Age Of Empires III Definitive Edition Free to play Steam Trial Version

[Ducks in a row]

New Free Trial Comes to AoE III: DE on Steam! - Age of Empires

Age of Empires III: Definitive Edition is launching a new way to play! For the first time, new players can now join the ranks of this historical and stunning

www.ageofempires.com

Click to read more...

 

[RandV]

I don't know, they really tried pushing the competitive multiplayer angle with AoE IV and taking a quick look I feel like this is a starter pack to help get you into that.

I can understand why they want to chase that market, but as a big admirer of AoE II and Aage of Mythology back in the day I gave AoE IV another go the other month and it pissed me off royally that for single player they do not have the standard pause button these games have always had, that freezes the game but lets you issue commands still. Good training for multiplayer which obviously can't have that, but I'm not here for multiplayer matches and it just makes the game unplayable for me so I refunded it.

 

[PK Cronin]

I don't know, they really tried pushing the competitive multiplayer angle with AoE IV and taking a quick look I feel like this is a starter pack to help get you into that.

I can understand why they want to chase that market, but as a big admirer of AoE II and Aage of Mythology back in the day I gave AoE IV another go the other month and it pissed me off royally that for single player they do not have the standard pause button these games have always had, that freezes the game but lets you issue commands still. Good training for multiplayer which obviously can't have that, but I'm not here for multiplayer matches and it just makes the game unplayable for me so I refunded it.

I don't remember AoE II having a pause feature where you could issue commands but maybe I just never knew that was a thing. There's a game called They Are Billions that centered around that sort of game play if you haven't checked that out already.

AoE III was a fine game but wasn't nearly as good as the first two games. I tried to played it a year or so ago and it just hasn't aged well at all.

 

[Osprey]

I don't remember AoE II having a pause feature where you could issue commands but maybe I just never knew that was a thing.

I don't remember any of the AoE games having a pause-and-give-commands feature, either, but I googled it and, surprisingly, a few other people said that they did. They seemed to suggest that it was accessed with the pause key. If so, no wonder I never realized that it existed, since I was never in the habit of using the pause key, especially in games. I'll have to re-install AoE or AoE2 and see if I've been missing out on a hidden feature for 25 years.

 

[PK Cronin]

I don't remember any of the AoE games having a pause-and-give-commands features, either, but I googled it and a few other people said that they did. They seemed to suggest that it was accessed with the pause key. If so, it's no surprise that I never realized that it existed, since I was never in the habit of using the pause key, especially in games. I'll have to re-install AoE or AoE2 and see if I've been missing out on a hidden feature for 25 years.

There's also the question of whether it was the original version of the games or the remastered versions. I'd only pause it using the menu when I'd have to get up to do something as a kid.

 

[RandV]

There's also the question of whether it was the original version of the games or the remastered versions. I'd only pause it using the menu when I'd have to get up to do something as a kid.

Yeah kind of side tracking the thread but I played the original AoE II and AoM (though not AoE III), and if you pressed the "pause" keyboard button the game would freeze but you could still scroll around and issue commands that would all execute simultaneously once you unpaused.

For me I preferred a turtle/base building style of play, so when playing these games after doing some scouting I would pause the game to consider how I would build & fortify. In RTS games I also have difficulty multi-tasking the micro and the macro, so being able to pause to make sure I have my economy in order before getting back to the action is a massive boon.

It's a feature that exists in some RTS' and I'd say the necessity kind of depends on the game. Starcraft, for example, is pretty simplistic in setup in that you always have a main base with a clear entrance and expansion, 2 resources, minimal static defences, and only a 3 tier upgrade/research/build system. I'd use it if it was there for the single player campaign but it's not as vital to 'pause' the game. The Age of Empire series on the other hand has far more going on that pausing becomes a must have for me.

 

[PK Cronin]

Yeah kind of side tracking the thread but I played the original AoE II and AoM (though not AoE III), and if you pressed the "pause" keyboard button the game would freeze but you could still scroll around and issue commands that would all execute simultaneously once you unpaused.

For me I preferred a turtle/base building style of play, so when playing these games after doing some scouting I would pause the game to consider how I would build & fortify. In RTS games I also have difficulty multi-tasking the micro and the macro, so being able to pause to make sure I have my economy in order before getting back to the action is a massive boon.

It's a feature that exists in some RTS' and I'd say the necessity kind of depends on the game. Starcraft, for example, is pretty simplistic in setup in that you always have a main base with a clear entrance and expansion, 2 resources, minimal static defences, and only a 3 tier upgrade/research/build system. I'd use it if it was there for the single player campaign but it's not as vital to 'pause' the game. The Age of Empire series on the other hand has far more going on that pausing becomes a must have for me.

Interesting, I spent a considerable amount of time playing both SC and AoE games and never utilized or wished for that feature. By the time I was playing a heavy amount of hours I was doing so on multiplayer where that wouldn't be an option anyway so I never felt the need to pause the game when going back to play single player or campaigns. If you play more casually I can see the desire for it but if you're playing a fast paced multiplayer game having that sort of function when "practicing" is only going to hurt in the long run.

You should definitely check out the game I mentioned above if you haven't already, the game is actually built with pausing in mind. Not sure I'd spend $30 on it but if it were to go on sale you could scoop it up and get your money's worth.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I don't remember AoE II having a pause feature where you could issue commands but maybe I just never knew that was a thing. There's a game called They Are Billions that centered around that sort of game play if you haven't checked that out already.

AoE III was a fine game but wasn't nearly as good as the first two games. I tried to played it a year or so ago and it just hasn't aged well at all.

AoE III is way better then the original AoE game. The original AoE game has aged horribly with lacking so many quality of life features later games have added and it has horrible unit pathfinding. Even the Definitive Edition of the original AOE game isn't played all that much because it is too much like classic version. AoE II DE added a new DLC Return of Rome that gives you AoE I on AoE II DE engine with some new stuff like team bonus and villager garrison for example and it still isn't that popular either.

Classic Age of Empires III and especially DE blows any version of original AoE out of the water. AoE III has better unit pathfinding and more quality of life features and it offers a different experience from any other game with the home city system allowing for some customization to help tailor civs to you liking so that even in a mirror match things can be very different thanks to choices of shipments you have access to from your custom decks. You have natives on maps you can ally with to get access to their unique techs and warriors. You never have the late game become trash wars with just food and wood costing units because you can get unlimited food and coin from buildings.

AoE I and AoE II are the first AoE games I ever played but then when AOM came out I never looked back to the first two games and when AoE III came out I would then go back and forth with it and AOM to play both online and offline. More recently with AoE I DE and AOE II DE campaigns are the only thing that had got me to play them because they have campaigns that weren't on the CD's from the classic version.

 

[PK Cronin]

AoE III is way better then the original AoE game. The original AoE game has aged horribly with lacking so many quality of life features later games have added and it has horrible unit pathfinding. Even the Definitive Edition of the original AOE game isn't played all that much because it is too much like classic version. AoE II DE added a new DLC Return of Rome that gives you AoE I on AoE II DE engine with some new stuff like team bonus and villager garrison for example and it still isn't that popular either.

Classic Age of Empires III and especially DE blows any version of original AoE out of the water. AoE III has better unit pathfinding and more quality of life features and it offers a different experience from any other game with the home city system allowing for some customization to help tailor civs to you liking so that even in a mirror match things can be very different thanks to choices of shipments you have access to from your custom decks. You have natives on maps you can ally with to get access to their unique techs and warriors. You never have the late game become trash wars with just food and wood costing units because you can get unlimited food and coin from buildings.

AoE I and AoE II are the first AoE games I ever played but then when AOM came out I never looked back to the first two games and when AoE III came out I would then go back and forth with it and AOM to play both online and offline. More recently with AoE I DE and AOE II DE campaigns are the only thing that had got me to play them because they have campaigns that weren't on the CD's from the classic version.

I don't think the lack of players for AoE at this moment is indicative of it being a bad game necessarily, it's just that AoE II is significantly better. Something like worse pathfinding should be expected in older games, it doesn't make the game worse. If that were the case StarCraft would be worse than StarCraft 2 but it isn't.

I'm aware of the differences between the games, I just don't agree that those things were improvements. Mirror match ups being asymmetrical is actually a negative for me in an RTS game.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I don't think the lack of players for AoE at this moment is indicative of it being a bad game necessarily, it's just that AoE II is significantly better. Something like worse pathfinding should be expected in older games, it doesn't make the game worse. If that were the case StarCraft would be worse than StarCraft 2 but it isn't.

I'm aware of the differences between the games, I just don't agree that those things were improvements. Mirror match ups being asymmetrical is actually a negative for me in an RTS game.

Yes AoE II is significantly better causing AoE I to age horribly so soon after it came out. That is huge reason that AoE I isn't played much by fans of the series because AoE II took AoE I and improved upon it in a new game. AoE I doesn't really have anything unique about it to get people to pick it to play and its horrible pathfinding isn't doing anything to help it so I am not surprised one bit why fans of the series play it the least (any version) while AoE III which has unique fun aspects to it that has gotten people to keep playing it (any version) for years and I am one of those that still play it (each version)

Objectively I don't know how anyone can say AoE I is better then AoE III. AoE I has much worse pathfinding which is a important aspect of a RTS game and gets the most complaints about the game while AoE III most common complaint is how much different it is from AoE I and AoE II which is a big reason why I have heard people say they don't like it.

Variety is the spice of life. Being able to have some variety with your own choices of customization for a civ allows for more options and unpredictability. I hate mirror matches they are so boring so when AoM had some differences based on the players choice (age up options) in mirror matches it made me happy and was so happy to see AoE III having player choices ranging from age up differences and home city decks made me so happy.

 

[PK Cronin]

Yes AoE II is significantly better causing AoE I to age horribly so soon after it came out. That is huge reason that AoE I isn't played much by fans of the series because AoE II took AoE I and improved upon it in a new game. AoE I doesn't really have anything unique about it to get people to pick it to play and its horrible pathfinding isn't doing anything to help it so I am not surprised one bit why fans of the series play it the least (any version) while AoE III which has unique fun aspects to it that has gotten people to keep playing it (any version) for years and I am one of those that still play it (each version)

Objectively I don't know how anyone can say AoE I is better then AoE III. AoE I has much worse pathfinding which is a important aspect of a RTS game and gets the most complaints about the game while AoE III most common complaint is how much different it is from AoE I and AoE II which is a big reason why I have heard people say they don't like it.

Variety is the spice of life. Being able to have some variety with your own choices of customization for a civ allows for more options and unpredictability. I hate mirror matches they are so boring so when AoM had some differences based on the players choice (age up options) in mirror matches it made me happy and was so happy to see AoE III having player choices ranging from age up differences and home city decks made me so happy.

Balance is the name of the game in the RTS genre when you're talking about multiplayer/competitive play. Creating less predictability naturally increases the imbalance in the game, creating issues in a competitive environment because players will have distinct advantages that simply shouldn't exist. I played all the games and their campaigns but focused the bulk of my play on multiplayer so perhaps I have a different perspective on it. I really disliked the home city stuff. The game needs to be as close to a chess match as possible for me, which is why StarCraft was so damn good in comparison to most other RTS games.

AoE and AoE II are so similar that it makes sense people choose the better version of that type of game, where AoE III is definitely a bit of a departure so it seems to have a niche following. I have no issues with that whatsoever, it's just not a game I care to revisit. Certainly not a bad game by any stretch and is better than a lot of RTS games out there.

 

[Osprey]

I couldn't get into AoE III. It tried to re-invent the dying RTS genre by adding the home city stuff, which I didn't find appealing. I prefer the simplicity of the first two games, but especially the first one. AoE is one of my favorite games of all time. A lot of that has to do with the ancient era, which I love. I don't really care that it had some issues, since most were part of the charm, or that AoE II added some QoL features, most of which I rarely used, anyways. AoE will always be my favorite. WOLOLO.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Balance is the name of the game in the RTS genre when you're talking about multiplayer/competitive play. Creating less predictability naturally increases the imbalance in the game, creating issues in a competitive environment because players will have distinct advantages that simply shouldn't exist. I played all the games and their campaigns but focused the bulk of my play on multiplayer so perhaps I have a different perspective on it. I really disliked the home city stuff. The game needs to be as close to a chess match as possible for me, which is why StarCraft was so damn good in comparison to most other RTS games.

AoE and AoE II are so similar that it makes sense people choose the better version of that type of game, where AoE III is definitely a bit of a departure so it seems to have a niche following. I have no issues with that whatsoever, it's just not a game I care to revisit. Certainly not a bad game by any stretch and is better than a lot of RTS games out there.

I have seen people complaining about AoE I DE and AoE II DE balance just like any other RTS game I have played so it seems no matter what people complain about balance.

I love the home city system because I love having some level of customization in games and AoE III allows me to make decks with a plan in mind to try to win giving me another level of strategy which is great in a RTS game.

AOM and AoE III are my top 2 favorite RTS games that I have played by far. I am glad that AoE III has a niche following because if it was like AoE I would not have nearly as much fun because of having less people to play it with.

 

[PK Cronin]

I have seen people complaining about AoE I DE and AoE II DE balance just like any other RTS game I have played so it seems no matter what people complain about balance.

I love the home city system because I love having some level of customization in games and AoE III allows me to make decks with a plan in mind to try to win giving me another level of strategy which is great in a RTS game.

AOM and AoE III are my top 2 favorite RTS games that I have played by far. I am glad that AoE III has a niche following because if it was like AoE I would not have nearly as much fun because of having less people to play it with.

I'm not suggesting that those two games were balanced, they weren't. Any game that has that many options and different civilizations will be less balanced than games that have less options. I totally get why some would like the home city system, it just wasn't appealing to me. The time period the game encapsulates is also different and those departures from the first two made it less appealing to me, much in the same way Empire Earth didn't hold my attention long. I do think AoE III was better than Empire Earth though, which was incredibly ambitious and just didn't quite hit the mark for long term fun (had a blast initially playing though).

Pivoting a little and not a true RTS but, did you ever play any of the Lords of the Realm games? I played them around the same time as I did the AoE games and really enjoyed the second one.

 

[RandV]

I'm not suggesting that those two games were balanced, they weren't. Any game that has that many options and different civilizations will be less balanced than games that have less options. I totally get why some would like the home city system, it just wasn't appealing to me. The time period the game encapsulates is also different and those departures from the first two made it less appealing to me, much in the same way Empire Earth didn't hold my attention long. I do think AoE III was better than Empire Earth though, which was incredibly ambitious and just didn't quite hit the mark for long term fun (had a blast initially playing though).

I think Starcraft II makes a good example of this. I played mostly Wings of Liberty and a little bit of Heart of the Swarm, but the single player campaign you get all the classic units plus a bunch of new ones and there's a bunch of permanent upgrades you earn throughout the campaign, like being able to pod drop barrack units anywhere on the map.

Then you switch to multiplayer and like half the units are cut out and the entire unique campaign upgrade tree is gone. But Blizzard is/was masters at this balancing game and no exactly what they're doing, building a tighter package for the multiplayer by cutting the excess.

So while I know there's a scene of people that are into it I've always wondered how viable Age of Empires is as a multiplayer focused game vs single player. As a 'historical' game, there are a lot of components making it a bit closer to a single player game like Civ which is great for single player but may not necessarily be optimally streamlined for multiplayer. Speaking of the Civilization series, there you do have a multiplayer option that some people do but most play single player. Where as with Starcraft the player base leans more heavily towards the multiplayer. I'm curious what the actual balance is for the Age of Series.

Also going off topic but speaking of all this I'm really excited what Microsoft has in store for us with their brand new 4X/Grand Strategy Game in development, Ara: History Untold. I'm kind of burned out on Civ VI but while there's been a few attempts in recent years no one's been able to unseat them.

 

[PK Cronin]

I think Starcraft II makes a good example of this. I played mostly Wings of Liberty and a little bit of Heart of the Swarm, but the single player campaign you get all the classic units plus a bunch of new ones and there's a bunch of permanent upgrades you earn throughout the campaign, like being able to pod drop barrack units anywhere on the map.

Then you switch to multiplayer and like half the units are cut out and the entire unique campaign upgrade tree is gone. But Blizzard is/was masters at this balancing game and no exactly what they're doing, building a tighter package for the multiplayer by cutting the excess.

So while I know there's a scene of people that are into it I've always wondered how viable Age of Empires is as a multiplayer focused game vs single player. As a 'historical' game, there are a lot of components making it a bit closer to a single player game like Civ which is great for single player but may not necessarily be optimally streamlined for multiplayer. Speaking of the Civilization series, there you do have a multiplayer option that some people do but most play single player. Where as with Starcraft the player base leans more heavily towards the multiplayer. I'm curious what the actual balance is for the Age of Series.

Also going off topic but speaking of all this I'm really excited what Microsoft has in store for us with their brand new 4X/Grand Strategy Game in development, Ara: History Untold. I'm kind of burned out on Civ VI but while there's been a few attempts in recent years no one's been able to unseat them.

Exactly, and with each expansion for StarCraft 2 the game became more and more unbalanced, even online. It required a lot of reworks over time and eventually became a shell of what it was, to me at least.

 

[Osprey]

Pivoting a little and not a true RTS but, did you ever play any of the Lords of the Realm games? I played them around the same time as I did the AoE games and really enjoyed the second one.

I loved Lords of the Realm II. It was a great blend of empire management (ala Defender of the Crown) and RTS (though very simplified). It reminded me of an earlier game that's also one of my favorites, Centurion: Defender of Rome. Both were a bit like proto-Total War games.