That Age of Empires is superior to Empire Earth

I apologize for missing the dead-line on my previous argument and will now refute my opponent's argument from Round 1. My opponent presents the same opinionated argument to the table, leaving me with little to refute upon. 1. Here, my opponent again states that complexity equals a greater gamer, which is, as I have stated previously, not how everyone would see it. "I don't know of a single player who'd prefer to play a dumbed down version of Age of Empires to Age of Empires, and for good reason! " My opponent uses the term, "Dumbed-Down" here and I disagree with how he uses it. Empire Earth and Age of Empires are of the same genre and similar gameplay, but comparing them background-wise is like comparing, say, Halo with Call of Duty. You just don't do it. Age of Empires games always lurk upon a single era of gameplay, whether that be the Iron Era (Age 1), the Medieval Era (Age 2) or the Colonial Era. (Age 3) Yes, you can "age up" but really all that does is introduce a few new, similar time-era units, and make the buildings look fancier. With this single Era gameplay, however, comes greater detail into that particular part of history. Empire Earth, however, presents gameplay spanning from the Stone Age to the Space Age. (or whatever EE3 may have, I can't really remember at the moment. .) With this comes hundreds of units from a caveman to a mutant. 2. Here, Pro refutes the argument with the expansion packs. Here, he says "game studios all the time come up with alternative reasons to expand their existing titles" then fails to list any. While this may be self-explanatory for the geniuses in the audience, not all people may be able to come up with these ideas. I believe, however, the main reason that developers introduce Expansions is to "extend the scope" of the game, overall. Take Age of Empires 3: The Asian Dynasties, this introduces hundreds of new units, new maps, and three new civilizations. Same with Empire Earth: Art of Conquest (I realize we are not debating the first of the series but I am using these as references as you will see) or Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. .. Is this not extending the scope of the gameplay? 3. Here, he says that Age won a "Yahoo user award" but most importantly, pro says that EE's sountrack has been described as mediocre. .. I guess he did not see the link to IGN praising Empire Earth's music? As for the Yahoo USER award, I implore my opponent to paste the link to that particular webpage. 4. This entire point pro attempts to make here is an evident opinion and I wouldn't even count it as relevant, but I will refute nonetheless. My opponent starts off by stating some obvious reasons why he feels Age is highly replayable. "First, because the game is played on a random map in Age of Empires 3, the game is different every time" Here, pro makes the observation that Age contains Random Maps, "skirmishes" in AoE3. wait, doesn't EVERY real-time strategy contain a random map one way or another? From Age of Empires to Empire Earth, to RoN to Warcraft; every one has their own version customed with their own maps. Then pro talks about the civilizations and other goodies of Age of Empires. The fact of the matter is, however, that Empire contains civilizations too, and so does every other RTS. Age may contain more, but most are simply identical with a few unique units. --------------------------- Overall, My opponent's argument is simply a re-hash of previous ideas with nary added ideas.