AoE4 is less interesting than AoE2 because its units lack ‘coolness’ and ‘personality’

That is your opinion and not the majority. RTS is niche for 2 reasons:

  • It’s not very social, it focuses a lot on 1vs1.

  • The skill floor is very high and you have to invest a lot of time to understand something of the game.

Until they improve that, the genre will never be popular.

1 Like

-If you seen rts social medias like discord you will realise how social are their players. aoe 4 one is prove of it
-pve content is what meant to be the aproach to every skill floor/level. Theres a reason why aoe 2 still beloved in their campaign aspect.

  • The interest of the core audience and the focus of the RTS genre, for now, is what it is, although there are exceptions.

  • If the skill floor were more favorable, there wouldn’t be 70% of casual players not transitioning from PvE to PvP.

Playing this genre requires much more time than others to have a minimally acceptable level.

  • exception but that trend is repeated on sc 2, wc3
  • there no need to make it easier just to make them playu ladder. e sport is a meme and pve orienetd players are only there for the challenge of the scenario and it’s somethign that ms and competitive players misunderstand. sc2 is an example that pve can get along with pvp but you can see both game option has their hardcore players. rts requires time but pve is aproach if you want some of them transition to pvp.

Many players who play PvE or with their friends find the game too difficult to make the move to PvP, they feel intimidated and yes, the skill floor is like the door that slams in their faces.

In a modern RTS, you wouldn’t have to invest 3-4 months to learn the game a bit.

The E-Sports, if they were also oriented to team games, would take an important leap.

Oh. here we are go again, explaining why something can not be improved or done differently.

But in real world, others can do it correctly:

  1. Gaben can throw 10 fixes a day.
  2. blizzard can release game
  3. EA can delay game on release for haf a year

It’s not “iterations” it’s just pure failure in planning and redoing work which already done.

Another example of wasted time:
They spend a lot of time on water and redo it later. → It would be better to release water in some DLC, but in total save some storypoints.
(could they release game without water? who knows…)

so yes, it’s better to:

So that you don’t have to redo it later.

PS I think relics moving in right direction, but with hard wrong decisions in the past, from which lessons should be noted…no need for excuses like “you do not understand how dev works”, while others manage to launch successful products\games.

1 Like

A big problem with RTS is smt called genre familiarity, or to put it better, how much you can carry in terms of controls, mechanics, habits, etc. from one title to another, one series to another, RTS has historically always been pretty poor in this aspect, just compare SCII or COH with AOE, completely different set of logic is required in each so ofc its harder to learn, while smt like COD or counter-strike or halo always has the same core idea, hold gun and shoot people with clicking, simply not the case with RTS


All the companies you mentioned redo things. But okay :slight_smile:

none of companies redo it instantly after release.
Or they redo it BEFORE release. But okay :slight_smile:

1 Like

I don’t understand. I thought the problem with Age of Empires IV was that the developers were too slow to address problems?

And now we’re talking about “redoing things instantly”? I don’t understand the argument. The water rework came in the anniversary update - an entire year after release.

i do not understand how you can say:

bringing in aoe4 development as example, where they failed a several times, spending x2 time on re-developing features.
How it can be used as example, if they re-develop a few parts of game.
I’ve provided a few companies, who managed to do better, obviously using a little bit different approach of workflow. And companies who could build once and good without re-development.
which completely fall under the description:

Better to build it once and build it right.

So quote is absolutely correct and work in some game-companies.

and your take on Iterative development is mostly wrong(in my opinion) cause they plan from DLC to DLC, and do not use Iterative, explanation(click)

But in Iterative model - one of most important part is stakeholders with feedback.
Obviously, players are stakeholders.
Receiving feedback once per DLC\huge update is not Iterative at all.

It’s more waterfall than Iterative. But obviously it’s some kind of hybrid.

It’s a fact is that they spend x2 time on water, than they should spend if they build it once and right.
You can not excuse it with Iterative workflow.
If it would be spotted earlier in alpha or beta and fixed before release, than may be you can excuse double work with Iterative model.
But In beta players reported issues → nothing was changed.(cause it’s not truly iterative)

either way, it’s better to build right once. With Iterative or without.
Explaining, that they can not build right at attempt, cause they use Iterative model - is a little bit strange.

1 Like

And I said these companies redo things. Often post-release.

You then said:

To which I said: water wasn’t redone instantly after release.

So to stop you going in circles, let’s just recap for any other readers and leave it here:

  • Companies redo things.
  • Companies often redo things post-release.
  • Companies can redo things one month after the game releases, or months / years after.
  • EA, Valve and Blizzard are all companies that have done and are continuing to redo things (after a game has been released).

Therefore, they’re not getting it right first time.

Diablo 3 auction house, Left 4 Dead promises scrapped and turned into L4D2, both CS: GO and DotA 2 being live service games, Overwatch (now Overwatch 2; nearly all PvE commitments for OW1 abandoned), and so on, and so forth. Don’t even get me started on EA :joy:

So no, your quote isn’t correct in the slightest, sorry. And having demonstrated that, I’ll stop feeding the circular thing you’ve got going on here.


  1. stated smth in first sentence
  2. in the second say “recap it”


Let’s recap, why your example wrong:

why you did not say: aoe1 && aoe2
They abandoned aoe1 in 1999 LOL

wtf, these examples.

and more, fyi (cause i've already typed) but OW2 example killed me

the only close example, only they redesigned the auction

  1. I never say that EVERY game comes out without bugs
  2. 2 years after release they reworked auction.
    Meanwhile, you said “came in the anniversary update - an entire year after release.” click
    how one can simultaneously use similar time-related arguments for and against. LOL
  3. last and main part: game was fully playable from release.

cause this games is truly Iterative model, they change some parts with small steps. (sometimes with big).

The true use of recap:
it’s all about it:

Better to build it once and build it right.

  1. some companies can build good at first time
  2. excuses about “devs process” - just wrong\dumb
    cause even within processes - it’s better to do it right at first time.
1 Like

Theres no need to force pvp . Like starcraft 2 they may prefer other m,odes that are more fun and less min maxing as pvp. Some of them may move to pvp but deny that aspect from the game is a bad move.

Thst why in game tutorials, campaign and pve in the long run exist.

But aoe 4 is balanced around 1v1 becuz they want to emulate sc2 e sport scene and team maps are unbalanced and sometimes broken.


Yes, I even spent the campaigns and I put like 102 hours out there…

Of course, with more campaigns you allow the players to keep them entertained and at the same time learn the mechanics and units of the game…


Developers are still falling for the “we need to bring the PvE players to play PVP” meme when PvE players will NEVER play a PvP game that isn’t with friends. They ought to look at what the former devs of Starcraft 2 did to keep PvE players playing the game.


truly makes you wonder how tone deaf you have to be to not see something this clearly displayed


Grand strategy games are even harder to learn and they are pretty popular, is not the genre, the problem are the devs/management…