Ok, it was already clear to me the first time xd…
Relic will support the game as long as Microsoft pays them to do so…
1 Like
An RTS must have the competitive component yes or yes to be successful at this time. There is no popular RTS that doesn’t have that component.
Hardcore gamers will represent 20-30%, but they are the ones who play the most average hours, are the most loyal to the game and are the ones who give the most marketing. AoE2 was resurrected thanks to that, not those who played exclusively campaigns and against the AI.
2 Likes
No need for clone civs. That’s sounds lame and way too complicated to do. In AoE4, many civs have been/will be spitted from certain civs of AoE2 (I.e., Abbasid Dynasty from the Saracens, Ottomans from the Turks, Delhi Sultanate from the Hindustanis).
3 Likes
It hurts my soul to read that…when it was that we stopped valuing a good charismatic RTS for its history and mechanics in order to favor a competitive shoehorned in?..blessed shooters and mobas, the damage they have done…
6 Likes
What you want already exists, it is called Age of Empires II: DE.
Age of Empires IV is all about unique civ and takes the best from AoE2, not the flaws.
On paper, your “happiness” looks only nice while in reality lacks substance and bores players before long.
This is 2022, not 1999. The world is different and the gaming industry has since evolved.
Your idea is simply not compatible with Age of Empires IV design structure.
5 Likes
Yeahhh I don’t think this is the greatest thing to do. By far.
Copying civs and replacing a few things every time is essentially just a skin. It would feel more like a mobile game than a game made by a professional studio. Why spend the time to make ten of the mechanically same civ when you can instead use that time to make two civs as unique as the the Mali?
Not trying to attack the OP or anything. I just don’t agree.
2 Likes
I would hate this change… The most awesome thing in AoE 4 is the assymetrical civs. I play AoE from 4 years ago (or 5) and when i played AoE 4 on the free week, i can’t Open My AoE 2 DE with the same energy. This game just changed my perspective of an AoE game. I don’t want to lose it, because i’m going to buy it. I don’t want to pay 60€ (40 more than AoE2) for the same lame thing. AoE 4, Is almost the Best AoE, with better graphics, balance, and Quality it will. Some people that played AoC wouldn’t think the same, maybe. But this game Will be loved on the next 20 years
4 Likes
Yes, and that’s okay… that means that the saga is evolving forward and AoE 2 can pass the torch to its most recent installments…
1 Like
what a horrible idea :D. Ofc they are already reusing a lot of existing functionality, but I’m glad they are not afraid to rework existing elements, mechanics and that they don’t make civ design choices based on effort.
As a dev you should always ask yourself, what is the best for the players, not what is the easiest to achieve while somehow pleasing the fanbase. Compromises are a no-go and longterm a bad idea…
1 Like
evolved deosnt mean it have to go backwards. aoe 4 on its release (and still have it) launched with aoe 2 flaws but worse like the cookie cutter civ design, og water battles,etc
esports, the great game killer, no other way to put it
due to being the unfortunate focus, when it was ALWAYS A BYPRODUCT of a game’s quality, not the core design focus
also that 20 to 30% figure is far off reality, its closer to like 15-20% when taking aoe itself, and maybe 5-10% is ranked hardcore audience, no more
and honestly, its this exact thing that caused so many RTS releases to bomb last decade, catering solely to those 5-10% of players for the sake of esports, forgetting you need a good game BEFORE you have an esport
2 Likes
Yes, you first create the game and then adapt it to the competitive, do not create the game thinking only in the competitive, since otherwise alienate the casuals players who will say “go, to play with civs all the same, I prefer to play aoe 2 only” or "I do not like that the civs are all a copy and paste, I prefer civs more different from each other, I better go to play aoe 3 or sc2 "…
Many people seem to think of our demands as “favors” that we ask for. Can we not demand as it should be a product for which we are willing to pay?
I want a lot of art and asymmetry involved and not just lightweight changes.
So why is AOE-3 having relatively less budget and developers doing endless art every time a new expansion is released?
- Maps with unique styles. (like biomes).
- Civilizations with unique buildings, unique mechanics and unique units (land and naval units).
- Cards of the metropolis with images and detailed art.
- The art of Treasures on the map.
- One set of natives/minor civilizations for each new expansion. Each of these with unique art, units, technologies/upgrades, and mechanics.
- Etc.
There is no excuse for AOE-4 not to be more daring.
3 Likes
Yes,that’s true…if AoE 3 can do all of this with a limited budget and with a small team of 35 persons with mod-makers experience,AoE 4 need to do much more with a very big budget and with big team of 400 professional RTS developers how Relic is…
- Relic isn’t solely working on AoE4. They have other projects, most notably CoH3.
- “Too daring” can blunder. If you make civs too unique, especially in terms of military unit roles, then you make the game more complex and confusing. I think that’s a big reason why they did Malians in this update – to test the waters of how units that break the normal unit triangle fare and how players adapt to them.
1 Like
Here is what I would say, and I’m not a very ‘intense’ AoE4 player. Do we want a lot of civs?
That seems to be the only benefit of this idea, honestly. We can get every civ under the sun between 850AD and 1550AD, sure, but is there a lot (or any) inherent value in that if 66% of them are mods of the other 33%?
Don’t take me wrong, as a Spaniard I’d love for them to announce a Spanish civ, but if it was just “French with new graphics and faster knights”, to put a vague example, I would definitely not fork out more than $2.99, if that.
Also, too much can become a bad thing, surprise surprise. If you’re putting out tons of new civs that are not seen as very unique or valuable, you’ll put off all but the most hardcore of customers. Think of how EA does ‘DLC’ for the Sims 4: hundreds of thousands of ‘content packs’ with a couple outfits and pieces of furniture. How many people do you think buy the tenth or eleventh pack they release? These packs don’t add much very new, so as a sales model this has an in-built terminal age. It’s much better to release a lot of content all together in a flavourful and thematic ‘packaging’ – i.e. a “university life” DLC. Even if the game mechanics don’t change very much, because it feels like an actual expansion of the original game, people buy it.
1 Like
Everyone keeps severely downplaying the changes I proposed.
Keeping overall civ bonuses and some landmarks but changing other landmarks as well as unique units is a significant difference. They’re not just a reskin.
Even patch changes with slight differences can completely change a civ’s identity and focus (just look at Chinese). And I’m going to be repetitive here because clearly my words are just bouncing off people’s heads. Stop downplaying this. Even minor changes will make a big difference.
It’s actually the opposite. Like I said from the very beginning, the play SHOULD be to continue to add new and unique civs. Ideally up to 12, maybe 14. AT THAT POINT, adding even more unique civs will actually turn off everyone but the most hardcore. Why? Because only the most hardcore can even keep up with EVERY CIV.
But at that point, if they continue to release regular updates with rehashed civs, it significantly reduces the amount of knowledge you need to know to continue playing the game.
Case in point: AoE3 as it is right now is very daunting to me because there is SO much to learn and account for that it’s hard for me to go back without taking a deep dive. I feel like only the most hardcore are the ones that are able to keep up.
We are not downplaying them, we are telling you why they’re not the right direction for the game. A new landmark and a couple new units will not get people to pay for new civs, it’s something a mod can do. Chinese now still play more or less according to Chinese at launch (certainly not different enough to have justified paying for the changes, as your idea implies).
Asymmetrical and unique civs are what revitalize the game with each release, especially for old players. Using AoE3 as an example, the US, Mexico and Italy civs revolutionize (hah, pun) the base game in some way, and it entices people to come back into it.
Additionally, if people are being charged, they want to feel they’re being charged for something that matters. If the ‘new content’ is just ‘old content, but a tweak here and there, and that’ll be $14.99 please’, I can promise you the playerbase will drop by 80%.
But at the end of the day, you have to consider: what is the value of having many indifferent civs? Why would someone pick “Aquitaine” or “Normandy”, for example, if they are exactly like French but have +X and -Y?
Is it not better to have them be completely different, and invest the time and resources into making something that’ll make people fall in love with the game 6, 12, 48 months after launch?
2 Likes
Better graphics and quality is debatable, but I let you pass…
Yes, let’s hope the Malians are welcome… I at first was not going to give them a chance, but seeing more in depth the civ in videos analyzing it, I said “hey, maybe it’s a good civ after all”…
Yes, with that they arrive until 20-25 civs I am satisfied…and on AoE 3 quiet, it seems intimidating from the start, but after a few games you grab the game quickly…you can try a civ for a while until you unlock all the cosmetics of this one (at level 45 out there), then change another civ and so… you can also go testing with different civs during the events…
1 Like