Best vs Worst case scenario for AoE4?

Best vs Worst case scenario for AoE4?

What is your opinion for Best vs Worst case scenario for AoE4?

1 Setting
Best: I think best would be between AoE1 and AoE2, something like Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion/Dark Ages/Fall of the Roman Empire

Worst: anything after Columbus time, such RTS turn into blobs of shooting units, shoot at blobs of shooting units. Cossacks did in my opinion make there a way better job than AoE3. The more advanced technology does get, the worse it is for Strategy.

2 Story.
Best: It should be primarily entertaining, with focus on historical occurrence, like burn down Rome, lead as with your barbarian hordes. Where you prepared for it, mission by mission, by following one of the hordes/empires/nations.

Worst: Having something boring, with chore activities and fictional. Like fictional characters, collect 1000 wood for no plot and have missions with no connection to each other, where you fight randomly vs random.

3 Gameplay
Best: have a game that does pick up, improve and advance the gameplay of AoE2

Worst: have something that simplified or/and randomly redesign.

2 Likes

lol, THEY ARE NOT REMAKING AOE1 AND 2 AGAIN. Only logical step to take is forward imo, and i think it’ll be great

1 Like

Problem is, take a step ahead, would mean take a step into a dead end.

-we had for years no melee RTS. Age of Empires did stand out as not another copy of C&C or Starcraft.

-game market is flooded with those guns blobs RTS
pick up any it, they all play in same lame boring way. Once you step into a gun age, its all about build units with larger range and higher firepower. You have max strategy, 2 blobs of rifles/guns vs soldiers and blob cannons/rockets vs vehicles.

2 Likes

i mean they can have a historical AOE and have it not be a remake of AOE1 or 2. Like total war has rome, medieval, and shogun series and then recently three kingdoms… rome and medival are very differnet as are shogun and three kingdoms despite being similar time periods and such.

2 Likes

Well while Total War was changing stetting from Japan, Rome, Medieval Europe, Barbarian, China, Warhammer, Napoleon and many other, it still somehow managed to keep its gameplay. Sure each game had some kind of own thing, you still have world map management and tactical combat map.

And the design is very clear, how things are supposed to function.

By RTS games, its somehow “different” .
You make new setting, so nobody has an idea how exactly you play the game.

You make units stronger, so buildings lose value
You make economy stronger, so tactics and strategies lose value.
You make Units more different, so people use less unit types
You make Units less different, so people use less unit types

And I am speaking here of transition from Age of Empires 2 to Age of Empires 3.

Compare Total War Medieval vs Napoleon and Age of Empires 2 vs 3

In Total War ok you loose melee foot soldiers vs melee foot soldiers, but ranged unit is still ranged unit, Artillery support does keep its ballistic so its not overpowers, melee units on horse still make sense and maybe some pikes to defend ranged units. It still recognizable.

Age of Empires is a complete mess.

foot melee soldiers, make no sense
melee horse units, make no sense
Walls and Defence builds become simply useless , because artillery is too strong.
Artillery is no longer ballistic, so does directly fast hit its targets.
You can avoid catapult, but cannon does hit and damage.
So only thing left is build as fast as possible ranged rifle units.

So the entire game is merely blobs of rifle units.

You can’t transit properly AoE gameplay mechanics in rifle age and have historical accurate game.
It can only get worse, if they advance with time.

That’s why I think it would be better to keep the time, where Age of Empires was designed for.
If you advance with time, you have to change to a point, where it simply won’t be an age of empires game.

1 Like

Age of Empires has always been about the Ancient times and the Medieval times in my opinion and I’d quite frankly become very disappointed if it’s about any other time such as Columbus or modern warfare.

We’ve plenty of games that are in that time period and we’re surely missing the ancient/medieval time period in today’s gaming industry and hopefully with the success of Age of Empires IV set to that time period other companies will start to create more games set on this time period with their unique touch.

And also let’s not forget that Relic Entertainment who is creating Age of Empires IV has also done Company of Heroes franchise which is set in WW2 setting, so I doubt that they want to compete with their own games and same time period setting.

AOE 3 was already past Columbus. That game worked fine for me but I agree about not wanting a ‘modern’ AOE game. I like my strategy games to be ‘history’ history, not ‘modern’ history.

Well, soon it should be revealed what they did Actually make^^
Best case scenario can only be a spiritual successor.