Recently I've started to "expand my horizons" and look at series that I'd never considered in the past (ie Spellforce... and I really want to thank all who posted their thoughts to that thread!)... especially series that have what I'd consider above-average playtime. Now I'm looking at Age of Wonders...

Anyone out there play Age of Wonders? If so, what did you think of the games / series? Gameplay good? Lore worthwhile?

I thought the old games especially Shadow Magic were great, basically like Heroes of Might and Magic except without all the weird resources.

#3 is very good as well and will feel the most modern. I have not played Planetfall enough to have an opinion.

I only played AoW3, but I had to abandon it because the stages were crafted with rush strategies in mind, and any standard or defensive strategies weren't viable (or at least viable a normal human time scales) because the enemy would ramp so much so quickly. But your OP might make you think that long play time is an important trait to you.

I liked it until the 3rd level like that in a row, then stopped.

And then its multiplayer is DRMed, even so-called "LAN play" isn't, but is validated through the matchmaking servers and requires accounts and Internet connections.

(Which if you do like long stages, make sure you've played Dungeon Keeper 1+2, and then Dungeons 2.)

I think the original Age of Wonder and Age of Wonder: Shadow Magic have a lot going for them.

The original Age of Wonder is more barebone and probably less balanced than Shadow Magic, but is a different game (very different vibe) and totally worth playing.

Age of Wonder: Wizard's Throne was good, but unlike the original AoW, it was completely superceeded by Shadow Magic (its almost the same game, but with less things). If you want to follow the story, you still got to play Wizard's Throne though for continuity.

I haven't played AoW 3 or any of the games that came later yet.

So, in terms of overall story and vibe, the original is the best game in the series for me, but in terms of pure gameplay, Shadow Magic takes the cake... taking into account I haven't tried AoW 3 yet.

I only played AoW1, but I quite liked it. Nice midi music too.

Btw, AOW3 for some reason seems to always have the same average discount on Gog, even after many years. Also, there's no fulll pack

Yes, I've often done similar with these types of games. Thanks for the detailed rundown. So -- if I'm reading correctly -- Shadowmagic is scaled back experience but the most satisfying gameplay?

I like them. Good strategy with diverse ways to play and not too complicated or hard to learn.

To be fair, not everyone agrees with that sentiment I've expressed and said that they never experienced the issue I described. (Maybe they're just always-rush players? ;))

Yeah, a bit of that going around GOG these days. Still, seems like there's a fair amount of gameplay for the recently discounted sale price, yes? Well, I'm primarily a defensive player... so I've found a few of these types of games outside of my usual playstyle. I know the feeling.

No, it's just that it seems like a pretty normal game, as far as 4X goes. My only complaint is that the top-tier units are kind of OP; the earlier games seemed like high-level units were still fairly vulnerable to lower ones with the right strategy.

I'd say Shadow Magic is a more modern game. However, I get more of a campy laid back vibe from the graphics and the way the story is presented. Without saying that it is like a cartoon (it really isn't), I'd still say it feels a little more cartoonish.

In the original AoW, it feels more like you are playing an epic in the vain of Lord of the Rings.

I own all the AoW series but can only get in to Planetfall, found previous games boring though I like the theme. Planetfall is a perfect game if you're in the mood for a sci-fi TBS.

Just played the "classic" trilogy, reviewed WT and SM.

Tend to agree that the first one is the best in terms of the overall "feel", but the sequels definitely improved on the gameplay. Not having the "wizard", so the heroes have to cast, severely limited magic in the first, for one. And there's also the lack of a combat turn limit, which can force you to lose fights and units because otherwise the game softlocks basically (you're left with unit(s) that can't defeat the enemy but are too fast to be caught and killed, in later games you can run around until the turn limit and get a draw, in the first you need to lose to end combat).
WT has the weakest story but the strongest heroes, can be played more like an RPG, some are bothered by that, I definitely am not. It also has a very exploitable AI, and no ship AI, so have a body of water between you and the enemy and you're safe, and there's a spell that slowly floods the map, so go figure. But great for defensive minded players, with some good magic and fortifications and a lot of care the large majority of the time a town can be defended with two neutral monks, admittedly in good part also thanks to the laughable siege AI. Can be hard even so, and at the end it definitely is, but still struck me as fair.
SM brings a bunch of changes, good and bad. Some more story and even atmosphere, but tries too hard to be funny and that doesn't fit. Somewhat better AI, some new mechanics and features... But much weaker heroes, added limitations to units that were OP before (again, many would probably like these, but for playing the campaign against the computer, not so good). But my main problem with it was the automatic surrender. If an army faces overwhelming odds, it'll automatically surrender, even when defending a city and even when attacking (!), so you can attack an enemy and your units will surrender. So no way to defend cities with a couple of units anymore, no way to grind for exp on weak enemies, no way to soften enemies with weaker attacks, or hold them back with draws obtained with weak but fast units that can keep running away...

In the end, depends what you prefer. Pros and cons to each.

I also played only the first three and quite some time ago at that. From what I remember first one was the most fun for me, although storywise it wasn't so good. I'd definitely play all of them from the beginning if I were you, in fact now that I think about it I may try AoW3 when I get the chance.

Later ones suffered from what I call 3dism, so widespread in the early 2000s, namely the process of turning games with easy to look at 2d graphics into hard-on-eyes early 3d. Heroes of Might and Magic suffered from that too, especially the fourth one which came out roughly at the same time as AoW 2 and SM.

To answer your questions, yes, gameplay definitely good, lore absolutely worthwhile.

AoW:SM is surely one of the games I've sunk the most hours into. Years ago, a friend and I spent many nights playing these games, starting with the first, then proceeding to WT and finally SM. Personally I think they're great, although I must confess I've never tried the solo campaigns. I'd like to nowadays, but they tend to take so much time...
I remember that "campy" feeling of SM, which was especially to be found in some heroes' biographies.
I've always loved the graphical style and the soundtracks.
As you might guess, I have a strong nostalgic feeling for these games, so take my words with a grain of salt.
That friend was so taken with them, I still remember him checking frantically on the Triumph Studios website for some news on an upcoming AoW 3 that had already been announced, then bitterly concluding from the lack of updates that the project had been abandoned. It would have been published only years later. I've never played it, nor Planetfall.