I am now dumber

This is horrible:

Quote:

---

October 14, 2005 - It should be known by now that I've been a fan of the Age games from way back. There's just something about the historical nature of the games that appeals to me. To be fair, I think elves and space marines are neat too, but I think it's more exciting to explore the what ifs of real, historical situations. Though not quite as faithful to "reality" as some strategy games, the first two Age games offered us exciting sojourns into the worlds of "capital A" Ancient and Medieval strategy. The third title, Age of Mythology, proved that the mechanics were just as solid even if the historical inspiration was a little loose.

---

(From: http://pc.ign.com/articles/658/658624p1.html )

I don't know if there is a more insulting thing to write than this. Age of Empires is about as historically accurate as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or anything concocted by moveon.org.

What do you think about this? Personally, I HATE that this crap is actually called Strategy. NO! BAD! NOT STRATEGY!

...Azi needs to take a break I think.

Azi

I do not know much about AoE but I do know that IGN is widely seen as being an uncredible source of information, and oftentimes their reviews contain much undue praise and ludicrously-inflated final scores.

It's probably better to not read IGN articles at all, unless you know that what you're reading most likely is full of untruths.

it might not be that historic...but he was RTW...it prolly was a few grades below RTW in historical related way (aoe not aom)...but i think it is strategy yeah...maybe not the real top of strategy bot not a just-walk-trough-it-without-planning-steps game

The general reviewer "culture" today seems to be geared towards people who live on sugar and violence, and have no time to read, nevermind contemplate the historical fallacies in games. That is why some reviews seem to think RTW can be used as a textbook.

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but I haven't seen too many in the most widely-read places.

What can you do, but play Europa Barbarorum? :shrug:

Azi, watch a Wildcats game!~:)

It seems like they're doing well this season, so they might be good. They're playing some bad teams, but they're winning none the less!~D

You trying to say that the Kats will make me dumber as well? Oh... well... I hope not. Anyway, at least they only need 2 more wins for a bowl game. More than I can say of the Jay-Chickens!

Azi

Yeah, Jay-Chickens stink!~;)

What bowl game will they make? You know I went to the cotton bowl a few years back when they played Tennesee and won. It was a pretty cool game man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azi Tohak

Age of Empires is about as historically accurate as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or anything concocted by moveon.org.

---

come on! When you play the japanese civilization you get Samurai, it's very accurate!

I think you have to use a sliderscale here. 0% being not accurate in any way, 100% being totally accurate.

AOE is a game to start with, so there goes the first %. The time you need to play the game is a compression of real time, so there goes another % and so on. But it has ships sailing water, walls around cities, it mentions things that happened in human history, so it's more accurate than 0%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

But it has ships sailing water, walls around cities, it mentions things that happened in human history, so it's more accurate than 0%.

---

True, true. But with all due respect, so does Warcraft.

DA

Agree Del Arroyo. But those games have elves and orcs in it, never proven to exist, so those are less accurate than AOE. Or is there something to compensate? (This is about accuracy, not which game is better).

IGN is biased. These are the people that called unmodded RTW one of the best games ever made...

So really. Is anyone surprised by this article? cuz i'm not. I stopped reading them shortly after the event described above.