Yes!! We want the classic feel, with the updated look!
Like i said, all depend of objectif, if its just for fanbase, change graphic and nothing else, iam out. If it’s for make a game more competitve and attractive, it’s oblivious we need too compare with other and successfull rts.
maybe u can go on thoses other RTS if they are so successful.
The game was enough competitive in itself. IMHO
and it still possible to have a whole new set of patches.
i’m on the line of this interview 
You seem to be more an age of empire3 player than an age of empire1 one . no?
we have to keep the charm of what it was.
Its like an old house, you get a particular smell in it.
but you seem to want to change everything “hey, in modern building, they have new materials for the house, more solid, lets change it with concrete instead !”
You old house will be wasted.
All you can do is maintain it. remove and replace the defectives parts, put some painting. but you have to keep its identity.
age of empire 1 identity is not only about stone age
well, my two cents.
You seem to be more an age of empire3 player than an age of empire1 one . no?
Realy not, i want aoe great again and you can’t do that only with new graphic and small improvements.
But i think, i need new aoe for that. I would have liked a new aoe during same period than aoe1.
What’s the reason to write in this forum if we don’t have any suggestion to make the game better? If we like the game itself without any gameplay improvement, leave it itself like 1997 with the same graphics because the movement of a unit in 3d instead of a sprite it’s different. Leave it only with a patch with hd resolutions and a polished 2d work like heroes of might and magic HD. I think that the people are confused, this is not a hd version o AoE, this is a remake, it’s obiously. A remake usuallly improves the gameplay with new formulas. Anyway, if we like itself without any upgrade, the best way it’s that we don’t make any suggestion in this forums, close the most of the posts, leave only the questions about the launch date and other little complements and later participate in the beta to test that the lag of 1,5 seconds it’s in game :D. I think that don’t have sense because the developers don’t need suggestions if we want exactly the same game without gameplay upgrades.
You can have suggestion about
Performance,
IA,
Interfaces,
Graphics
Stability,
Balance,
Map Editor.
And dont worry, if you want upgrades, new units, etc etc, they will probably make an extension for that.
But first its good to have a game for the many people here that are full of nostalgia, just a technical update.
Age of empire1 was fun to play. What else do you want ?
But i Think the devs , from what i read, are in the sweet spot beetween all approaches.
I trust them.
But first its good to have a game for the many people here that are full of nostalgia
Nostalgia = “easy money”. If we want aoe great again, we need to attract new peaple and not only “aoe1 fan”.
But i think aoe-de is an easy money game, they could have done a total remake about aoe2.
Of Course, but if there is aoe fan, its because it is age of empire and not another RTS.
As long as there is an active community, who care if its the most played game in the world
Most of us (the nostalgia guys) don’t want to see tons of features because we want to keep the essence of aoe1.
There are a lot of thing that that can be changed while not modifying the core game too much like balancing the game.
Adding too much or the wrong feature like garrisoning or gates would kill the old gameplay and strategies we had and liked. It would feel so different that it could be a completely new game and not a remastered version of aoe ror.
If we are lucky enough they will make another aoe alternative version where all the features are added.
@Zsombro said:
Most of us (the nostalgia guys) don’t want to see tons of features because we want to keep the essence of aoe1.
There are a lot of thing that that can be changed while not modifying the core game too much like balancing the game.
Adding too much or the wrong feature like garrisoning or gates would kill the old gameplay and strategies we had and liked. It would feel so different that it could be a completely new game and not a remastered version of aoe ror.
If we are lucky enough they will make another aoe alternative version where all the features are added.
I agree that there should not be garrisoning but how does gate affect any of this? you can still wall youself completely and delete part when needed. Would be just more convenient to have gate.
Totally agree with zsombro
Its an aoe remastered. It means existing feature are improved (path finding etc) but no new feature (or maybe end game’s one)
If you want extra feature, just wait for an extension over the remastered one.
@CoiledBenis said:
@Zsombro said:
Most of us (the nostalgia guys) don’t want to see tons of features because we want to keep the essence of aoe1.
There are a lot of thing that that can be changed while not modifying the core game too much like balancing the game.
Adding too much or the wrong feature like garrisoning or gates would kill the old gameplay and strategies we had and liked. It would feel so different that it could be a completely new game and not a remastered version of aoe ror.
If we are lucky enough they will make another aoe alternative version where all the features are added.I agree that there should not be garrisoning but how does gate affect any of this? you can still wall youself completely and delete part when needed. Would be just more convenient to have gate.
No.
Because if you delete, lets say to let enter an ally running away, you lenter the ennemy enter as well. Its a tough decision.
and you need to have one villager next to it to rebuild.
And if the ennemy have archers, you cannot rebuild
Gate is realistic, but it has nosense. It just slow the game.
@Tgaud said:
@CoiledBenis said:
@Zsombro said:
Most of us (the nostalgia guys) don’t want to see tons of features because we want to keep the essence of aoe1.
There are a lot of thing that that can be changed while not modifying the core game too much like balancing the game.
Adding too much or the wrong feature like garrisoning or gates would kill the old gameplay and strategies we had and liked. It would feel so different that it could be a completely new game and not a remastered version of aoe ror.
If we are lucky enough they will make another aoe alternative version where all the features are added.I agree that there should not be garrisoning but how does gate affect any of this? you can still wall youself completely and delete part when needed. Would be just more convenient to have gate.
No.
Because if you delete, lets say to let enter an ally running away, you lenter the ennemy enter as well. Its a tough decision.
and you need to have one villager next to it to rebuild.
And if the ennemy have archers, you cannot rebuildGate is realistic, but it has nosense. It just slow the game.
i just cant answer this i feel my iq draining in these autistic scenarios you are making
if you areally cant figure how to play that kind of situation right idk
From what I know there won’t be many changes. Everything from the Rise of Rome will be included, but for instance it has been confirmed that garrisoning will not be included and it is also unlikely that gates will be included. It would be nice to have some additional units though for balance purposes. I am mainly hoping to see a bronze age slinger upgrade and an iron age camel rider upgrade. Being able to walk on farms would also something that I’m hoping for.
I’m not so sure about other features. Things like a farm queue would be good to attract new players more easily.
- Gates makes the game more defensive. Once you build it you don’t have to be bothered with letting units in and out. You are safe as long as non of your units opens the gate for the enemy.
- Without gates you have to make decisions. Walling up everything or just the sensitive parts where your villagers are working. You are losing resources every time you rebuild that house. Not much but it is still wasted. You also have to send there a villager to rebuild it which is a waste of time or you keep him close that part and you lose resources. You have to pay more attention if you play without gates.
A gate and rebuilding a house is functionally the same, but there are a lot of small factors what can make it different.
@Zsombro
How does the gate make the game more defensive? if you want to wall yourself in you dont need any gates to do that.
You wall everything even if there is no gate or the passages the map gives you like in black forrest.
Also who cares if you lose 30 wood or 20 stone by deleting the wall when you are ready to go specially thinking when gate is more expensive than wall from the starters.
I dont really think it will make any difference in overall game play and dont really care if it does not get added.
But saying it changes the game too much is just plain ridicilus statement
Just try it out and you will see that it feels different 
@CoiledBenis said:
@Zsombro
How does the gate make the game more defensive? if you want to wall yourself in you dont need any gates to do that.
Because if there is no gate, you 'll think twice before walling. And most of the time you’ll chose to not wall.
So yeah, gate make the game more defensive, because it help resolve wall problematics, so it encourage walling
that’s simple
@Tgaud said:
@CoiledBenis said:
@Zsombro
How does the gate make the game more defensive? if you want to wall yourself in you dont need any gates to do that.Because if there is no gate, you 'll think twice before walling. And most of the time you’ll chose to not wall.
So yeah, gate make the game more defensive, because it help resolve wall problematics, so it encourage walling.
what?
let me try to get this.
No gate = no walls
gate = build all the walls
i just cant there is no way to even remotely try to understant what moves in your head. you wall because its smart way to defend yourself in aoe not because “DUDE LOOK WE HAVE GATES LETS MAKE A WALL NOW”