I mean, I say that with zero intent of offending or make fun of anyone, but it’s true.
You see threads all the time (and Reddit posts) of folks saying that AoE4 matches are too long, that there’s too much visual clutter, that villagers and other units should do more tasks automatically, that resource collection points are unnecessary, etc. That’s just the reality of this generation of new players. I’ve gone around the sun 41 times. I played AoE1 when it was brand new. I’ve seen the trends come and go.
We are now in a stage where RTS live in this weird spot where you need to spend upwards of an hour playing and can’t pause and can’t disconnect and people don’t have that long anymore, either because they’re busy or their social networks become more enticing or simply because they lose interest. These are different times where Fortnite, Overwatch, Minecraft, etc. very simple games graphically and mechanically, are king.
I completely understand the direction AoE4 went for (weird, the forum is banning the past tense of “take”) I definitely don’t support it.
Indeed. On a somewhat related note, this is also why many predict in 5 years time music albums won’t be a thing instead bands will just release single after single. As I music lover I am utterly dismayed by the prospect. I hate it.
Change and newness are always sold to people as good things but more often than not it isn’t in my experience. As the wicked old early 30s millennial yells at the clouds.
As far as AoEIV is concerned I’m no longer interested in regurgitating bygone rants. I can live with the updated AoE2 gameplay formula but the thing that drove me away from AoEIV was the visual presentation (graphical details, animations, unit models, etc,) and missing QoL features.
You combine AoE2 gameplay that everybody knows and most love with AoE3’s attention to detail and you have one hell of an AoE game on your hands. I wish I could have gotten in the devs ear. I think AoEIV nailed the civ design.
The fact Relic is now taking inspiration from AoE3 is a good sign and one that has already bore fruit. I don’t know how much they can do to address those aforementioned issues but I do hope AoEIV has a long enough life cycle where it can achieve it’s potential because I do think beyond some lingering things it does have substance. I like some of the gameplay mechanics such as being able to bring a killed deer back to the safety of your base, etc. Masteries are wonderful and very engaging to players that want to learn.
I look at how cool many of the Landmarks are and how much flavor they add to the overall experience. AoEIV has the bones AoE2 but the challenge now is giving it the heart of AoE3, AoM, and AoEO while making sure it retains its own identity. We don’t need a Frankstetin AoE but an AoE that can grow up to be big and strong. like it’s siblings.
In AOE-3, in addition to this, cannon shells sound different when they hit cliffs or when they hit water, and troops when they fall into the water also feel like they hit the water.
When you attack the town center in AOE-3 you hear voices panicking.
If you have to phrase what you think of players based on your perception of the game, that’s a value judgement. You can rationalise it however you want, but I doubt I’d be looked on nicely being as critical of people who like III or Online, for example.
I spent an hour on the mission to York. I don’t think that was hitting my short attention span Not that I play Fortnite either (not that I’m particularly against it). There’s a skill curve in those games that isn’t apparent to people who don’t play them, but this isn’t the thread for that.
It’s just kinda funny to see people my age or older indulging in what amounts to “dem kids” arguments. Judge the game, not the players. We all get our kicks differently. I’m 34, with two young kids. I’m permanently exhausted. Making time for RTS games is difficult, but it has nothing to do with other games and the direction they’re going in. I already spent my time in Overwatch (though uh graphically simple is not how I’d describe it, but I guess the link between “not realistic” and “simple” is a hard assumption to break with certain folks). Nevermind something like Apex.
I have games for short bursts. I have games that I play for longer stretches. I play both of these types of pacing and more.
Y’all should be a bit more open to things that aren’t obvious stereotypes, haha. The design shift in video games isn’t because of short attention spans. But there are games that cultivate and weaponise short feedback loops to maximise “engagement” and potential revenue.
The players aren’t different. But we are being conditioned differently. There’s a reason big publishers employ psychologists to find the best way to game players, after all.
Yeah, in fact, the dlcs of AoE 4 are maked by the AoE 3 team of Forgotten Empires,that’s why the civs have several mechanics of these game (Ottomans have visier points aka cards of shipments and the Malians have automatic mines (Ethiopians Monasteries of AoE 3) and automatic corrals with cattle (Mexicans Haciendas)…
Really depends. I’m 33 now and already felt very uncomfortable with having a game that extended 15 minutes in the early 2000’s. Nothing has changed in that matter. I’d even say its the other way around: For RTS standards AoE games have always had quite long matches. Just look at EE, WC3, SC1-2 and C&C. They are very quick compared to AoE and have all been very successfull. For me the sweet spot would have been somewhere between AoE3/AoE2 and SC2.
Check at Dota2 where typical match is 40 minutes, everybody is fine.
It’s all depends on pace of the game.
Aoe2 games can be really long, and it’s bad cause if it is 1hour+ (ingame timer!) it means trash wars (pikes vs pikes) which a little bit boring.
But also it can be amazing, if players attacked each other from the start. They can have ~50 vils at 60 minute mark(it’s super low number), but game is fun and interesting cause it’s developing and players continue to play.
Sorry, but sc2 is more Tactic than Strategy. It’s fine to execute tactic in 20 minutes and win or loose.
But to play Strategically, I think it’s not enough time.
Long session can be tiring.
I think length is less than 25 minutes (in avg) will be short for strategy and result into SC2 “more tactic approach”.
and aoe2’s average is around ~30min I believe (in real time) ~50 minutes (ingame)
overall, game length != success, there are still games with long session but successful.
There’s a reason I mentioned WC3, EE, etc. because those games are quite similar to the AoE series. MOBA’s are already a different beast so what works for them doesn’t neccessarily work for RTS. Watch uthermal and harstem on youtube if you want to go into detail with the strategic decision making during a high level SC2 match.
On topic: I don’t want to turn this into one of those endless AoE vs SC2 discussions. My point is that there has always been a large portion of RTS players that liked games with a shorter match length as well.
The secret site has a 10-minute timer, and if there are at least two comebacks during the game, it will extend the game by around 15 minutes, which is longer than the gameplay of SC2.
If you remove castles from AOE4, the game length will significantly decrease, and the player who gains a tactical advantage is more likely to win.(sc2 gameplay without defensive structures)
There is a lot to discuss, but to summarize:
SC2 fans are accustomed to short gameplay without comeback mechanics, objectives, or defensive structures, resulting in long games being a boring stale game.
In AOE2 and AOE4, you have to fight for resources and mistakes can be forgotten cause defensive structures. Same in Dota - a buyback option.
Therefore, longer sessions work for these games but not for SC2.
In short: long game works fine for thousands of aoe2 and dota2 players cause it’s mechanics.
It does not work for sc2, cause it have different mechanic.
I do not see there an “urgent” request for “shorter” games, but rather for more varied gameplay in long sessions.
PS everyone say that sc2 is more tactic than strategy. w3 is more micro. and aoe2 is more macro&strategy in comparison (does not mean other games do not have strategy or micro) Read carefully: MORE
enjoy grubby’s analysis: \https://youtu.be/LQqm3T2mV08?t=346
There are tons of sc2 games longer than 40 minutes that are sick af , non stop action from minute 2 to minute 40. You are totally wrong about sc2 late game.
SC2 has plenty of comeback mechanics and defensive structures. The arguably best two players of the game are macro focused players who tend to drag the game out. It seems like you don’t really know what your talking about. Micro (thats probably what your referring to as tactic) is one part of the game but there’s a limit in skill ceiling with micro only. Same with macro, unit placement, etc. Watch the content of the youtubers I’ve mentioned.
And again: This is not about SC2 v AoE4 and changing AoE4 to become more like SC2. What I’ve said is that its reasonable to assume that there has always been a considerable part of the RTS community that liked quicker matches as WC3, C&C, SC1 have been quite successfull. So please stop derailing the thread and stick to the topic.
you still do not understand how one should provide videos in the internet. Spoiler: with links.
But i prefer to agree with ex-w3 champion, ex-pro-sc2 player and player who spend hours in aoe4, than to some random sc2 players(?) who has limited vision.
It’s useless to listen opinion about aoe4 from some sc2 guys.
defensive structures in sc2. which can be killed in 10 seconds.
it’s not sc2 forum to continue but i understand. It’s useless to continue conversation.
Last try:
aoe4 castle vs some mysterious defensive structures. - i do not know how explain further. Castles onelove forever.
I won’t dig specific games right now , there on the weeklies, not sure if they get uploaded
I can give you 25min games long that are sick and were in grand final tho.
I didn’t touch a RTS game for 15 years, came back for AoE4 and then started to play SC2 in parallel. So im more of a AoE4 than SC2 player. You just keep making artifical arguments that are backed by experts whose statements you interpret in a way to make them fit your views. But your a troll anyways…
@Adribird90 Average game length is lower than AoE2 and 4 but there’s players with quite different playstyles. Some are more macro focused and like to drag the game out into 20 or 30+ minutes and others want to end it quickly. Here’s a high level 30+ minutes match with pretty much non-stop action (first match):
again castle vs some defensive structures.
You even did not name “this” structures, is it hard?
just admit and we can move to discuss next thing.
at least I’ve provided source of these statements.
And you cheripicking some games from tournament, which represent what?
An interesting game? Yes. sure
A 2 best players in the world can play the game at high level? ** SURPRISEd** (sarcasm)
But can they build a castle in the opponents base in sc2?
probably not, cause there are no << castles>> in sc2.
i can explain aoe4 mechanics, you can not say a world about WHAT sc2 defensive structures are, that's the difference
For aoe4 i can explain:
Secret sites timer
castles allow to win time against push.
to destroy castle you need to build rams or trebs.
It’s all takes take time, which result in longer gameplay.
And what mechanic there are in sc2 to comeback?
my guess: Just play better in the next fight.
Not that I play Fortnite either (not that I’m particularly against it). There’s a skill curve in those games that isn’t apparent to people who don’t play them, but this isn’t the thread for that.
