Marbaus
Marine
posted 07-13-09 09:25 AM
EDT (US)
1 / 2
Ya so the only reason I am replying is so that maybe, if the producers decide to make another EE, they can have some ideas as to why ee3 was not successful.
1. Lack of civ. choices. We all like to have a large selection of differen civs to choose from. Though there were some it was less than expected. On top of that, by previous ee games, it seemed that it was getting less for the buck.
2. Only five, if I can remember, epochs. The fifteen epoch concept was nice. Some might have thought it was 'too complicated' or whatever. The EE2 mulitiplayer system seemed to give us lots of options to change the way we 'want' to play.
3. No random maps. This is a big one in my households. In fact if I know that an RTS has no random map gen. then we will not buy it. I still play EE2 for this reason. Can you imagine playing the same 20 or 30 maps for several years? That would be very boring. If I was to make maps I would remember it well and that would be bad for my opponents, so that would be bad.
4. Kiddy like sounds and responses. This is somewhat less important but still adds or takes away from the game.
If I had played it more I am sure I would have found more.
I would try another EE game and buy it if it was similar to the other EEs. We liked both and continue to play ee2 all the time. So please do not stop, if anyone important is reading this, this series has more to give us, but we wont stand for a cheap, dumbed down, miss directed marketed, or whatever you want to call it, knockoff.
They proved they could do it once, it can be done with the right innovations and motivations.
Philthy
Marine
posted 07-13-09 01:35 PM
EDT (US)
2 / 2
Since Sierra and Vivendi games are both gone, being bought out by Activision/Blizzard, and Mad Doc Software being bought out by Rockstar, which then morphed into Rockstar New England, I think the chances of any more Empire Earth games being made are beteen slim, and none.
Phil