"Age of Empires 4 is not the RTS revolution you’ve been waiting for | PCGamesN" Age of Empires 4 is not the RTS revolution you’ve been waiting for | PCGamesN
I think we should waiting the next AOE5 for some real Evolution. Maybe with a full implementation of Xcloud there Will be not techincal limitations.
And i already said, a world Map similar to Total war Will be a Great add to this franchise. CoH3, Battle for middle Earth and Rise of Nations have implemented this feature very well.
No one has ever come out to explain why not take advantage of the powerful performance of xbox, few people have such an expensive computer.
They only need to make xbox’s mouse and keyboard operation the same as PC, which can help a large number of players save hardware costs.
If you work as a cashier in a supermarket. Then you will not be able to afford the game. Such people account for more than 50% of the population.
“Age Of Empires 4’s Not Meant To Overshadow Age Of Empires 2 | SegmentNext” Age Of Empires 4's Not Meant To Overshadow Age Of Empires 2 | SegmentNext
There’s a interview to Quinn Duffy in the last PC Gamer magazine
in my opinion, we don’t need a revolution of rts. rts was nearly slaughter by all the revolutions (c&c4,coh1 and 2 ,halo wars1 and 2, mobas…), there was pretty good ideas in some games, but basebuilding with alot of der buildings, ressources and troops are missed so much.
what we need is what aoe4 delivers. good rts gameplay, bringing back the feel of rts without trying to copy some trends of the industry. just rts gameplay , real rts gameplay without any gamebreakers like cardsystems and heroes that slaughters an entire army by one.
i play the beta on one weekend more than other games by months. 18 hours at one day with friends and damn - we wanna more of it. if aoe4 is a bad game, it’s still better than any other rts of the last 20 years (exluding aoe2de 
). so hey, i don’t need a revolution, i need what i ve been missing for so long.
Yes AOE IV is the desastr I’ve been wairing for!
hey man , why tf every time some bad things are said on some magazine or interview you love to share it , but when good things about the game are said you never post those?
No ofense , but i think you always want to make this game to fail.
And another thing , those guys have their opinion and a lot of us have another opinion so…
yeah , waiting another 8 years…
anyway.
Yeah , i think it would be great.
Despite being excited for the game, I’m having trouble picking a main civ. None of them seem fascinating. Some of them seem too specific in their playstyle, forcing you to only play a very specific way (Rus, Mongols), while others that have the potential to be versatile (Chinese, Abbasid) fail miserably due to having a best order in which to play their cards. So I’d say the title is not far from the truth, the game is quite uninspired and far from being a masterpiece.
These article are new and i didn’t see them before and also the most of previews that i seen are pretty the same.
I didn’t read very enthusiastic previews from the main PC gaming sites. This Is the reason due i can’t share them.
And i explained my opinions many Times: a good RTS without a WOW factor for me. Too many controversial elements. For me a game Is the synthesis of gameplay and immersions (graphic+sounds+UI+physics): 50%+50%.
Not a disaster. Who said It?
Thanks PCgamer for explaining to me that this is not a game for people who like this sort of game.
Oh yeah, that makes sense.
I have been following this game since the moment they announced it back in Germany. I have read every interview and press release, and I can guarantee you that they never claimed nor pitched the game as “revolutionary,” something that will turn the RTS genre on its head. The only place where they said no RTS has done anything remotely close to their game is in the Singleplayer campaign, which literally shows if you have seen those documentaries snippets.
To be honest with you, even Age 5 won’t be revolutionary. Ask yourself, do you know of any genre that’s doing anything revolutionary today or even the last decade and a half? Every game mechanics today is an extension on already established gameplay mechanics…video games are changing themes and settings…not how the game plays. A simple example would be that I don’t call taking a local multiplayer to cloud “revolutionary.” Nor I will call converting Age of Empires to a Total war-esque game a “revolution” or “evolution” whatever you want to call that.
The best thing any game can do is to improve its core gameplay mechanics (as in its DNA) and Age IV is doing that in many ways.
I have ben wairing for this game for a wile. I’m just hoping it isn’t as desastrous as they say it will bee.
I can’t read it anymore. I’m so excited for the game and I’m really looking forward to it. In my opinion, the civs are very well designed and offer countless possibilities. I like the graphics, the feel of the game, the sound and many little things that the game brings. There is a lot of love for detail in it. There is still a lot to be done, but I am convinced that the game will be really good and that it will develop a lot over the next few months. just thinking about the release of Aoe3DE, the beta alone was a masterpiece.
Thankfully i wasn’t waiting for a revolutuion 
you ve got the point sir!
How to make your own AoE4: Take units yelling on battlefields from Total War, influence system from Civilization VI, campaign gameplay narrator from Bastion, Landmark idea from AoE3, 90% of gameplay design from AoE2, units standing on walls from Battle for Middle Earth / Stronghold, Sacred Site victory from CoH, strip down everything that requires skill and may cause frustration, sprinkle a few anemic ideas that don’t change anything, cook for ~4 years → and there you have it, your very own home-made AoE4.
I’m still excited for the game, cause I’m a simp.
All I wanted was a next gen graphics revolution more than a gameplay or mechanics revolution…
Imagine Company of heroes changing their classic mechanics and gamplay,… it would be a desaster… so what do they do? just improve visuals, add factions and add some extra game modes. Just like AoE 3 did respect AoE 2. But AoE 3 changed so many things that people did not like, such as cards (I personally like) and fantasy campaigns, people did not forgive that after the amazing AoE 2 and AoE campaigns…
However, all I would expect is a next generation graphics RTS that applies the AoE game basic mechanics. YES the game can be fun and have a good gameplay with good graphics and visuals at the same time. (for those who keep saying ´´GrApHicS DOeS nOt MaTTeR´´. Well they matter when we expect to have the same mechanics from 20 years ago in a modern game.
Does RTS really need a revolution?
I think it needs more of a revival. I’m not saying it’s dead per say, but it has declined substantially since not many of them become new big hits. AoE4 has the power to bring back some of it, but one game (especially one that needs substantial improvement) is not going to cut it. I would say a new StarCraft would help the genre on top of Age, but blizzard owns it. I don’t want blizzard to get a ■■■■ tonne of money.
I don’t know what the future holds for the genre but I hope it’s good. Ever since AoE’s first game in the series I’ve been in love with RTS and strategy games. It was my childhood, I don’t want to see it steadily decline. It may just he me clinging to when times were better, but hell, I’m pretty sure the people on this forum are here because they’re also devoted to RTS. Here’s to hoping.
It doesn’t need to be a revolution.
All they needed to do is to expand on things that were already there and i think the devs did a great job at it.
They took the mechanics that ppl loved from previous aoe games and improved on it.
Please exclude coh1 and coh2 from your “bad list”.
These are great games, just very different from aoe.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but there is a world around your one and only holy aoe2