10 Reasons AoE2:DE is so bad

On that note - I have a SERIOUS complaint. The lack of options for creating/sharing AoE 2 DE custom made campaigns and scenarios. There is NO Steam workshop. There is NO in-built function to post campaigns “within” the game. Ywt, there is the option for mods? :smiley:


Expansions = Good.

The difference is NOT about the “connotations” associated with each word.

The difference is that an expansion, has “a lot” more ccontent than a simple “LDC”.

For reference - A DLC should contain, as much content, as to be approximately 25% of the total content, contained with the base game. :smiley:

DLC and expansions is the same thing. No one is asking for microtransactions.
You no longer buy disks is this day an age, so all expansions are Downloadable Content by default.

1 Like

Too much can actually make a game too broad. Which could lead to failure. Just take a look at Empire Earth 1. :smiley:

If a game contains “too much” information, as to be “tedious”, then no one, will want to play it. :smiley:

1 Like

Good thing AoE2 has a simple flat Tech Tree, that is higly adaptable, instead of being riddled with unique elements, is it not?

1 Like

AOE 1 DE was made by Forgotten Empires and Tantalus.
AOE 2 DE was made by Forgotten Empires, Tantalus and Wicked Witch.
AOE 3 DE is being made by Forgotten Empires, Tantalus and Wicked Witch.
AOE 4 is being made by Relic.

You can check developers of 1 and 2 DE from Steam store pages.

Yes. And most people would infer that DLC refers “$5 horse armour”.

The word DLC is far too “broad”. :smiley:

No, most people have become comfortable with the term “DLC”, specially in AoE2.
All of the HD expansions were DLC, and are called DLC.


I just checked. That is correct. However, i am sure that i saw an announcement somewhere from the “World’s Edge” devleopment team which oversees all the studios, stating, that each studio was working on those games as i had previously stated. :smiley:

I cannot find the original website where i found this article. However here is a link with the quote i was referencing, in it.

“We do have an internal team but we’re really providing oversight to our wonderful development partners–our team at Forgotten Empires that made Age of Empires: Definitive Edition and is working on Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition, but we also have a group in Australia–Tantalus Media–that’s working on Age of Empires III,” Isgreen explained.

“We have Relic up in Vancouver. But they’re also helping each other out with all the games, too. Our role at Microsoft is to enable these great developers to make Age products and to be the overseers and the ones making sure that we’re on-message and on-brand for delivering what we believe to be great Age of Empires experiences. They’re accessible, for all ages and you may learn something about history whether you want to or not. That kind of approach, a game that’s accessible that is really meant for a large audience, across the world. We have a wonderful userbase from all across the globe that plays Age of Empires games every month and we want to make sure we can bring everybody in, not just from specific cultures.”

The first paragraph would, by thr particular phrasing used, imply that each development studio is working on each game separately. However, the beginning of the second paragraph indicates, however, that there is “some” collaboration between each studio, probably for outsourcing to each, various difficulties in each teams development. However, the way it is phrased, implies, that at least, MOST of each game, was made alone. Without there being any significantly major contributions from the other development studios. :smiley:

Flat tech tree? I was not speficially referring to “just” the tech tree.

In fact. Empire Earth 1, had NO tech tree. It simply allowed a player to choose a certain number of bonuses at the beginning of the game using a total of 100 points. Then it only allowed for a unit to have their stats upgrade while being clicked on a particular unit. It would actually be classified as “less information”, and thus “less tedious”, if you were going to ONLY compare the “tech tree” to those specific “elements” i just mentioned. :smiley:

Yes, it is aa very basic Tech Tree that is accessible to all civs, with a few cutouts.

I do not get why Microsoft did not also add the “Age of Chivalry” mod to the AoE 2 HD (2013) release. :smiley:

Age of Chivalry replaces a lot of civs, and makes them all much more unique, which is a balance nightmare.

1 Like

Lol. Yes. And once again, when i was referring to “too much information”, was not referring to just the tech tree. For example, a new type of building, also “counts” as “new information”. Too much information in a game, is not always a good thing.

Put it like this:

Narrower focused game = more specific market focus.

Broader focused game = less specific market focus.

Ideally, a developer would want to reach an equilibrium (of sorts). Otherwise, you would end of with an impossibly difficult game to balance; Such as an FPS where 1 team has machine guns, and the other team has “swords”. Simply because the developer wanted to “broaden the focus” to “both” those who like FPS and thoes who like “medieval”.

Just to be clear. I quite probably made a terrible explanation. Although hopefully i conveyed the concept accurately enough. :smiley:

I know. I was just thinking about how the buildings looked "cool. :smiley:

Of course. Although, it could always be added as a “mod”, whereby it would not interfere with ranked/unranked “normal” games. :smiley:

Not necessarily impossible though. Just take a look at Starcraft 2. Although, admittedly, Starcraft 2 only has 3 races. Whereas, AoE 2 approximately 20 or more. :smiley:

Starcraft 2 has just pushed one of it’s 3 races out of tournaments for a whole year, thanks to constant nerfing.
Zerg is teh dominant race by far, and has so high a win rate, that even Zerg por-players say it is favoured and cannot be beaten unless tehy amke a mistake.

Starcraft 2 is much more unbalanced than Starcraft 1 is.

I have not heard of that.

Yet, the point still stands. It can be done. You could still just substitute Starcraft 1 for Starcraft 2. Then just repeat everything i just stated, previously. :smiley:

Also, the developers could possibly do a better job at balancing the 3 different races, so that zerg are not as dominant.

The concept is called Asymmetrical balance. AoE 2/HD/DE uses "Symmetrical balance (mostly), except for their unqiue units, and the civs which lack certain units. However it is still mostly Symmetrical. :smiley:

Except that Starcraft 2 is being used to prove that assymetrical balance is neither optimal, not stable, in a moder RTS, with mechanics players have come to expect.

Assymetric balance between 35 civilizations would be impossible.