‘i’m gonna use the worst lighting - map terrain contrast combination to prove my point for aoe3, while not even using the editor to show the units in aoe1 with a font that nobody ever uses because it can’t be read, while picking literally a wallpaper for aoe online, while i carefully put aoe2 units with a ton of space in between them, all facing the same direction so i can prove better aoe2’s “accessibility” is better’
Really man? Given that you took these images from the net, you could have done a better job of showcasing.
Yeah but we aren’t talking about now, we are talking about back then. Aoe3, when it was released, it was definitely a beast for most pc computers in 2006. I mean just take a look at it NOW. The reason for witcher not flopping is that more people are playing videogames in general now a days, look at twitch, esport competitive scene with milions of win for tournaments, news sites for gaming only, reddit’s users on gaming subreddit etc, you get it i think. Back then, it wasn’t like this.
Let me ask you a question, why do you think a sequel of a game is very popular or not that popular?
Don’t you see that AOE 2 is only more popular because of its timeline and only that ? Medieval fantasy and medieval games are more popular, that’s a certain thing (just ask people around you and ask google), so get along with it and stop trying to convince people that the game design is any better.
Why are you ignoring the sentence and shifting question? Did you understand the answer?
Also What makes you doubt it? The fact that you don’t like Aoe3 so everybody automatically should not like it? Knock Knock, you aren’t in the center boy.
Of course it depends nothing on the prequel, right? No, because people automatically assume that the sequel is great and gonna stay great because the prequel had absolutely no relevancy in their decision to even touch that game? Because we know that back in the days all these gaming focused online news paper were very active and people would watch them very closesly to know the games, right? And even when a prequel was bad, people would just give the sequel a try, right?
Now staying visible is just a matter of new content and updates.
AOE3 DE will not be so much different than the OG AOE3, there will be improvements, sure, but not a 100% overhaul
So the fanbase will not increase significantly
Way to miss the point
Not every sequel is better than the game before it
Which they tried the sequel of a very good game, but they seemed to still like the old game
A reality that some of the new game fans seem to not notice
Quality over quantity for me
You are the one bringing the Crysis argument here, dude
Crysis was popular anyways, even tho it was a beast back then too
So, you gonna tell me if HTDF gets a sequel, people will not pay attention to how horrible the first one was and then decide? I’m sure you believe that
Well guys, tomorrow we are going to see why AoE2 is the Superior game, people are simply going to vote with their wallets and AoE3 will clearly stay behind AoE2.
And that is definitely going to grant you a golden badge with the socially-respected title of “player of the superior game” that can be shown off to everyone, and Microsoft is going to give you a 5% share of the price for every copy of AOE2 they sold.
There isn’t really much point in this discussion as you should not compare two different games with each other nor it adds anything positive to community especially with toxic attitude of some AoE2 players.
isnt even true… and of course arshia just agrees with you for the sake of it
archers beat scouts. sword line can be beaten by skirms (example goth champs vs aztec skirms)
where are the knights? the game literally revolves around knights and archers, and you share a diagram excluding the 2nd most common unit in the game??
maybe share the RIGHT diagram showing how knights can beat absolutely everything shown there with the right micro/timing and at the SAME TIME a diagram showing archers beating everything except skirms. ffs fake news bruv doesnt prove your point
again its a case of familiarity vs clarity.
and “well done” on sharing stupid views of AOE3 units. bad skins and head on, as opposed to side views of the aoe2 stuff. on top of the condo, longsword, huskarl, berserk all looking as similar but sharign very different roles…
whatever man… how long are you going to keep trolling here?
Someone’s brilliant strategy, obviously inspired by some perfect medieval warfare standards: showing sth is simple and clear by removing a large portion of it.
Try adding monks and all the siege weapons and unique units and see if it looks clear and obvious to newcomers.
(Fun fact: the same person claimed AOE2 counter system is more intricate and has more depth than AOE3 just a few days ago, again, by throwing images without any justification or explanation)
And every time you make any counter-argument, they just keep falling back behind the good old argument of “AOE2 is more popular”, and go on repeating it as if it justifies everything they said.
Guys, I understand you really liked AoE3 or AoE Online, the problem is with the hiccups those games had, we won’t move forward by the genre. And those hiccups should really not show up by AoE4.
But honestly I am expecting the worse.
I only read the first few posts of this thread, as it was already clear where the arguments were going. So I’ll just give my take on the general subject of intuitiveness.
None of the AoE games are 100% intuitive or unintuitive, rather it’s a continuum, they each have intuitive and unintuitive elements. So if someone argues that AoE II is more intuitive than AoE III, that argument isn’t countered by giving examples of things in one or the other that are intuitive or unintuitive. What would be needed is an assessment of how intuitive every element is of each game.
I’ve never played III (but have bought III DE to try), so don’t have an opinion on this yet. I will say that I’ve always felt that the choice of the initial and final tech levels in II was extremely good for balance, and the game mechanics are broadly very intuitive in terms of progression during a game. I played a bit of Civilisation VI, for example (and also the first Civilisation back in the day), and I find the progression mechanics much more arbitrary. I also tried Starcraft II and found its mechanics for the aliens extremely arbitrary. The extent to which AoE II is intuitive has always been a huge part of its appeal for me (and that statement is not saying anywhere near all of it is intuitive, only that more of it is intuitive than other strategy games I’ve tried), so I’ll be interested to see what I think of III.
Kind reminder: someone (the video) first argues that AoE II is more intuitive than AoE III by giving examples of things in one or the other that are intuitive or unintuitive, before any counter-argument is made.
So maybe AoE3 could have had approached those issues?
Ok I understand if units do have to use same weapons, but there is so much to add to make them more clear different, like different colour template, or moving animation. Like hold weapon on shoulders and fire while stay, while the counter unit does Crouch down and holds by moving his gun in both hands.
