Much like aggressively metastatic cancer, the belief that vaccines cause autism, or Rupert Murdoch - Empires refuses to die. In recent weeks, Empires has once again sallied forth from lurking in the lymph nodes of the internet, a mysterious influx of new players bringing it jerking back to life. Many veterans thought extinct, myself included, have once again been spotted running around the laughably dated looking maps. Empires has something that keeps us coming back, something that no other game has successfully replicated. The question is, what? Personally I reckon it's something very simple. Walls. Well, a little more complicated than that. The base construction powers of the commander allow two players to make massive changes and additions to how each game of empires plays out. As a result, the role of Commander is less about leadership (although that can be an essential component) and more about acting as a sort of dungeon master, changing the course of the game by what they decide to research, who they decide to run over (especially if you're hobbes) and most importantly, what they decide to build. The best commanders are the ones who can be everywhere at once, using the comms intel feed to know when to be dropping forward raxes on canyon, building turret farms in the woods outside the enemy main on midbridge, laying walls to stall a rush on slaughtered. Engineers are vital adjutants to the commander in this regard, taking on a limited version of the same role. The commander's strategic decisions alter the ebb and flow of a war, the engineer's tactical decisions alter the outcome of each battle. How many times has the north of mvalley been lost because a couple of plucky engies walled off the hill and dropped a couple of turrets? The greatest part of all of this is that the enemy team is doing exactly the same thing. Winning a game of empires isn't about killing the enemy commander, it's about competing to set the rules of the game in your favour so you can do that before the enemy does. The result is that, in spite of the game being technologically decades behind the Frostbite powered devastation present in modern battlefield games, Empires manages to provide infinitely more variety and challenge. I hate to break it to you guys, but we've been playing Minecraft with guns, tanks and an objective. That's my two cents anyway. There's a hell of a lot more to this game that makes it unique, I just wanted to focus on what I thought was a somewhat undervalued aspect of the game. Back to the original question then, what do you guys think? What ingredient of this game keeps it fresh so long after its expiration date?
3 words: potential for teamplay. Most if not all of the games are played I judge on the potential for co-operation (or teamplay) between players. An example would be that I play Battlefield over CS because it's a combined arms game, and if you want to do well you should (but it's battlefield so no one gives a shit) play together. Empires has the greatest potential (and most of the time it's just potential, unfortunatly) for teamplay in all the games I have ever played. This is also the reason why I am so surprised that people still play singleplayer games in 2016, and the reason why I get so pissed when teams won't co-op in Empires.
Empires is more about the complete package then anything else. Battlefield doesn't have building placements nor some dude running over everything in his giant monster truck. Minecraft doesn't have combat or tanks. Natural selections doesn't have tanks. Arma is too serious, slow, and placing stuff isn't really simple or fast. Empire is empires and that's why it's great. Though now that I think about it there was savage and tribes 2, but both of them were missing something too.
Well I wasn't, omneh was. But beyond placing buildings, not even where you'd like with minecraft, there really isn't anything similar.
The greatness of empires is playing for 3 whole hours and having fun during none of that time. I'm sure on another day I could think of something else about this game but that's all I got for now.
I tend to feel what makes Empires great is also what makes it highly abusable and broken in many ways. If you have players on the field that want to stay within the rules and play together, it can be great. If you don't, it can be shitty. It often is. But the level of trust implicit in even starting to play this game is actually immense. You're not going to steal and suicide the cv (by accident, of course), you're not going to wall in your team, you're not going to give away your teammate's position while sneaking to north on that same mvalley. You're going to be there for each other, cover each other, help each other, revive each other, and ultimately win together. The game actively makes you team up with your allies, and unlike a lot of other games, there's a moment, sometimes a pretty long one, where you know you did that shit together. You covered each other, you stuck with each other, you watched as your buddy took bullets for you and vice versa...and that just doesn't happen that often elsewhere. Empires just makes you feel that the guy next to you would have your back if shit really went down.
I can go out and get blackout drunk and then come home and shoot / shout incoherently at strangers for 2 hours and they shout back. It's just like being in the kebab shop but warmer and slightly less oily.
It's a combinaison of things, that you sometimes find in other games: - Large scale fighting (like Planetside 2) - Base building (like tremulous, Unvanquished, Natural Selection 2...) - Base building have an interior (haven't encountered any shooter game with this feature) - Actual 'extreme' teamplay via squads, and solving the 'choice' issues with having a commander giving orders (part of Tremulous, Unvanquished, part of 'SQUAD') - kind of unlimited buildings (i think they are, or i haven't encountered the limit yet, never seen any game of the same type with that feature, actually) - actually interesting tank battles (srsly i found WoT, PS2, warthunder tank stuffs to all be shit, but i love empires's) - engineers are useful (tf2) and i probably can go on for some time. The problem is that it is also probably its demise, since those features make for a really steep climb to actually get to the point where it is possible to play the game and to have fun.
Empires can be fun or frustrating depending mostly on how the team is communicating. Whilst there are defacto strategies and tactics there is a lot of emergent gameplay owing to the multiple win conditions and the evolving battlefield and tech tree. Squad composition is key and within that there are many different playstyles you must employ in a single round. Considering rounds can last a long time the pace is often frantic through out. Finally it is a skill based game in every facet. The situational awareness, communication, coordination and decision making required is only really surpassed in tactical shooters like ARMA, but it must all be done in seconds rather than minutes. Though large parts of the meta is open to debate about whether it is good for the game, theres no doubt there is some fun to be had there. As multilayer experiences go it is unique, though there are many games that have better mastered some elements of it, Empires remains the only one that has such a combination. With the right team it is still a very compelling mix, some flaws are endearing, others infuriating but there is nothing else like it and you cannot say that about many games.
youve never comm'd empires if you never reached the building limit - i always thought it was kinda low, i reach it every time i win as comm, now you come and call it unlimited, im confused :D this also is surprisingly true and i also coulnt put my finger directly on what this uniqueness is, its there though deffinately.
When playing Empires, I have the same felling playing Tremulous and I am glad that there are couple/few people that played Tremulous which makes me wonder if I will ever encounter people that I played that one day when I said to stop fighting between Alien and Human team thus we had fun in a different way... It was fun. What Empires makes great is its concept and potential, I wish it was more expanded and balanced...
Let's call it 'sufficient for gameplay', in comparison to Unvanquished, Tremulous (less this one, since map also felt smaller) or NS2 (i may be wrong there, only played it a short time) where it felt really limited really fast (at least for me).
You really do have to dial back your expectations in public games to have any fun. If I am focused on winning it is only a few rounds before I become an intolerable arsehole.
Hence the: "If you have players on the field that want to stay within the rules and play together, it can be great. If you don't, it can be shitty. It often is." Though I will say this, outside of testing of 1.8/ for 2.0, a lot of pub games I played with newbies on both teams were excellent. And I mean a *lot*. So I know people love to say that vets and skilled people make a good game, but tbh I've found a lot of experienced players troll or throw a game because they're so up themselves all they care about is winning. A bunch of newbies with an experienced comm and one or two vets on the ground makes for an awesome game. A lot more often.
Yep, the nice thing about all the new players is they still genuinely enjoy everything and go with the flow. Most of them follow orders once they understand them, Barking things like "defend the raw at s'bend" means nothing. I don't think I ever even looked at the minimap in the first month I played because it looked so confusing. Those Icons Yuk.
It's not newbs were excellent, it's because most players were still learning and were equally bad(good).
when i started playing there was only squares with no indication wheter its just an armory or your last rax being damaged.
