# Age of Empires II HD



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 4, 2013)

The world's best ever RTS game now with fancy pants graphics. Available on Steam, playable from Friday. Hope they've taken the opportunity to change a few things, rather than just update the graphics. Hell, for £13 I'm buying before I check that shit out.


----------



## Stigmata (Apr 4, 2013)

Starcraft was the world's best ever RTS. Followed by Age of Empires and Age of Empires 2.

Also Warcraft 2


----------



## Chz (Apr 4, 2013)

Pfft. Total Annihilation wants a word. Also the only one of the above that has a proper sequel in the works (since Starcraft 2 is little changed from Starcraft).


----------



## mk12 (Apr 4, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> The world's best ever RTS game now with fancy pants graphics. Available on Steam, playable from Friday. Hope they've taken the opportunity to change a few things, rather than just update the graphics. Hell, for £13 I'm buying before I check that shit out.


 
There are no updates to the gameplay according to the FAQ on the official website. The only change I'd like to see is an increase in the maximum population.

I bought AofE3 and although it was graphically beautiful, I didn't get addicted to it like I did to AofE2.

I will definitely be purchasing this!

Choppen!


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 5, 2013)

Well, I've bought it. Can only play the original game until Monday, but it looks like the pop limit will be 500.


----------



## red rose (Apr 6, 2013)

Long time, no siege


----------



## mk12 (Apr 8, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> Well, I've bought it. Can only play the original game until Monday, but it looks like the pop limit will be 500.


 
 Really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 11, 2013)

Haven't been playing so much, but enjoying watching commentated recorded games on youtube. Who'd have thought 80% of people would be playing the Huns. Back in the day, the Huns (my favourite civ) were something of a joke, with everyone opting for the Britons, Teutons or (on water maps) Vikings. Also, good to know that playing as the Saracens on an island map with your main strategy being to land monks to convert enemy units/buildings is known as a smush


----------



## mk12 (Apr 11, 2013)

I got this and played an online 2v2. Oh the memories!


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 11, 2013)

I used to play this. Totally got my arse handed to me by teenagers in Germany. Wondered why then discovered there's a certain way to win. Like build x amount of villagers set them to work foraging until you reach y amount of food then build so and so etc. Strategy by numbers. Which kind of killed it for me because the anally retentive would always triumph over more organic players (me).


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 12, 2013)

Spent four hours fighting my iMac to get Windows 7 to install properly just so I could get this. Totally worth it; funny how after 10 years it all comes flooding back to you - the keyboard shortcuts to find idle villagers, the comedy noises, and the frustration that your fields won't properly tile around your farm...


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 12, 2013)

I can totally recommend the videos from bbqturkman - he knows his stuff, despite being about five when this game was first released - though on the one I watched tonite he was talking about a sling, and have no idea what that is


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 14, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> on the one I watched tonite he was talking about a sling, and have no idea what that is


Maybe the wooden thingy you can build in castles from Imperial Age? Kind of a movable trebuchet.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Apr 14, 2013)

I've found that you can win AI games fairly easily by doing nothing but boxing yourself in with increasingly large walls while you collect as much resources as possible with just villagers. Build a seige workshop, a castle, a bunch of towers, and a university for research. Then whack up a Wonder and fill your fortified village with anti-personnel seige machinery and trebuchets to fight off any attempt at breaking through your walls.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Apr 14, 2013)

Chz said:


> Pfft. Total Annihilation wants a word. Also the only one of the above that has a proper sequel in the works (since Starcraft 2 is little changed from Starcraft).


 
I hopping it's going to be decent. Supreme Commander did an ok job of it, but I never got to test it online as was living without broadband at the time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 14, 2013)

Might check this out for old times sake


----------



## Stigmata (Apr 14, 2013)

Global Stoner said:


> I hopping it's going to be decent. Supreme Commander did an ok job of it, but I never got to test it online as was living without broadband at the time.


 
Yeah Supreme Commander was a decent game


----------



## Chz (Apr 16, 2013)

I have immense hopes pegged on Planetary Annihilation. IMMENSE.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Apr 23, 2013)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I've found that you can win AI games fairly easily by doing nothing but boxing yourself in with increasingly large walls while you collect as much resources as possible with just villagers. Build a seige workshop, a castle, a bunch of towers, and a university for research. Then whack up a Wonder and fill your fortified village with anti-personnel seige machinery and trebuchets to fight off any attempt at breaking through your walls.


 
And in the world of Huns/Mayans v Huns/Mayans > conquest > arabia, which is what 90% of people are playing?

I have to say, I'm now fully engrossed in the games of others. It's like football for nerds * I support TheViper*. I didn't know I was, but as the games went on, I realised I was drawn in 

NB: A 'sling' is where a player in a team game walls himself in, focuses entirely on economy ('booming') and pays his resources in tribute to his teammate.


----------



## golightly (Jun 14, 2013)

Chz said:


> I have immense hopes pegged on Planetary Annihilation. IMMENSE.


 
£67.99 for early access on Steam?    Who's going to pay that for an unfinished game?  I know that games are often released full price with masses of bugs, but this is mental.


----------



## Chz (Jun 14, 2013)

That's only if you're insane enough to think Alpha testing is fun. I've been there, I know it's not. I should regret paying for beta access, to be honest. The finished game is *way* cheaper.


----------



## golightly (Jun 14, 2013)

Chz said:


> That's only if you're insane enough to think Alpha testing is fun. I've been there, I know it's not. I should regret paying for beta access, to be honest. The finished game is *way* cheaper.


 
Been a lot of angry messages on Steam.  I know that Uber said that they have been tied into Kickstarter's pricing structure, but they didn't make it very clear how it works.  Pay for the pleasure of Alpha testing?  If they didn't need a load of Alpha testers why even bother having up for sale? They had enough funders who would have access to the Alpha.


----------



## Chz (Jun 14, 2013)

Sooo... People are stupid then.

I agree that opening it on Steam was probably a bad move, but Holy Entitlement Batman! I was playing the alpha and it had a bug!!!!


----------



## golightly (Jun 14, 2013)

Chz said:


> Sooo... People are stupid then.
> 
> I agree that opening it on Steam was probably a bad move, but Holy Entitlement Batman! I was playing the alpha and it had a bug!!!!


 
Indeed, whether people were justified or not with their anger is neither here nor there; the point is that it has created a poor impression.  Still, most gamers will forgive these kind of fuck ups if the game is good.


----------



## Epona (Jun 15, 2013)

Ah I just mentioned this on another thread. I am in the "WTF, you want me to pay how much to test your game?" bracket. 

The game wasn't really on my radar before now, despite it being the sort of thing that may interest me (and I would have found it once it was FINISHED and released - I'll always do alpha/beta testing at no charge for games I want to see turn out well, but there's no fucking way on this earth that I'm going to pay to do it) - but now it's come to my attention for reasons that are offputting.

Oh and when golightly says there have been a lot of angry messages on Steam, that's putting it mildly - if you go near the Steam forum for that game, don protective clothing just in case.

However the game turns out, this has been a massive PR failure.


----------



## golightly (Jun 15, 2013)

Epona said:


> However the game turns out, this has been a massive PR failure.


 
Exactly.  Shippy mentioned Kerbal Space Programme on the other thread, which I think is an excellent model for game development.  It encouraged lots of people to buy the game early to fund development because it was relatively cheap but you knew that it would not have all the features and may be buggy.


----------



## Epona (Jun 15, 2013)

I went on the Steam forum for the game and said in a very calm way what I have said here, about pricing being unrealistic, and someone had a go at me and said I was having a "temper tantrum" about the price!  One post in a 12 page long thread just saying there was no way I could afford that and that the developer has misjudged the market apparently constitutes a 'temper tantrum'.  Er.... yeah whatever, I was polite as anything, if you think that's a tantrum I'm really disappointed because I've had way better tantrums than that, it barely registers on the scale


----------



## golightly (Jun 15, 2013)

Epona said:


> I went on the Steam forum for the game and said in a very calm way what I have said here, about pricing being unrealistic, and someone had a go at me and said I was having a "temper tantrum" about the price! One post in a 12 page long thread just saying there was no way I could afford that and that the developer has misjudged the market apparently constitutes a 'temper tantrum'. Er.... yeah whatever, I was polite as anything, if you think that's a tantrum I'm really disappointed because I've had way better tantrums than that, it barely registers on the scale


 

I'm sure you do.  

I think I understand the reasoning for the pricing structure as they need to reward their funders for investing in a product that may never see the light of day, but they should have made this explict at the beginning rather than saying, "by the way, this game is really expensive because we have no choice".


----------



## Epona (Jun 15, 2013)

golightly said:


> I'm sure you do.
> 
> I think I understand the reasoning for the pricing structure as they need to reward their funders for investing in a product that may never see the light of day, but they should have made this explict at the beginning rather than saying, "by the way, this game is really expensive because we have no choice".


 
I just think it's a fundamental misunderstanding tbh - there are plenty of independent devs that have gone the kickstarter route and then still had up a paypal option for donations after the kickstarter has ended, amd still proposing a normal price for a finished game, and doing the usual round of closed/open betas with people actually testing the game, rather than getting to play an unfinished game early. Puttng out an unfinished game at £70 because they got a lot of cash on kickstarter and thought they could get away with that on Steam is just the most arrogant bullshit I've heard in a long time. Or am I the only person here who thinks thats a fuckton of money? £70 is a months worth of food for us. If you're all better off and that price seems like nothing then I don't really know what to say to you. Because it's a huge amount of money for me.


----------



## golightly (Jun 15, 2013)

Epona said:


> Or am I the only person here who thinks thats a fuckton of money?


 
Well, clearly not, otherwise there wouldn't be so much anger.  I presume when you are saying 'you' that you aren't directing this at me.


----------



## tommers (Jun 15, 2013)

I saw it was 68 quid and thought it must have been a mistake.  Weird, why is it 68 quid?


----------



## Epona (Jun 15, 2013)

golightly said:


> I presume when you are saying 'you' that you aren't directing this at me.


 
No course not! "You" meaning people in general, not you personally!!!


----------



## golightly (Jun 16, 2013)

Epona said:


> No course not! "You" meaning people in general, not you personally!!!


 
I read your post a bit wrong, I think.


----------



## Epona (Jun 16, 2013)

golightly said:


> I read your post a bit wrong, I think.


 
Well if you read any of my posts and thought I was having a go at you, you'd be wrong- you know what, even if I really disagreed with you on something I wouldn't just take against you on a fucking stupid thread about games - I don't do things that way.  I think of you as a friend, I don't have a go at friends on threads on the internet. If you thought that's what I was doing, then you read it wrong.


----------



## golightly (Jun 16, 2013)

Epona said:


> Well if you read any of my posts and thought I was having a go at you, you'd be wrong- you know what, even if I really disagreed with you on something I wouldn't just take against you on a fucking stupid thread about games - I don't do things that way. I think of you as a friend, I don't have a go at friends on threads on the internet. If you thought that's what I was doing, then you read it wrong.


 
Am glad you think of me as a friend.  I wouldn't want you as an enemy.


----------

