Ensemble Studios released the sequel to their hit game, Age of Empires, in 1999. Subtitled The Age of Kings, Age of Empires II boasted a litany of marked improvements over its predecessor. (My favorite: female villagers!) It was also, critically and commercially, a success, garnering a Gamerankings average of 92 and selling 2.6 million copies over its lifespan. It's considered a classic by many RTS fans, and there are good reasons for this, but seen within a larger context, particularly one that includes StarCraft, it falters. Unlike Blizzard's world-shaking classic, Age of Empires II does not stand the test of time, and a look at the reasons for its post mortem failure will do much to inform us about the nature of quality in the RTS genre.

First and foremost, for a game so dependent on strategic planning and tactful execution, Age of Empires II demonstrates the importance of the user interface by delivering a poor one. Its biggest offense is failing to provide an attack-move command for units. It's a baffling omission, for reasons we will get to later, and also a frustrating one for a contemporary RTS player. There is simply no way to command your army to move to a location whilst defending itself from attack. Click a building, and your army will barrel through hell and high water to poke at it. Click the ground, and they will merrily march in formation to that exact location, even as their ranks are decimated by melée units.

To be fair, Ensemble Studios' grand claim to AI that never cheats means your computerized opponents have this same problem, and they will correct their commands even less often than you. What this means is that as your army is stupidly marching across France, you may very likely spot a counter-attack heading straight for your castle, and not blinking an eye at your invading force until they get there.

But there are other obsolete mechanics too, some of which were touted as features at the time to our amusement today. For instance, a new idle villager button that cycles through your lazy peons lacks a corresponding notification icon or number. This means you must continually click the button in order to monitor your peasants. Unless you have a keen sense of just when that gold mine on the other end of the map will run out, there is really nothing to indicate it's time to click that idle button. “Advanced” pathfinding, an improvement over the prequel to be sure, is still problematic, and the equally improved AI is still rather stupid. (See above.)

On the other hand, the game's historical setting sets it apart from the RTS games of today as much as it did at the time. Not only does the game leave out orks and elves, it also bases each and every one of its units on a historical equivalent (with some exceptions: fire ship, I'm looking at you!). The campaigns are also based on historical figures, which can be amusing at times when, for the sake of gameplay, you actually conquer the entire civilized world with Genghis Khan, whose empire only got into Western Europe after his death.

It is all rather cute to build paladins and hussars, but being able to control unique-sounding units doesn't amount to much when all viable military strategies boil down to one path: amass a load of cavalry and some siege weapons and go to town. The latter were required to break down stone walls and towers, which brings up another fact: the game encouraged and rewarded turtling, a practice that involved succeeding through base defense over military offense and was all but out of favor by the end of the millennium. While making for slower games, turtling itself is by no means a horrible strategy to encourage. Nonetheless, it does not make up for the lack of variety when it comes to military victories, and while turtling against a computer may be fun, breaking a turtle is much less so.

All of this criticism might seem unfair to heap on a game released last decade, and it would be if not for that silly little game called StarCraft, which was released in 1997. StarCraft has since sold something like 11 million units. Playing Age of Empires II explains why this is no fluke, no matter of simply being in the right place at the right time with the right marketing. You see, StarCraft has an attack-move command, which makes Age's lack thereof, two years later, fairly indefensible. In addition, the sci-fi hit also featured a well-written single player campaign with memorable characters, unlike the stale campaigns of Age. To top it all off, there is no such strategy as “cavalry-siege” in StarCraft. In fact, the game's strategy layer is so deep, college courses are taught on it. It seems that Blizzard's secret sauce was not an accident but attention to detail. But which game are we reviewing now?

So perspective is a funny thing. Age of Empires II was released to critical acclaim and was cherished for its unique, medieval setting. Today, it's hard to give it the former, and the latter is just about the only praise it can be given. On the upside, the expansion pack did add things like farms that replant themselves and workers who go to work after building resource centers. I'd be lying if I said they didn't excite me as I moved swiftly through my backlog from Age of Kings to Conquerors. So, perspective. Funny thing, isn't it?