The wild adventurous nature of Age of Empires II has been industrialised by its mechanics being geared towards competitive play in this instalment. It feels more meta, and certainly more modern by the graphics overhaul and the 19th century setting. AOE 3 is very different to AOE 2, yet both are polished products, so I struggle to decide which I prefer, putting thousands of hours into them (having played the disc and Steam versions).

Even 19 years after it was released, it remains one of the best RTS games ever made, but the fact that they're pricing it at £29.99 so many years later makes no sense - what are they doing with all that money? Players haven't been able to connect to eachother a lot of the time, so Microsoft have clearly not been spending it on making multiplayer functional. Why would players want to pay the high pricetag just to grapple with connection issues? Nonsense like this is the reason the genre dried up.

The wild adventurous nature of Age of Empires II has been industrialised by its mechanics being geared towards competitive play in this instalment. It feels more meta, and certainly more modern by the graphics overhaul and the 19th century setting. AOE 3 is very different to AOE 2, yet both are polished products, so I struggle to decide which I prefer, putting thousands of hours into them (having played the disc and Steam versions). Even 19 years after it was released, it remains one of the best RTS games ever made, but the fact that they're pricing it at £29.99 so many years later makes no sense - what are they doing with all that money? Players haven't been able to connect to eachother a lot of the time, so Microsoft have clearly not been spending it on making multiplayer functional. Why would players want to pay the high pricetag just to grapple with connection issues? Nonsense like this is the reason the genre dried up.