TerranUp16
New Member
I've played a wide array of RTS games, both good and bad, but I cannot claim to have played all RTS games available. However, out of those I have played, one game stands out for this award, even more so than some others which come close, but simply do not attain the complete crappiness of this game. The game of which I speak is Age of Empires 3. The game had very high expectations. It boasted a physics system, and the home city, as well as good graphics. Luckily, I did not waste $50 on this utter piece of crap. I first played the demo, and then gave the full game a chance (perhaps they had fixed some bugs, balance, or maybe they just overhauled the entire game; of course, they did not), at a local LAN center, and found that the crappiness of the game's design became amazingly blatant.
AoE3 was a let-down in so many ways. First, the graphics, which were supposed to be groundbreaking, were no better than those of Act of War: Direct Action, a modern day-themed RTS released almost six months before AoE3. The physics had almost no impact on gameplay, were not very impressive, and very poorly implimented. The home city threw off balance, and was definitely not what it had been promised to be. The resource system had not varied much since AoE2. This alone may as well have condemned the game to death. The implimentation of the resource system with the rest of the game was horrid. More or less, the game was victim of very poor design. The game attempted to recapture the glory of AoE2, yet the designers did not take note of the fact that they were dealing with a brand of warfare far different from that in AoE2, and they also failed to innovate. In the few ways they did innovate, they really should not have, for the home city feature only made the game worse. Essentially, AoE3 attempted to take an old formula, and apply it to a new game, and failed completely. My personal opinion is that every designer on the AoE3 staff should be fired.
Now, there is one other RTS game that sticks its head out for the award. That game is Command and Conquer Generals, and more so, C&C Generals: Zero Hour. Generals suffered from massive balance issues, and Zero Hour only compounded those issues. The Superweapon General (a sub-faction of the US) was so rediculously overpowered that a majority of online games outlawed the use of it. The only way to beat the Super Weapon General was through rushing, and if you failed in that, you would assuredly lose. Considering that the SW General had EMP Patriots (basically, one missile would immobilize a vehicle), as well as infantry and light vehicles that could combat any early rushes, enemies were doomed. Once past the rush phase, the SW General gains access to Aurora Alphas, which dropped fuel air variants of the Aurora bombs. Basically, these bombs did 2x damage in a 2x-3x area. To make matters worse, Auroras cannot be hit by anything until they drop their bombs. With the fact that you can build an infinite supply of your own money (and thus, money is no object), players could easily mass hordes of kamikazee Auroras. Regular Auroras were bad enough because of this, and Aurora Alphas only compounded the issue. Generals is plagued by imbalances such as this.
Thus, AoE3 takes the cake for the worst RTS ever, in my opinion, with C&C Generals/C&C Generals: Zero Hour not far behind.
AoE3 was a let-down in so many ways. First, the graphics, which were supposed to be groundbreaking, were no better than those of Act of War: Direct Action, a modern day-themed RTS released almost six months before AoE3. The physics had almost no impact on gameplay, were not very impressive, and very poorly implimented. The home city threw off balance, and was definitely not what it had been promised to be. The resource system had not varied much since AoE2. This alone may as well have condemned the game to death. The implimentation of the resource system with the rest of the game was horrid. More or less, the game was victim of very poor design. The game attempted to recapture the glory of AoE2, yet the designers did not take note of the fact that they were dealing with a brand of warfare far different from that in AoE2, and they also failed to innovate. In the few ways they did innovate, they really should not have, for the home city feature only made the game worse. Essentially, AoE3 attempted to take an old formula, and apply it to a new game, and failed completely. My personal opinion is that every designer on the AoE3 staff should be fired.
Now, there is one other RTS game that sticks its head out for the award. That game is Command and Conquer Generals, and more so, C&C Generals: Zero Hour. Generals suffered from massive balance issues, and Zero Hour only compounded those issues. The Superweapon General (a sub-faction of the US) was so rediculously overpowered that a majority of online games outlawed the use of it. The only way to beat the Super Weapon General was through rushing, and if you failed in that, you would assuredly lose. Considering that the SW General had EMP Patriots (basically, one missile would immobilize a vehicle), as well as infantry and light vehicles that could combat any early rushes, enemies were doomed. Once past the rush phase, the SW General gains access to Aurora Alphas, which dropped fuel air variants of the Aurora bombs. Basically, these bombs did 2x damage in a 2x-3x area. To make matters worse, Auroras cannot be hit by anything until they drop their bombs. With the fact that you can build an infinite supply of your own money (and thus, money is no object), players could easily mass hordes of kamikazee Auroras. Regular Auroras were bad enough because of this, and Aurora Alphas only compounded the issue. Generals is plagued by imbalances such as this.
Thus, AoE3 takes the cake for the worst RTS ever, in my opinion, with C&C Generals/C&C Generals: Zero Hour not far behind.
