btw with this approach I doubt you will ever find new games. only remakes 
Really ? I hope I’m not misremembering but Age of Noob said that a playtester said that AoE4 is much more fast paced than AoE2
How many Triple A RTS games do you know of? Most RTS nowadays are indie.
Call of Duty costs 60€ every year and the campaign is <10 hours every time.
It’s not about the number of hours.
You can play a grindy JRPG where you need hundreds of hours to finish the main story but is that better than having a lot of fun with a 10 hour Call of Duty campaign?
The new Battlefield won’t have any Singleplayer so it’s infinite €/hour?
AoE2DE is really cheap.
You get the content of a full priced game, an Expansion, an improved fan mod and 3 big DLCs at once for a small price.
Money is always relative.
You are a high school student who only has 50€ per month? Than spending 60€ is more than a month worth of money.
You are a middle class office worker and make 2000€ a month? Than spending 60€ is nothing. Even a 60€ 10 hour CoD campaign is a goo deal.
And that doesn’t even consider the regional pricing debate that is going on.
Did you guys even read my post?
Triple A RTS, that is key. I expect an RTS to have hundreds of hours of singleplayer content that doesn’t include skirmish mode as that is almost always replayable. Whether those hundreds of hours are all different missions (i.e. Aoe2) or the campaign is very replayable (I.e Total War games usually)
Unless it is an Indie game, than it is different as they don’t have the tools that a Triple A RTS does
For me it’s ok the number of civs and campaigns. But I think i’ts strange that half of them is about France and England
4 Likes
Same I really don’t get why there would be 2 Campaigns with France and England. The other 2 will probably be the crusades as well as the Mongol conquest of Eurasia. This makes it so that the Rus as well as the Chinese and Delhi Sultanate are probably just a tiny part of the Mongol Camgaign and nothing more which I don’t really like the idea of.
2 Likes
and yet it can still be said that there is a content base that leads to being satisfied. Age 2 DE however seemingly made some ppl expect age 4 to be either very cheap or have HUGE content. Of course neither could ever be the case.
even as student I thought 60€ for aaa games was expensive, but I never expected them to be cheaper or called them overpriced, as they werent
that i think aswell, which is in another topic I made 
1 Like
it will probably a bit faster paced than age 2 and also depend on the civ you play a lot. But the fact fortifications were build out so much in comparison to age 2 shows me they will have an important role, which generally means somewhat slower gameplay.
Of course being able to build siege equipment with armies does make sieges a lot faster aswell, still I think the walls make a good sign of it being rather slow
1 Like
I think over time if everything goes well we will have many new campaigns and civilizations
That’s exactly how the Chinese were (and are) treated as in AoE2
Those people that want several 100 of hours of campaign to play through is fooling themselves that it will ever happen.
Quality of quantity. Skirmishes are a part of the single player experience so adding that along side the campaigns you surely get your money worth when you add the MP aspect of the game as well.
People throw out numbers without actually thinking if what they say is even logical or achievable.
2 Likes
If the campaign is great you can spend 30-60 hours playing it.
If multiplayer is great you can spend several thousands hours playing it.
It is multiplayer that decides if a game is worth it in the long run.
I have played every major RTS since Dune 2. It is the multiplayer that makes SC2 and AOE2 stand above the rest, not campaign quality.
I hope it will be the same for AOE4.
1 Like
whie I see your point, I have to say there are palyers like me who really mainly played the campaigns at first. MP came far later for me