#AGE OF EMPIRES VS CIVILIZATION SERIES#

Before the release of Crysis2 and BF3, Civ5 actually used more of DirectX11's features than any other game. Civ5 is actually one of the most graphics heavy games around (with the exception of BF3 and Crysis). They used 3D models which were rendered ingame as 2D. Overall age has had better graphics even though graphics are not something civ focuses on.Actually AoE was 2.5D.

#AGE OF EMPIRES VS CIVILIZATION SERIES#

Quoted from emzeeshady:Graphics - This may be an odd category because these series date back a while ago and a lot of the games are 2D. As for AoE3, of course the civ differentiation is quite pronounced. In Civilization all tech trees are the same, artstyle is different, and each civ gets a couple of unique units and bonuses, which to me seems extremely similar to the system used in AoE2. You even had the option for 'full tech tree' which made all civs exactly the same. In the original AoE, all civs were the same except for art style, some gather rate bonuses, and a couple of tech tree differences. This does make the game more interesting so for civilizations Age wins it.The differentiation between civs in Civilization and AoE is very similar. This totally different in age games where the civs are much more unique. Each one gets a unique building and unit or two and an ability. This is because the civs are simply not that unique. Quoted from emzeeshady:The Civilizations - In Civ games the civilizations can all do pretty much everything with reasonable success.

I also have Civ3 and Civ5 (apparently civ4 was the best, but I never played that. I own the original AoE, AoE:RoR, AoE2, AoE2:TC, AoE3, AoE:TAD (the only one I have yet to get is TWC, and I never played The Conquerors because I found AoE2 to be a bore, AoE and AoE3 were much better). Here is what I beleive to be a fair assessment of the situation. Overall I must say I like civ games better recently but age games a little while ago. Age games are much better for MP simply because of game style. AI much more diverse and top level is verrry hard to beat which is opposite of age games.

You get to progress from getting cavemen to nukes while building the greatest wonders and buildings in history. History - I think Civ wins easily in this category. Overall age has had better graphics even though graphics are not something civ focuses on. Graphics - This may be an odd category because these series date back a while ago and a lot of the games are 2D. This makes for more unpredictable gameplay which is more fun to play. This is also the case in civ but to an extent because a lot of unpredictable things occur in civ, most notably the resources but also barbs help to make the player adapt to their situation. Standard build and strategies rule a lot of the skilled players games. Game Play - The game play in both games in great but in age games it is more predictable which for me at least tones down the excitement of playing the game a little. This does make the game more interesting so for civilizations Age wins it. The Civilizations - In Civ games the civilizations can all do pretty much everything with reasonable success.

Civ gives u time to think through every move you make. Game Pace - Age games are obviously played at a much quicker pace forcing you to think on the spot. Well it may not be fair but anyway which is your favourite. I don't want any of this stupid 'omg guyz u cant compare games from two different genres'.

Both have given me hours upon hours of joy. Both spawned many award winning classics. Both of these series were two of the most succesful strategy games of all time.

Age of empires vs civilization