Nobody's yelling, Nakul, just adding our 0.02. Personally I've always preferred discussion - it's more productive and not so hard on the ears. None of this text is in caps or bold, even.
I like all of them, I've recently got AoK and I have reasons for liking it that are different from my reasons for liking AoE and RoR. I would have liked the ideas in RoR to have been included from the start, but they are good afterthoughts nonetheless.
What I like about AoK I'll save for the appropriate board, as and when I get into it a bit more. What I like about AoE (briefly) follows;
- The Culture. Ancient Civs battling, lots of room for good stories as well as duplicating history.
- Variety. Some strategy games don't have enough of it, others have none at all, you have the same abilities as a different player, you're just a different colour.
- It's different. There are few, if any, similarities to any other game of its kind. Warcraft has elements of it, but it's AoE I come back to.
- It's something I can actually praise Microsoft for, which has novelty value <beg>Bottom line? Anyone can take an idea and improve it, it's harder to be innovative. AoE is innovative. The whole argument about which is better out of AoE and AoK is pointless for that reason, I wouldn't be here without Dad either.
If you haven't done them yet, best of luck with the exams, Ingo.