Hey Relic and AOE4 team. Know what is difference between RTS and MOBA? Heroes based gameplay. Guess why no more such games like WC3? CAUSE SINSE THEN WE HAVE MANY MOBA GAMES. Why do you want to make bad MOBA from good RTS? I personaly absolutly dont like this concept. Im just casual player who likes RTS. RTS is a concept that the people who created the concept of Jeanne d’Arc civ have no idea about. Wanted to say this to the void, no one gonna do anything with this mess now.
11 Likes
probably our worst mistake is wanting to stay in our little box of the past, I particularly like Age of Empires 2 more, but I’m already 34 years old, I’m old and I like what’s old unfortunately, but I like the new features, and Age of Empires 4 seems to be going its own way and it’s working, as it matures, because people are having fun, everything seems fun!!
What matters is fun, in the past I played Age of Empires 2 a bit stuck and full of bugs.
1 Like
Age of Empires is more than Age of Empires 2, it lets the new generation play and have fun!!
2 Likes
I like AoE. I think AoE2 had a really good thing going for it.
But, we’ve seen the rampant design decisions that have pushed the format more towards Starcraft for a while now. I am not surprised they are using “civilizations” as a designspace to try out their wacky WC3 ideas.
Unfortunately, we don’t know what any of this means. They keep us updated while keeping us in the dark.
So they’re basically going to go through with this while we have no idea what it is. I predict many people will be upset, and they will be “patching” (not really changing anything major) these things over a period of many months, if not years.
It is already too late and the problem lies at the very root. Whoever is behind these ideas. They have already produced the content, and it will be released regardless of what we think. So much for community-developer communication.
I was hoping that with Microsoft hiring Relic to do this job, that they would be in service of the players. It feels more like they don’t care about what we think, and are making their own game, even if it isn’t their IP.
Disappointing.
3 Likes
So they’re probably right, since the community wouldn’t accept an Age of Empire 2 squared, we know that if it’s different, then they’re right!! I don’t want Age to be stuck in its box, we already have Age 2 and Age 3!!
Yup, bring on the new things. Games that don’t innovate stagnate, as we saw with attempts at recapturing that “classic” RTS feeling like Grey Goo (and others).
Design is meant to evolve. With it comes risk. Trying anything new is risk. Keeping what “matters” gets increasingly more difficult the more people have an opinion on what “matters”.
I don’t have any good answers. All I can hope for is a game that more people get on with than don’t.
2 Likes
Disagree.
An expansion or DLC is meant to compliment and embrace what was there originally.
Sometimes that means improving things, or adding new features that make sense within those design frame.
Ultimately, DLC or expansions are generally meant to be more of the same. This isn’t a new game, it is meant for those already in love with the core content.
I really like these new variant “civs” mechanics, ideas, heroes, I just still dislike the names, especially one.l… pls devs consider changing that name, its age of empires, not age of individuals
3 Likes
each game in its own way and personality!!
if the developers want to make such drastic changes, they should make a spin-off or a new game altogether
i think. aoe4 already have its audience to make such moba fantasy changes
1 Like
And yet expansions frequently introduce new mechanics, new tiers or eras of gameplay, and so on. Expansions in video games range from the tame to the transformative, and there are bad and good examples of both.
So yeah, sure, I agree to disagree.
I’d say it’s good though, for anyone who feels like you do, if the game is something you stick with, there are two classic civs and presumably three other classic variants coming alongside Jeanne. Plenty of options to go around for those that love the existing approach to civ design in AoE IV.
If they’d turned out a bunch of hero-centric designs, I’d have a different opinion (regardless of how much I like the concept). But I’m not a fan of slippery slopes, and a single hero-centric design out of what, 16? Seems like an okay ratio to me.
1 Like
Yes, I agree, but we are talking about very distant generations, like mine. Age of Empires is much more than Age of Empires 2, Age of Empires 4, it has to be different! Otherwise, Age of Empires dies or ages poorly!! Take the example of Age of Empires 4, full of new players, that’s incredible, lots of Starcraft players too, very good, players who wouldn’t have come anyway. Age of Empires 4 simply rejuvenates!!
One?
The Khan is still a hero. They recently introduced the King. These are of course far from whatever this mess of a civilization is, but the slippery slope has been there since the start. This is just a continuation and I suspect it’ll get even worse. Why?
Because the developers do not care. I am convinced at this point, you could host an open discussion and they would reject any notion of change.
I truly, truly hate this new civilization more than any of the complaints I’ve had about this game so far. It is a departure from what AoE is. It is not a love letter to it.
1 Like
Do the Khan or King change throughout the game? Do they follow the “Journey of a Hero”?
The Khan is an improved Scout, and the King is a direct support unit. They’re nothing more than that.
I understand you don’t like the general concept, and I’m not trying to convince you to. Hence the agreeing to disagree.
2 Likes
I actually disagree, if they decide to make this route a well-designed option for play they need to add more variant civs that play like it. It would at least be thematically consistent if they added 3 or 4 more civs based around people and the achievements. That way you could at least say “look, here are your playstyles themed around spanning empires and here are your playstyles themed around famous individuals.” If they only ever make one it will always be that one weird civ that feels out of place.
2 Likes
Let me remind you. It is AGE. Of. EMPIRES.
Where in that name does one singular individual take such a spotlight that they have abilities and “level ups” to the degree of far surpassing any unit in the game? As they are describing it, this unit can build, fight, summon units, change roles and is essentially a god unit in contrast to anything else.
This should’ve been a game about armies, castles, civilizations and history. This is none of that.
1 Like
Oh sure, eventually. But I’m talking about right now, and obviously they can use it to gauge the success amongst the playerbase, which will no doubt inform how many they consider doing vs. more traditional designs (or something different yet again).
And it looks amazing!!
In addition to the Monk in Age of Empires 2, of course!! If I wanted to play a very realistic game I wouldn’t play Age of Empires 2, which I like!!
You Will probably see more divisione insider the AOE base. AOE4 Is going to seem to MOBA and this Is far from what AOE should be.
Relic didn’t understand this franchise and they are going to ruin this IP.
You can try new modes and different ways to play but respecting the soul of this franchise: for all of the other experiments there’s a word: Spin-off, like AOM
See what they are doing with variant civilizations is the same seen with Warcraft 3.
Age of Empires 4 has nothing to do with MOBA games!!