The Instigator
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jurn77
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

That Age of Empires is superior to Empire Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Jurn77
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,263 times Debate No: 13139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

larztheloser

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent in advance for this debate and will move right on to my 7 constructive contentions. I'm going to be arguing that the latest version of Empire Earth is inferior to the latest version of Age of Empires.

1: Age of Empires generally is more loved by the critics. Age of Empires 3 got a Metacritic score of 81, compared to Empire Earth 3's score of a mere 49.
2: Age of Empires is more complex and thus more engaging. Age of Empires 3 has 3 resources, whilst Empire Earth has only 2. Age of Empires 3 has 5 ages, whilst Empire Earth has only 3.
3: The AI (artificial intelligence) in Age of Empires 3 is far superior. I've never lost a game of Empire Earth 3, but the Age Empires 3 AI surprises me frequently.
4: Graphically, Age of Empires 3 is again superior. While Empire Earth lags and achieves only cartoonish graphics, Age of Empires 3 has a realistic physics model, complex shaders, hundreds of units and one of the most immersive worlds I've ever seen - and I used to run it off a 32MB graphics card! (not at stunning speeds, but it was playable)
5: Age of Empires 3 has more expansions than Empire Earth 3 (2 against 0), so after you get bored of the games you can only pick up an expansion for Age of Empires.
6: Age of Empires 3 has an award winning soundtrack. Empire Earth 3 barely has a soundtrack at all. Steven Rippy is a legend!
7: Age of Empires 3 is focused on one area of the world in one time period with some vague interaction with the rest of the world (home city). This is more realistic than the Empire Earth model, where you command a large portion of the planet at any one time - after all, no ancient commander had as much power as Empire Earth would suggest, however, several American pioneers did found cities and defend them against a rival faction's city in early America.

SOURCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
my experience
Jurn77

Con

I thank my opponent as well for starting this very interesting debate, I myself am a huge fan of Real-Time Strategy games and would love to argue over them. Without further ado, I will begin my refute.

Pro's first argument is simple and clean. It lists the top 7 reasons why he believes Age of Empires 3 is, as a whole, better than Empire Earth 3 For that I thank him because now I will quote each of his reasons consecutively and write an argument for them.

"1: Age of Empires generally is more loved by the critics. Age of Empires 3 got a Metacritic score of 81, compared to Empire Earth 3's score of a mere 49."

Pro states here a comparison of critical scores set by the professional reviewer website "Metacritic". Before I refute this portion of his argument, I'd just like to say that I find this completely irrelevant to the debate because sites like Metacritic are hosted by professional critics and not the people that actually play the game.

Pro takes his reviews from a website called Metacritic, which are very similar to say, IGN or Gamespot; The difference is in the "Metascores". Taking a review from Metacritic is irrelevant because:

1. Metacritic reviews are all done by professional critics, instead of the people who purchase and play the game; The users... This might seem insignificant but it is actually important, because critics take apart the game and notice things the common gamer does not.

2. Metacritic has been known to give false reviews and has sparked considerable controversy because of it. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

Many video game reviewers take issue with the way Metacritic assigns scores. When a game reviewer gives a video game a rating of "A", Metacritic assigns it a value of 100. When a reviewer gives a game a rating of "F", Metacritic assigns it a value of 0—although some reviewers think a score of 50 is more appropriate.[1] When a reviewer gives a game a rating of "B-", Metacritic assigns it a value of 67—and many publishers, developers, and websurfers think that the score should be closer to 80.[2] A former editor at the review site Game Revolution, Joe Dodson, criticized Metacritic and similar sites, saying their conversion system was turning their reviews into scores that were too low.

Another reason Metacritic's review is irrelevant. Seeing this, I have decided to look on a particular website, IMDB, a movie guide where the users vote on a game.

Here is the IMDB rating of Age:

http://www.imdb.com...

And here is the IMDB rating of Empire:

http://www.imdb.com...

If you looked on those pages, you could see that Empire Earth 3 gets a disastrous score compared to Age of Empires 3 - I'm not defending that; But if you look a little more you'll also notice that the particular review was done by the users, and not critics.

-----------------------

"2: Age of Empires is more complex and thus more engaging. Age of Empires 3 has 3 resources, whilst Empire Earth has only 2. Age of Empires 3 has 5 ages, whilst Empire Earth has only 3."

This is entirely opinionated and not fact. Pro states that because AoE is more complex, then that makes it more engaging. As you can probably see, this is completely Pro's opinion and not a fact. Some people prefer simpler games where you can make a peaceful life of farming and gathering lumber.

-------------------------------

"3: The AI (artificial intelligence) in Age of Empires 3 is far superior. I've never lost a game of Empire Earth 3, but the Age Empires 3 AI surprises me frequently."

Here, Pro states that the AI in Age is better than that of Empire Earth. What he says here is again not based on fact, and the topic of AI was promising... until he made his refute, that is.

Pro says that "I've never lost a game of Empire Earth 3, but the Age Empires 3 AI surprises me frequently."

This is understandable, but it is his skill and again a preference over true fact. For some, Aoe3 AI could be a piece-of-cake whilst EE3's could be overwhelming. It's just one's skill and cannot be put in this argument.

As I said above, the argument topic of AI looked promising, and Pro could have easily made some good points, but in my opinion he failed badly. In Empire Earth, I will admit the AI is stupid; The units clunk around and cannot form a line army if their lives depended upon it ( if a computer has a life..).

Pro, however, decided to go with his opinion of the difficulty of said AI vs Age of Empires'.

---------------------

"4: Graphically, Age of Empires 3 is again superior. While Empire Earth lags and achieves only cartoonish graphics, Age of Empires 3 has a realistic physics model, complex shaders, hundreds of units and one of the most immersive worlds I've ever seen - and I used to run it off a 32MB graphics card! (not at stunning speeds, but it was playable)"

Pro makes a great point here with graphics-comparison. I will agree that Age's graphics are stunning whilst EE3's are not. But I believe the developers intended it this way. Pro makes a point by saying that EE's world is cartoonish, however I think it was meant to be that way. I don't know for a fact though, so take it or leave it.

Larz, I must agree, AoE takes the trophy for best graphics, in comparison to Empire Earth 3 at least.

-----------------------------

"5: Age of Empires 3 has more expansions than Empire Earth 3 (2 against 0), so after you get bored of the games you can only pick up an expansion for Age of Empires."

This is a good example, although Empire Earth's world is much bigger and AoE's in my opinion feels enclosed, which is why there was the need for said X-packs.

-----------------------------

"6: Age of Empires 3 has an award winning soundtrack. Empire Earth 3 barely has a soundtrack at all. Steven Rippy is a legend!"

In reason number 6, Pro states that Aoe3's music is award-winning, and that EE has little-to-no soundtrack. This is completely ridiculous in that Empire Earth 3, although panned by critics gameplay wise, has been praised for it's sountrack.

Look at this IGN article for info:

http://music.ign.com...

I will agree that Aoe3's soundtrack is great but it is not award-winning. IGN mentions that it "does not stand-out", here:

http://pc.ign.com...
--------------------------------------

"7: Age of Empires 3 is focused on one area of the world in one time period with some vague interaction with the rest of the world (home city). This is more realistic than the Empire Earth model, where you command a large portion of the planet at any one time - after all, no ancient commander had as much power as Empire Earth would suggest, however, several American pioneers did found cities and defend them against a rival faction's city in early America."

Pro states why Empire Earth, being much larger in scope than Aoe3, is inferior.

I find this laughable, because in AoE, you have limitations and re-playability is highly limited in my opinion, because of the lack of variety. In Empire Earth, you are able to do anything from war with rivaling chieftains in the age of Cavemen to sail the high seas of the Imperial Age. This is just one example but you can see the gameplay as compared to Age, where you are limited to the Colonial period of history.

I must agree with Pro's praise of the Homecity system that AoE introduces - it is a nice touch but I wouldn't consider it major addition to you, the audience's final vote.

-------------------------------

I await my opponent's response and hope the voters' opinion has swayed just a bit.

Sources:

AoE rating: http://www.imdb.com...
Empire Earth rating: http://www.imdb.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

IGN's EE3 music review: http://music.ign.com...
Debate Round No. 1
larztheloser

Pro

I've got a little confession to make. I did just base all my points on my subjective judgement. At the end of the day, all video game comparisons are just based on our judgements. Given that the critics agree with me, however, vindicates that judgement as accurate.

My opponent begins by telling us that only gamers, not professional reviewers, can accurately describe how good/bad a game is. Then, he tells us that the gamers and the critics agree. Age of Empires is superior. He also admits to Empire Earth having poorer AI and worse graphics.

I have, therefore, 4 arguments left to refute:

1. That complexity leads to engagement. I would argue that indeed it does, not because I like complexity personally, but because a more complex game forces a player to concentrate on it more. After they have concentrated on it for a little while, they are less likely to want to see their efforts go to waste. I don't know of a single player who'd prefer to play a dumbed down version of Age of Empires to Age of Empires, and for good reason!

2. The expansion pack argument. My opponent thinks that the only reason expansion packs are released is to extend the scope of a game. However, game studios all the time come up with alternative reasons to expand their existing titles. That's why many of the earlier Empire Earth games had expansions. The development studio, however, realized that nobody wanted an expansion for an already-poor game.

3. The soundtrack. Age of Empires 3 won a Yahoo user award for their soundtrack. Meanwhile, the Empire Earth 3 soundtrack has not won any awards and is frequently described as just another run-of-the-mill soundtrack. Anyway, the Empire Earth 3 soundtrack was very minimalist except in the action moments, when it never cued at the right moment, so it wasn't usually very exciting to listen to.

4. Limitations to the scope of the game do not affect re-playability, unlike what my opponent thinks. 2 reasons why. First, because the game is played on a random map in Age of Empires 3, the game is different every time. Second, because there are many civilizations and persistent home cities there is an incentive to keep coming back for more. I contend that Empire Earth 3 only achieves their scope by dumbing the game down to the extent that it is no more re-playable (and in fact in my experience still less re-playable). I mean, come on, the game is clearly less complex after all!

For all the aforementioned reasons I bid you vote PRO.
Jurn77

Con

Jurn77 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
larztheloser

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for forfeiting his case and will invite him to continue it in the last round. I guess he needs the extra time. Did I mention that today is actually international vote-Pro day? No? ...
Jurn77

Con

I apologize for missing the dead-line on my previous argument and will now refute my opponent's argument from Round 1.

My opponent presents the same opinionated argument to the table, leaving me with little to refute upon.

1. Here, my opponent again states that complexity equals a greater gamer, which is, as I have stated previously, not how everyone would see it.

"I don't know of a single player who'd prefer to play a dumbed down version of Age of Empires to Age of Empires, and for good reason!"

My opponent uses the term, "Dumbed-Down" here and I disagree with how he uses it. Empire Earth and Age of Empires are of the same genre and similar gameplay, but comparing them background-wise is like comparing, say, Halo with Call of Duty.

You just don't do it.

Age of Empires games always lurk upon a single era of gameplay, whether that be the Iron Era (Age 1), the Medieval Era (Age 2) or the Colonial Era. (Age 3)

Yes, you can "age up" but really all that does is introduce a few new, similar time-era units, and make the buildings look fancier. With this single Era gameplay, however, comes greater detail into that particular part of history.

Empire Earth, however, presents gameplay spanning from the Stone Age to the Space Age. (or whatever EE3 may have, I can't really remember at the moment..) With this comes hundreds of units from a caveman to a mutant.

2. Here, Pro refutes the argument with the expansion packs. Here, he says "game studios all the time come up with alternative reasons to expand their existing titles" then fails to list any. While this may be self-explanatory for the geniuses in the audience, not all people may be able to come up with these ideas. I believe, however, the main reason that developers introduce Expansions is to "extend the scope" of the game, overall. Take Age of Empires 3: The Asian Dynasties, this introduces hundreds of new units, new maps, and three new civilizations. Same with Empire Earth: Art of Conquest (I realize we are not debating the first of the series but I am using these as references as you will see) or Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots... Is this not extending the scope of the gameplay?

3. Here, he says that Age won a "Yahoo user award" but most importantly, pro says that EE's sountrack has been described as mediocre... I guess he did not see the link to IGN praising Empire Earth's music?

As for the Yahoo USER award, I implore my opponent to paste the link to that particular webpage.

4. This entire point pro attempts to make here is an evident opinion and I wouldn't even count it as relevant, but I will refute nonetheless.
My opponent starts off by stating some obvious reasons why he feels Age is highly replayable.

"First, because the game is played on a random map in Age of Empires 3, the game is different every time"

Here, pro makes the observation that Age contains Random Maps, "skirmishes" in AoE3. wait, doesn't EVERY real-time strategy
contain a random map one way or another? From Age of Empires to Empire Earth, to RoN to Warcraft; every one has their own version customed with their own maps.

Then pro talks about the civilizations and other goodies of Age of Empires. The fact of the matter is, however, that Empire contains civilizations too, and so does every other RTS. Age may contain more, but most are simply identical with a few unique units.

---------------------------

Overall, My opponent's argument is simply a re-hash of previous ideas with nary added ideas. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Empire Earth ftw!
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
larztheloser
Well, you only gave me one round to rebut. You didn't put forward any contentions of your own. This debate could have been much better if you didn't forfeit round 2. I also don't think you understood my argument about why my opinion is valid. If I could vote, you'd get conduct and sources, I'd get arguments and both agreeds, tied for spelling.
Posted by Jurn77 7 years ago
Jurn77
I'd really like to know how he made a more convincing argument?
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
larztheloser
Yay! Thanks.
Posted by SuperRobotWars 7 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Hmmm . . .
Posted by Jurn77 7 years ago
Jurn77
True. I agree. I just hope I get some voting on the points I made rather then the topic itself. I favor Age myself in most aspects, and I'm sure most people do also, but that's not the entire point of the debate.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
larztheloser
Hmmm - good point. But I still think everyone either loves or hates age of empires, builds an opinion on the topic based on that, and thus doesn't read the debate. Because they don't read, they don't vote.
Posted by Jurn77 7 years ago
Jurn77
lol arrogant much..? It doesn't matter who's "right" it's how they present the argument, hence the "Who did you agree with before the debate?" voting section.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
larztheloser
Clearly they don'b bother reading this debate because it's obvious I'm right
Posted by Jurn77 7 years ago
Jurn77
Larz no ones voting haha
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
larztheloserJurn77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 7 years ago
SuperRobotWars
larztheloserJurn77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31