Gold is a metal
Of course, thatās why everyone used gold swords and shields.
No one has said there were no stone structures back then. They still exist today. They are there in an abstract form, like many other resources (water, gunpowder, tar, rubber, spices, etc.).
1 Like
It was a response to you saying it wouldnāt make sense to use stone in the Industrial era.
The use of stone in building structures did not decrease during the industrial era, and there are examples in the only game set in that era that use significant amounts of stone.
Would you prefer we build concrete bunkers in ww2 using wood as a resource? Siege units use wood predominately, would you prefer to train tanks and planes using wood?
The point wasnāt the abstract nature of the resource, or even to criticize the AoE 3 game.
The purpose of the post was as a prompt designed to encourage conversation, ie, what resources would you prefer. Iām just following the flow that followed, which is apparently questioning the necessity of stone in age of empires (???).
That does not give you a free pass for spreading wrong information and rejecting correction.
Or deflecting simple factual corrections with big empty words and your personal one-sided decision to āstop being correctedā.
You made a mistake. You got corrected. You admit it. You donāt go on parroting it again. Itās really that simple.
That is not discussion. You donāt want discussion. You want people to listen and comply.
I really just wanted to talk about the resources that would be available in a contemporary era game. The kinds of resources shifted in the late 1800s - early 1900s. There was a significant focus on petroleum, steel, and composite materials. Food still makes sense, but wood and gold lack definition when it comes to defining that era.
It felt off to me. It was meant to be more of an opinion than a statement of fact. One of the main concerns I had with shifting the timeline forward.
If the determination from others is that it feels fine to them, that you see no problem with building a tank using food/wood/gold, then thatās their opinion on it.
Iām getting the impression that there is a kind of conflict building, so Iāll just drop it. The purpose was to share hopes and dreams, not to upset people or invalidate feelings.
Instead, Iāll just focus on the premise of the thread, which I understand as:
How can Age of Empires IV and Age of Empires V both coexist and remain valuable, without cannibalizing each other or exhausting the franchiseās creative potential?
Some things that I think would be beneficial:
- Continue producing DLC content for AoE 4: AoE 4 covers a specific time period and has gameplay features unique to the franchise. The series has a history of supporting games within it while launching new entries, and has even remastered old titles to keep them in the modern gaming scene.
- Age of Empires 5 should be unique to the franchise, or should reinvent something that hasnāt been seen for some time: Itās pretty straightforward, and why I believe people have already suggested moving forward (natural conclusion following the pattern in previous releases), or move backward (Ancient era hasnāt seen new content since AoE 1 (AoM is a blend of classical, ancient, and medieval era)).
- Gameplay should maintain Age of Empires identity, but include additions that are unique to the series. This is a tough one to suggest for me. On one hand, I enjoy the Age series because of its rock/paper/scissors style counter system. On the other hand, adding more elements, such as air units or submersible naval units, could throw that system off balance. So, when I think of things to add, I think about how to maintain existing systems (civs, tech/age up mechanics, unit trees).
An approach that would meet all of these concerns is an Age of Empires set between the classical era and the medieval era, representing the transition from Aoe 1 to Aoe 2.
Age of Empires V: Rise and Ruin
We almost always focus on empires growing to reach the height of their esteem, what if the unique focus of this game was their decay under the weight of rule?
The game could have a narrative focus on starting from the rise of empires, and their subsequent ruin.
Obviously, not every empire was suffering as much as they were in Europe in this era, but I think it would be interesting to focus on the features that came to define the Dark age as tech ages 3-4.
Well guys as I have to use here a good quote from Jurassic Park,
āYour scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didnāt stop to think if they should,ā
There are a lot of ways to make a game, but most important question should be,
should a game be this way to make money?
The games we have already, do satisfy many those needs and wishes.
Sure there can be a AoE game in WW1 or ancient age like AoE1, with 6 resources and hometown, with cards like AoE3, but do people really want such games?
As we have seen by other games, those timelines are not good for the gameplay AoE has.
AoE4 needs something better than that all.