3 = luck & micro

War is terrorism on a bigger budget.

[This message has been edited by severijn (edited 07-26-2003 @ 06:46 AM).]

Nero
Mortal
(id: Richard the God)
posted 25 July 2003 02:39 PM EDT (US)     2 / 40       
Warcraft 3 was a plain ok game but not very epic. I mean you had an army 8 big cartoony looking units. AOMs battles look better and it has a much better econamy system.

NERO
"Men, I want you just thinking of one word all season. One word and one word only: Super Bowl."
- Bill Peterson, football coach


Ghostic
Mortal
(id: Ghosthic)
posted 25 July 2003 02:41 PM EDT (US)     3 / 40       
Well I haven't had the privilege of playing WC3 (yet) but that is for good reason. I have seen WC3 played by friends and generally it did not appeal to me. Although I'm sure it would be fun for a while, but like a Metallica song, its appeal will quickly fade. Meanwhile a game like AoM or even AoK:TC has more enduring qualities. Heck I still play Aok:tc and still love it.

Perhaps WC3 has a more powerful and immediate impact on a gamer, but AoM will stand the test of time. That's probably why its sales are better than AoM's. People have short attention spans and may find AoM too complex to figure out. That's probably why WC3 won the game of the year award too, because AoM cannot be evaluated in 1 day or even 1 week.

But then again I have never played WC3 so all I've said could be inaccurate.

Almojo
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 02:47 PM EDT (US)     4 / 40       
AoM is a much harder game to play, it takes time to play it witch is why not so many people play it. WC3 is very simple, Build barracks and altar build unites kill creatures and enemys thats it. RTS are very hard to play thats why more and more people play FPS games insted.
Vassilis
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 02:53 PM EDT (US)     5 / 40       
When I was looking for a strategy game WC3 appeal to me more than AOM. However, I heard that WC3 was very simple and plagued with hackers so I picked AOM. And I'm glad I did!
NIB
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 03:57 PM EDT (US)     6 / 40       
Today i decided to buy frozen throne(x-pac for wc3). God i find that it was so hard for me to adapt on wc3(from aom/ron). Units are so freaking big and there is so little area that you can see. Anyway back to the topic.

Wc3 has a lot better scenarios.
Wc3 has much better videos(well blizzard rulez when it comes to videos).
Wc3 has much better online thing than Aom(Battlenet>ESO).
Wc3 has heroes that kick butt with their powers and that adds a certain addictiveness since you try to get the best out of them.
Wc3 has a lot more micromanaging when it comes to the units. Actually the whole game is about micromanaging. He who micros the best, wins.

Aom has walls.
Aom has more complex economy. Half the game is about economy.
Aom has a lot more units on the screen and a bigger point of view.
Aom has probably more strategy elements while wc3 has more tactics elements.
Aom has better graphics IMO.
Aom has more units/upgrades.
Aom has epic battles cause of the defenses/ammount of units that you can make.
Aom has almost no hacks.
Aom has less balancing problems IMO(set isnt a problem for 90% of the ppl that play aom).

Personally i like aom better but since you are posting on an aom forum most ppl will say that they like aom more than wc3. I am kinda bored of aom actually lately since i believe i have seen it all. I just wait for starwars galaxies.


ESO name : Relaxing

Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

Flaminsky
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 06:55 PM EDT (US)     7 / 40       
I think aom is great . I have a lot of Blizzard and Westwood games but aom is the best out of all my games .


(P.S. NIB you are probably going to change your mind when "The Titans" comes out )

YaleHadderity
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 07:06 PM EDT (US)     8 / 40       
HTe only thing WC3 has over AOm is the singel player campaign.

The breakfast of champions is not a cereal, it's the enemy
Mokon
Mortal
posted 25 July 2003 07:20 PM EDT (US)     9 / 40       
AOM

Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • AgeMyth
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 09:06 PM EDT (US)     10 / 40       
    gameplay wise AOM for sure.
    TheEliteMyrmidon
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 09:56 PM EDT (US)     11 / 40       
    I got both, and I enjoy both throughly, but I hate to admit it, but I like Warcraft III a bit better at the current moment, because The Frozen Throne has sucked me up like a vortex. That will change however, once I get The Titans. Anyway, I've got pros and cons about both games.

    Warcraft III and Frozen Throne

    Pros

    -expansion pack already out
    -heroes play a bigger role than those of AoM
    -the cinematics own
    -better sense of battle
    -a ton of micromanaging required
    -campaign rocks
    -4 races, all with unique types of units

    Cons

    -some campaign ideas not original(ie: escorting Kael's caravan with the Night Elves came from RoC, when you had to escort Cairne's caravan)
    -no new custom game playable races in Frozen Throne
    -Frozen Throne cinematics sucked
    -same expected ending, as in Starcraft: bad guys win
    -AI is retarded
    -Battle.net full of hackers

    Age of Mythology

    Pros

    -cooler-looking units, and upgrades visible
    -God Powers add a few unique things
    -campaign fun and can be set to favoured difficulty(where with WCIII, you only had Normal and Hard)
    -bigger battles
    -higher population space
    -Gods each had unique technologies
    -Improved use of mythology in the expansion pack

    Cons

    -expansion pack doesn't come out for a while
    -expansion pack race doesn't have exactly that much originality
    -campaign cut extra short in The Titans
    -cinematics aren't good quality

    Athen
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 11:02 PM EDT (US)     12 / 40       
    War craft III: The graphics are not as nearly as good as aom, the game play is like aoe and its not as complex like aom, stick with aom, wcIII stinks.
    Almojo
    Mortal
    posted 25 July 2003 11:13 PM EDT (US)     13 / 40       
    Blizzard is much better with the cinimatecs and stuff, Once you get into it AoM modul is much better imo but also is x10 harder to learn.

    Blizzard maed a huge mistake when it picked to make Startcraft for the console games, i think Startcraft 2 would have kicked ***. I dont think Blizzard made any midevil games witch i really like, it would be really nice to see a game were its like WC3 but with historical factors, I think it would be better once to make historical facotr then to make them up like startraft and warcraft.

    tomdude102
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 05:43 AM EDT (US)     14 / 40       
    AoM... Warcraft III has miniature armies, and the games dont last a long time. There are no counters, eithers, so if you mass the strongest unit while the enemy masses something else that is weaker, you win.

    Official Member of the Heartless Crew.

    Heartless_Lich
    CokaCola_KiD
    Banned
    posted 26 July 2003 06:23 AM EDT (US)     15 / 40       
    I downloaded the WC III demo today, and played the 5 senerio campaign.

    You got to give it to blizzard they make smooth runing games. Everything seems to flow together nicely.

    But i Still like the age games better and AoM, because of the realism and varity.

    I get the feeling that ES got alot of their ideas from blizzard and WCIII

    severijn
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 06:53 AM EDT (US)     16 / 40       
    quote:
    -some campaign ideas not original(ie: escorting Kael's caravan with the Night Elves came from RoC, when you had to escort Cairne's caravan)

    Wrong, it was copied from aom when you need to get one piece of osiris by controling the wagon and escort it into your base.


    War is terrorism on a bigger budget.
    InsertNameHere
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 07:42 AM EDT (US)     17 / 40       
    Warcraft came out before AoM, so how could they copy it?
    Mokon
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 07:45 AM EDT (US)     18 / 40       
    lol.... and does it even matter if aom or wc copyed?

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • NIB
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 08:07 AM EDT (US)     19 / 40       
    Blizzard is actually going down. Most developers of diablo 1,2 and x-pac just left(and they will make their own company). Blizzard North is taking over. The new bliz game is a first person shooter where you use a ghost heroine.

    I dont know but it looks to me that the game industry isnt doing really good lately, especially the computer game industry. They all turn to consoles and unfortunatelly strategy/adventure games cant be made for consoles(not that effectively). Thus those 2 genders are slowly dieing.

    Personally i am really into mmorpgs, especially if they have strategy elements. Fps games are kinda crap IMO and are only suitable for sub18 year old boys that want to feel that adrenaline rush of running around wasting things.

    Computer companies only want to make games that will sell and not games for a very specific audience. I mean adventures were popular cause all the ppl that used to use computers were above a certain age and had a university degree.

    Now the average computer user has changed a lot. Thus companies are making games that have more action, are more easy going and understable and some1 can play them for like only 5 mins per day. Thats why we get games like the sims, thats why we get totally useless rts games like the C&C generals, thats why we get 10 fps games per month.


    ESO name : Relaxing

    Eisai ellinas? Tote ela sto www.noobwars.gr.

    TheEliteMyrmidon
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 08:22 AM EDT (US)     20 / 40       
    Quote-

    Wrong, it was copied from aom when you need to get one piece of osiris by controling the wagon and escort it into your base.


    What the??? The Piece of Osiris mission was a Tug-of-War if I am not mistaken. The Orc mission I was talking about was a caravan escort. Play Warcraft III, then AoM, and look to see if there's any similarities, like you said, and then talk to me about similarities...

    [This message has been edited by TheEliteMyrmidon (edited 07-26-2003 @ 08:23 AM).]

    Mokon
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 08:24 AM EDT (US)     21 / 40       
    NIB the computer game industry is not dieing. So expect that soon it will grow as big as holly wood. The thing is the major develpers arnt doing as well. They will probalby soon be replaced with new studios that have better ideas and better technogy. (Or they will hire new ppl who cna do this)

    Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • alpha77
    Mortal
    posted 26 July 2003 08:19 PM EDT (US)     22 / 40       
    I have played Wc3 along with its xpack and AoM, I must say WC3 wins in the single-player by a huge amount, because its just so awesome BUT once you beat the single player the multiplayer really sux. Its just massing units! Whoever masses the most expensive unit wins! I take AoM hands down because its one of those games I will play until AoM2 comes out. Heck I play AoK:TC still!!! I got it when it first came out!!! Hows that for gameplay value?

    However if I were to introduce someone to RTS gaming I would give them WC3 first, then once they want more I'd give em AoM. WC3 is a simpler, more NooBish game

    Mr_Unadventrous
    Mortal
    posted 27 July 2003 05:55 AM EDT (US)     23 / 40       
    Warcraft 3 had the best plot, and the cinematics rocked (the human ending one just freaked me out). But gameplay is more important, and, as I said, I think Warcraft 3 is just so slow.
    The Red Knight
    Mortal
    posted 27 July 2003 09:55 AM EDT (US)     24 / 40       
    As far as campaigns go, Warcraft III owns Aom. Aom's campaign totally sucked, imho, it wasn't that interesting. Warcraft III is much more interesting in the campaign, but in multiplayer its - mass units, attack, repeat process. The lack of RM in Warcraft is dissapointing. Aom is much more fun online.

    Warcraft III- good for people getting into RTS who wanna have fun.


    Aom- a true RTS with lots of strategy and diversity, much better, if you ask me.

    EDIT: I think the best RTS ever would be AoK with a 3d engine. I can guarantee you it would sell more than Aom. Imagine, a medieval castle siege in 3D graphics.*druels*


    The Red Knight

    "Must. Have. Flyswatter" - Soccy

    [This message has been edited by The Red Knight (edited 07-27-2003 @ 09:58 AM).]

    SOyuncastor
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 01:17 AM EDT (US)     25 / 40       
    the guys who know me knows that Im not the average player you find on these days...


    and I have read all your arguments about wc3 and aom both sides has powerful reasons to defend their theory of which game is better....

    so in according to this thread my vote goes to....


    warcraft III... not because of the great graphics, not because of the fast games (when you are good the game is over in 15 real mins) and not because of the intensive micro wc3 requires... it is because of:

    the people on the servers.

    16,000 players on any day of the week (if not some hundred more on weekends) is more than enough to me to be happy with this game...

    Just for the record I've been a serious AoC player and just a 1750 aom player and while those games were fun it doesnt compare with the fun I had playing vs those guys in warcraft 3

    it used to be 32,000 players but half of them left to be on the warcraft III expansion :P... so, as soon as my city has one TFT (the frozen throne expansion) I would keep my name on the Reign of chaos!.

    PS: it's good to have someone to play this game.


    the record system in AOE3 is like going to the bathroom outside your own house. Yes, it works but is dumb and needs to be fixed right away.
    hi_there
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 01:33 AM EDT (US)     26 / 40       
    hmmm....I am thinking of buying wc3 and its expansion. I do not know if it is worth it or not. I played wc2 only once and the game is mostly fighting then econ. And better yet u only have 2 resoources to manage.
    BraveKarma
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 02:58 AM EDT (US)     27 / 40       
    I think it's very wrong to put these 2 games in the same class. I agree everything NIB said in the 1st page

    I think it's the time to change my sig.
    Almojo
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 10:18 AM EDT (US)     28 / 40       
    hi_there - I have WC3 its a nice game, there is no economy at all, if you played teh age game then you know what economy is. You just out a number of villigers of gold and wood and thats it, most of teh game is fighting and kreeping but its a very good game with good people on Bnet. If your looking for a game like AoM then WC3 is not for you, but if you are just want to have fun and fight all the time then WC3 is for you.

    I have WC3 and the x-pac and i love it but to be honest not as much as AoM.

    GLORYOFSPARTA
    Seraph (in absentia)
    posted 28 July 2003 10:38 AM EDT (US)     29 / 40       
    The AoM units look better than those in the WarCraft games.

    GLORYOFSPARTA | RTWH and M2TWH Site Director, AoMH Game Information Admin, HeavenGames LLC
    AoMH | RTWH | M2TWH | Ancient Greek Festival - 3rd to 4th of June in Watford, UK, 2006.
    "Whoever obeys the gods, to him they particularly listen." - Homer
    "GoS OWNS for being female and liking The Simpsons and Rammstein." - Crazed Ewok
    KRool
    Mortal
    posted 28 July 2003 10:47 AM EDT (US)     30 / 40       
    NIB is pretty in-detail on the things in his first post.
    I'd like to add:

    While AoM has the more "epic" fights (though they are pretty small, compared to RoN or the like), WC3 has one big advantage, which sets it apart into a different category of game for me.

    In Warcraft III, many units have irks, powers or other stuff which makes them tremendously unique and entertaining. For example, the Dwarven Mortar team, having the largest AE attack in the entire game, though being a bit less effective at building-killing than siege engines. And they have that funny "MORTAR COMBAT" sound when they are ready.
    Night elf buildings can fight and run, Druids are double-units, and so on...

    While in AoM, the only really interesting things are God Powers and Myth Units. The problem is that 2/3rd of that, the MUs are stopped by not being designed for being massed.

    So i still play WC3, like i play AoM, like i play RoN. RoN is pure Strategy, WC3 is tactics+fun (Dreadlord + Pandaren, the best combo ever *gg*), while AoM is cool for something in between -- though i hate this game in 1on1, when it comes down to pure rushing...


    K.Rool,
    Master of unnecessary knowledge...
    « Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames