the WORST Empire building game youve ever played(Turn based or RTS) - Page 8

VetLegion · January 10, 2004, 15:00

This is a great thread and it is great to see many of you have really played some weird ones

If someone wants to transform his/her justified disgust with a particular title into something more constructive, you are wellcome to describe the abomination in the format of the table in my signature, and I will add it in for all to see.

DarkCloud · January 11, 2004, 22:18

The Rise and Rule of Ancient Empires... a civ type game. But so buggy that I couldn't play past day 1... It was released by Sierra in 1996-98 or something of the sort.

VetLegion, you might like to add it to your list

if anyone else has played it... as far as I'm concerned it's unplayable

Tamerlin · January 12, 2004, 06:31

As far as I am concerned all the Real Time Strategy games fall into the "bad game" category.

The only Turn Based Strategy game that have made me angry is Civilization 3, my greatest game related disappointment so far.

The Rusty Gamer · January 12, 2004, 08:14

What! Even with the latest add-on?

lord of the mark · January 12, 2004, 09:51

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The Rise and Rule of Ancient Empires... a civ type game. But so buggy that I couldn't play past day 1... It was released by Sierra in 1996-98 or something of the sort.

i played the demo - a boring civ clone, IIRC.

Qilue · January 13, 2004, 05:58

Civ:CTP tried to be a great game. The reality being a steaming pile.

I liked playing Civ3, then I bought Civ3:PTW, then I hated playing Civ3.

DrSpike · January 13, 2004, 06:24

But PTW made very little difference.

Qilue · January 13, 2004, 07:28

It did.

Pre-PTW, the game was stable and ran smoothly. After I installed PTW, it was unstable and clunky.

DrSpike · January 13, 2004, 07:37

I've not seen anyone else post about stability problems introduced in PTW.

The Rusty Gamer · January 13, 2004, 09:29

But I mrean the latest Conbquest add-on. That actually makes the game playable for single and multi now - plus the real power of creating scenarios.

Qilue · January 13, 2004, 09:40

Ah yes the old 'I'm-not-having-any-problems-so-it-must-be-you-fault' reply

. I received much the same response in the Civ3 forums when I asked about it.

Doesn't really matter, I'm going to spend my $50 on something other than another Civ3 addon.

DrSpike · January 13, 2004, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Qilue
Ah yes the old 'I'm-not-having-any-problems-so-it-must-be-you-fault' reply

. I received much the same response in the Civ3 forums when I asked about it.

Well if others experienced similar problems one would likely conclude the problem was with the game. But if one person does the conclusion should be that the problem is with your configuration or setup. Is that faulty logic? I don't think it is.

Just because you had problems with playing it doesn't make it the worst empire building game ever IMO.

Theben · January 14, 2004, 16:25

Like the 1st poster, I'll say Pax Imperia. That game sucked royally.

centrifuge · January 14, 2004, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Qilue
Civ:CTP tried to be a great game. The reality being a steaming pile.

I can think of a lot people that would disagree about this assessment

This is a common reply from people who expected it to be a civ2 clone.

Father Beast · January 18, 2004, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
The Rise and Rule of Ancient Empires... a civ type game. But so buggy that I couldn't play past day 1... It was released by Sierra in 1996-98 or something of the sort.

VetLegion, you might like to add it to your list

if anyone else has played it... as far as I'm concerned it's unplayable

I have to agree, Since That was my choice for worst. Save every turn because it'll probably crash, Micromanagement hell, pathetic help or documentation, no percievable point. I played for 50 turns with my teeth gritted, then let the AI do itself for another 200 turns while I watched. I could look at the other civs at any time IIRC, though maybe that was a cheat. in all that time, I never had any battles with my rivals. So I didn't get to see how badly that was done.

it burned itself onto my mind as the worst piece of strategy gaming I'd ever seen.

A lot of people on this thread cite disappointments instead of truly bad gaming. Like Civ3 wasn't all they hoped it would be.

But Rise & Rule was truly the worst I've ever played. What a pile!

VetLegion · January 18, 2004, 19:52

Actually I found it and tried it out.

It really is bad

The usual story, some good sounding concepts, some new to the genre, some innovative city solutions, but terrible gameplay. I played fifty turns or so on a big map and nothing happened, I never even met another civ. Then I played another couple dozen on a small map, and I didn't like it. ICS and overproduction of units. Combat has some interesting concepts, for example: unit gets a trait based on where the city that produced it was situated, so some troops are better at mountainous combat, some are better in deserts and so on. But the gameplay itself felt lousy, so I just took a few screenshots and that's it.

gopher · January 19, 2004, 14:32

How can anybody hate Ascendency?

The AI was bad, sure, but the features were so great!
A linear-based, interconnected Tech Tree, a massive number of buildings to put down (and they were very unique in the fact that the buildings could do a variety of stuff), the GREAT spaceship building (create the ship anyway you want, with the best refitting I have seen yet, except for MOO3

) etc.
Even with the AI, it was still a blast exploring the game and discovering it all.
And anybody who disagrees with me is obviously a Hugenot

vmxa1 · January 19, 2004, 16:53

Yes Ascendancy played well at the time as a sort of sand box game. They did make a "antag" version that has the AI hate you and was bit better.

The real pain is the massive micromanaging of tiles. When it first came out it had the best sounds and great looking ships. It was novel to be able to refit ships.

In short I liked it and it got good reviews at the time. Down side is the manual and guide were very poor and the AI was exteremly weak. Go Camanches, my fav race.

The Rusty Gamer · January 19, 2004, 19:32

And its amazing how great the graphcis were for a DOS game. Why don' the creators go back and redo it and fix the AI? It couldn't be that hard.

vmxa1 · January 19, 2004, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rusty Gamer
And its amazing how great the graphcis were for a DOS game. Why don' the creators go back and redo it and fix the AI? It couldn't be that hard.

Money I suspect. They have a web site called the logicfactory.
For a time it had a forum and they were working on AscendancyII. It was to be a MMORPG. It does not look like much has been done though.