3 STRIKES. Something stinks in the AoE franchise management

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Listen, this is not about just one game or one DLC, this is about the franchise as a whole.

1st strike = Cancelling AoE III promised DLC and virtually all of the future support, bug fixes and balance changes

2nd strike = botched AoE IV undercooked DLC which has roughly 1/4 content of the previous DLC

3rd and final strike = messed up the proclaimed biggest DLC for AoE II, with civs out of AoE II time frame (that if anything should be in Chronicles) instead of fan-favourite Tibetans, Tanguts and Bai + introduction of heroes for ranked play

Hear me out more. This is my Steam library:

image
image511Ă—365 58.2 KB

Up untill the AoE IV DLC: Knights of Cross and Rose, I’ve owned every single game and every single DLC in AoE franchise (yes, even animated icons for AoE II, yes, even hero pack for AoE III).

I’ve played hundreds of hours across the whole franchise, trying to not judge any and discover the game’s own unique perks and interesting stuff.

I’ve also completed every achievement in every game with the exception of AoE II sitting at 52 % and yet to be done (It feels the most time consuming).

Why am I saying this, I was always advocating basically anything devs rolled out for us , even if it was controversial or even poorly accepted by the community.

List of controversial stuff, poorly done things or just sad outcomes:

1. AoE IV released to soon with problems (should have been in development for 1-2 more years)

2. AoE I DE doesn’t exist (but they kinda tried I guess, included in Wololo tourneys)

3. AoE I/II Return of Rome - personally I like it, but plenty of OG campaigns are missing and multiplayer is dead + Romans in the main game (but again, included in Wololo - some effort made)

4. AoE II Animated Icons - I thought it’s a good way to support the devs

5. AoE III Hero Pack Cosmetics - yet again, I gladly support the devs for more content and DLCs in AoE III (yikes!)

6. AoE II Victors and Vanquished - reused free campaigns, worst rated playable DLC across the franchise (33.82 % on Steam), even though some mechanics were gimmicky or scenarios too long, I liked it anyway, they added voice over and little bit of polish

7. AoE IV Anniversary Edition - they were forced to include 2 free civs because of a very poor start of the game (good call)

8. AoE IV Sultans Ascend - some say the concept of variant civs is lazy and there was no documentary in campaigns like before

9. AoM RE - it had big out of sync problems at release for quite a long time (I think it discouraged a lot of new people to never come back), devs worked on it though, done tons of job, plenty of QoL improvements (seemed promising this could be transferred to AoE III as well to make it better too - same engine)

Up until this point, even though most of the above things were controversial or somewhat problematic, I was still firmly standing behind the franchise.

In the meantime, they also did some generally well-received stuff:

1. AoE II - Battle for Greece

2. AoM Retold - overall it’s an amazing game

3. AoM Immortal Pillars DLC - again very well made

4. AoE II - new skins for units, castles, monks etc. and huge patch of improvements

5. Playstation release for AoM and upcoming for AoE II

But this leads us to the beginning of the post.

AoE III - cancelled, no DLC, no support, no bug fixes, no nothing (F you!) they lied to us when introducing the civs and then lied to us for another whole year. Then just said “Oh well, we lied to you, you’re dead, see ya never”. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. What the hell is wrong with you?

If you’re too busy with other releases at the moment and overwhelmed, it’s understandable god dammit, you could just postpone the DLC for late 2026 for example, I would be fine with it, but don’t abandon this game, especially the way you did it, this is not Age of Empires franchise worthy!

AoE IV DLC - worst rated DLC in AoE IV rather short history, there are 2 VARIANT civs (which were already somewhat problematic before), 4 weird short scenarios, no campaign, basically nothing new, nothing original, only recycled stuff from other games (points of interest - AoE III), all this (I’m sorry) low effort for the price as the previous DLC, this is not acceptable either

AoE II The Three Kingdoms - Well, we all expected Jurchens, Khitans, Tanguts, Tibetans and Bai, it’s a shame they went a different direction, but it still would be understandable. What is not understandable though, picking ancient not even civs (variants of Chinese only!) and putting them not in Chronicles where they belong, but to ranked play. And not only that, introducing heroes like we are gonna play Warcraft III (guess why Viper started practicing that). WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? AGAIN. Sorry, but this is absolutely not acceptable, again.

What are you even doing, are you even listening to the community?! It is okay to experiment a little, but what is too much is too much.

Things “stolen” from other games through the years:

AoE II: Mule Cart for Armenians and Georgians = stolen from AoM (Ox Cart for Norse)

AoE IV: Points of Interest = stolen from AoE III (Treasures)

AoE II: Heroes for ranked play = stolem from AoE III, Warcraft III

AoE II Chinese variant civs = stolen from AoE IV

AoE II new chicken animals = stolen from AoM

AoE IV landmark feature = stolen from AoE III (China, Japan, India advance through landmarks)

AoE II aura buffs = stolen from AoE IV

AoE IV Pit Mine/Ovoo = stolen from AoE III

AoE IV manor = stolen from itself by pushing two houses together

AoE II pastures, AoE IV cattle ranch and pastures = III

AoE IV advancing through Kingdom of Poland etc. = very resembles revolutions from AoE III

AoE II melee/range mode for units = stolen from AoE III

AoE II oysters (getting gold on sea) = stolen from AoE III (whales)

Aoe IV Ottomans’ vizier points = stolen from AoE III (card system)

AoE IV Byzantines Mercenary house = stolen from AoE III (Natives, mercenaries)

AoE IV Byzantines Olive Oil = stolen from AoE III (Export, influence)

There’s definitely even more instances.

I’m not saying all of this is necessarily bad and there can’t be any overlap, it’s okay to experiment A LITTLE, but god dammit, don’t present some features as revolutionary, when they’re already in a different game!

AoE I = AoE I

AoE II = AoE II

AoE III = AoE III

AoE IV = AoE IV

AoM = AoM

It’s that simple, keep the games how they’re supposed to be with their own uniqueness, that’s the reason people have been playing them for many many years, everyone would greatly appreciate any proper DLC, support or quality content for their beloved game of the franchise, so encourage it, make it happen, support all the games, treat them equally, care for them, don’t try to make one weird blend of everything into one.

Because you have dedicated and passionate playerbase in each of this title, that’s what makes the AoE franchise the best in the world (at least according to my opinion), don’t waste it, care for all of the games, care for the fans, care for their opinions, don’t lie to us, don’t alienate them by asking opinion and then doing the exact opposite or something that nobody wants, that doesn’t make any sense. Please be reasonable.

I’m done.

And don’t forget, this franchise has 5 GAMES.

AGE OF EMPIRES I: DEFINITIVE EDITION

AGE OF EMPIRES II: DEFINITIVE EDITION

AGE OF EMPIRES III: DEFINITIVE EDITION

AGE OF EMPIRES IV: ANNIVERSARY EDITION

AGE OF MYTHOLOGY: RETOLD

Please care for all of them with respect to the fans and players. Then we can also respect you and your (mostly) amazing work.

37 Likes
2

Overall I agree with most of your points, but your arguments on things devs “stole” from other games is quite stupid. I’m glad ensemble studio put production buildings, technologies or bows in aoe2 after they released aoe1.
So I’m glad they took things like pastures from aoe3, if it’s fitting in aoe2.
The issue is things like heroes, or the weird settings. I don’t care that they took these features from aoe3, warcraft 3 or fortnite, the issue is that they have no place in aoe2.

20 Likes
3

I still think both AoE3 Factory and AoE2 Feitoria are based on AoM’s Plenty god power so I don’t think they’re “stolen”.

4

how the hell can you steal chickens?

8 Likes
5

One major mistake they did is overextending on too many games. They spread their resources on too many fronts, also dividing their players (most won’t play all…).

AOE4 should have been in antiquity and not in a frontal collision with AOE2, to then keep AOE2 medieval and AOE3 modern. Ditch AOE1 which never took off, and with AOE4 in antiquity no need for RtR and Chronicles.

9 Likes
6

Nitpicking about minor features taken there and there… do you realise what AOE2 “stole” from AOE1 in the CD version ? It’s an issue when they try to force heroes into standard games (which changes the gameplay significantly), not when they add chicken or give some civs a small bonus that feels like a thematic reskin.

7

I don’t think that is bad at all. They are the same developers why should they not be allowed to copy their own work?

Those are animals from real life!
What is next? Complaining that all games have trees?

I don’t think that’s an issue at all. I think the opposite even. The games are too different in some ways especially visually.
I think there should be more visual continuation between the different games in the Franchise.
AoE3 takes part after AoE2 so why don’t AoE3 early game units look more like AoE2 late game unit? It would make it feel like you are progressing from where you left of.

1 Like
8

The Franchise has been in a decline since 2022. That’s the year AOE3 de facto died (although they didn’t bother telling us until now) and when the last great traditional DLC for AOE2 was released. AOE2 has had 5 new DLCs in this past 3 years, only Mountain Royals has been a “classical” one (with new medieval civs for multiplayer). And even that felt like a downgrade from previous DLC. The other 4 DLCs have all been being weird experimental things (with only Battle for Greece really been well received). It’s like they don’t know what to do with this game.

16 Likes
9

i have no faith in franchise other than Chronicles. If that goes away then im done with this game forever. Let’s hope they make Chronicles series into perfection with better quality civs and SP contents. One day getting Chronicles civs into ranked itself.

10

To the lots of stuff “stolen “ I would say
1 - Most of the features used from one game to another are from AoE 3, shocking I know considering it is thought of as out of place.
2 - Using mechanics from other games is fine nothing wrong with that but don’t act like they are new and innovative. Case in point AoE 4 when the devs literally said it was innovative to have troops throw torches at buildings when AoE 3 did it in 2005. Don’t know if the original AoM did it first or not. And landmark age up again from AoE 3 ported over to AoE 4 then they act like they are so clever with this “new mechanic “

2 Likes
11

I really wonder how the strategy for a DLC is made and how they do customer targeting.
One year ago the whole forum hyped itself for a big multi civ China DLC. Except the Dali, all civs that we speculated this year again were clearly visible as fan favorites.
Now when they announced 5 civs, it was quite easy to come to the 5 surrounding civs of China.

Nobody ever wanted 3 kingdoms and if someone came up with a 3k concept, it was very bad received.

So I really think it’s like in my company. Some high management makes the decisions and thinks he knows best without considering adwise.

I am sure the devs did their best. All the new units are awesome and jurchen look perfect. The tangut just have the wrong name but I could live with that. The 3k campaign for sure is well made.
I just wished for Tibetans and a real China + neighbors campaigns.
3 kingdoms as chronicles DLC would have been perfect as a second DLC, and nobody would have minded that.
Sadly we now have a messy mix.
Maybe later the 3Ks feel like the Romans as the start of the medieval times for China, but currently it feels wrong.

7 Likes
12

It always is the case. They chase the money they see (what’s popular in chinese history ? The 3K !!!) without thinking long-term by giving the customers what they ask for (and it’s especially easy here, just look at what’s well received in forums)

Perfect opportunity to quote Laozi : “if you chase money you won’t find it, if you ignore money you will get it”. They happen to chase money first…

1 Like
13

Oh God I wish this guy was right

14

To some degree it is, if you cut too much corners you’ll eventually lose your customers to a competitor who focuses on making a good product.

Laozi is the counterweight to Confucius (who’s all about tradition & hierarchy) in chinese philosophy, the key is finding the right balance.

1 Like
15

Confucius also said, gentleman also seek for money, but they get money in a sensible way.

3 Likes
16

Yes, greed must be kept on a leash to be used productibly and become a force for good instead of leading to cannibalistic behaviours. Most good philosophers (not that 19th century lazy german guy…) would agree to that.

1 Like
17

would be true if copyright wasn’t a thing. because then someone could simply make AoE2 but actually good. abolish copyright!

2 Likes
18

I mean I remember after v&v launched proposing to monetise mods but everyone told me to search for a job and a psychiatrist lol. So no I think passion doesn’t bring you anywhere, cutting corners do. Life is cruel etc.

1 Like
19

You can’t make an AOE under that name but you can make a RTS that is quite close, after all compare games in other genres it’s often very close (how is this racing game different from that racing game ?)

But making a new one is hard.

1 Like
20

passion only brings you far as long as people demand what you’re offering. so ultimately everything depends on people’s demands and standards. in a free market at least. there are plenty companies and organizations that only manage to exist because the government steals money from people and then redistributes it.