Game is a desaster, admit it please

This is confusing, because on the one hand you say “Relic is doing what they have always done”, and then you cite the last game they released, ignoring the past twenty years or so of games they’ve made.

It’s poor / rushed / lazy comparisons (whichever one of the three best fits) like this that inform peoples’ tone when they reply, because they assume you’re just rushing to knock the game without actually investing much critical thought into the arguments provided.

Nobody knows how the game will be received. The only data we have so far are opinions shared over time, on here and elsewhere. My opinion is that they have improved over time, but that’s just my opinion. I’m not betting anything on it. You shouldn’t either!


first of, its age of empires at its finest.
second, it can run on a potato, but also look quite well
third, the camapign promise to be amazing with
fourth the included videos / documentaries of historical events and stuff.
Five - its hundreds of hours of playtime for just 60 bucks. Or in Gamepass. Or less if it will be at sale around new year.
6, I need someone to beat AI with me
7, age 2 ist still neat and everyone has it, but the gameplay of this title is more fresh
8, we have 8 civs which play very differently, and which can be played pretty different in between themselves. Isnt it amazing to find the tactic that fits YOU the most? (With that argument I would get mist. we all played age 2 as childs, merely 3, so 4 will be the FIRST where we can actually personally explore strategies, and the asymetric civs are making this even more interesting)
9 you can play it together (not sure if city builders support that, usually I see them as single player stuff)
10 Next year there will be cheats, and an editor, so we can build castles and try defeating each other. Similar to stronghold

I could probably go on with stuff like better AI than in Age 2 (probably, from what I saw thus far), the amazing tech which automatically places roads etc, etc.

1 Like

Debatable, and often is on these forums where some prefer 2, some prefer 3, some prefer Online, some prefer AoM. Everyone has a different opinion of what is Age of Empires at it’s finest.

As a proud potato+ owner - no. It doesn’t look quite well, it looks like crap. As a proud potato+ owner I’ve also stopped getting excited over the fact that a game can “run” on my machine. Total War games can “run” on my machine, I have to play using the smallest unit count, wait 5 minutes per turn, use the lowest settings and still get horrible performance.

Just because a game can “run” on your machine doesn’t mean you are actually playing the game as it’s intended to be played and comparing the show matches to the experience I’ve had on my machine this is 100% true for AoE4. I am still maintaining the delusion that the release build will improve the experience for me though.

Youtube is full of incredible documentaries of historical events and stuff, can you show me where the amazing campaign is for Youtube?


Get more specific instead of speaking in generalities.

Sprite based games look better, especially on low settings AND have lower system requirement than 3d games by nature… So this is just wrong.

The campaign could be amazing? Wait for release to make any judgement, we just have advertisement now compared to closed beta and stresstest that already showed the conceptional design and gameplay.

You can say that on any game and any number…
That’s just purely subjective if the game is exciting for so many hours or if X amount of money is alot or worth it for you…

And that is AoE4 exclusive because…?
Afaik if you want to aim for PvE RTS, SC2 is the way to go since it has coop mods, a literal big coop mode and normal PvE on top of that completely for free.

Again generalities, go into specifics instead of just sugarcoating the titlename with nice sounding adjectives.

You mean like any Age?
Like in Age1 Chosons went for swords, egys went for chariots and macedonians went for hoplites?
Or Age2 turks went for gunpowder but without spears, franks were really cav heavy and British had huge archerlines while goth were rack spam 100% of the game?

Age4 is actually more streamlined in that regard, cause it has way more symmetry to it on a tighter/lower unit roster.

Very Age4 exclusive.

That sounds more like you try to convince someone to buy stronghold now rather than Age4.

Heyyy we got a first point here.
AI could be better yeah but why not just ask and push for a better AI experience in the other games?
Doesn’t have to be Age4 exclusive to have a good AI right? Every game would benefit from it.

Automatically placing roads is a minor visual feature that’s neat but not really anything gamechamging or that is noticeable over time.
2 games I was like: hey cool stuff, but then never noticed it again.
Nothing that makes Age4 a better or worse game, just a neat sidething.


So, you ask how I would advertise the game to my friends. My friends do have the “honor” of knowing me, so most of my answers will of cours ebe short. I am not marketing for age here.

But let me add
Age of empires at its finest FOR ME.
However I know all firedsn remotely interested will have the same opinion. Age is about base building, amassing armies and then having a blast- thats what I mean, and thats the base age formula for me. And this is executed at its finest - in age 4, just as in age 2. debatably in age 3,1 or O :wink:

I am not sure if you mean potato+ as in you have low specs or high ones. But i have seeen the videos on lowest graphics quality. As I focus gameplay over graphics (although I definitely dont use a potato) I will always argue its better if the game can run anywhere.
The fact it didnt run well on “potato+” however was a bug in the beta, the devs confirmed. So your delusion probably is none :wink:

And lastly, thats my point- I could also watch documentaries or read books, but I want to play the game. And the campaign intros will make you delve deep into the matter you will soon play yourself.
We (my friends and I) learned a lot anbout medieval BASE History not from documentaries, or books, but the age 2 library. So yes, the documenaries in the game will be of interest to us.
Form what I personally saw so far, I am happy about the quality of production of the vids, and the way they help you immerese in the game. Or even the videos (whoch probably will be used instead of the good old age library)


Again, I was asked to explain it to my friends, but a slightly more specific version can be seen in my comment above.

Yes, sprite games look better. Thats entirely true. But my statement is not wrong. I never said it looks great. Maybe I need to rephrase. I meant you CAN play on a potato and play it, but if you do Not, like me, then the game looks quite well. Sorry, also @jehovakin I now see how my statement could be misread.

regarding campaign - I dont want to be spoiled. I did see the Intro to the joan of arc campaign, with the plaquette and the smooth transition into gameplay. So I know it will be immersive, and I know the gameplay is good - what else is there to make the campaigns great?
So yes, I can argue (to my friends at least) that the campaigns PROMISE to be good. And I will soon be able to tell them if they are :wink:

Its true, you can say that for many games. But since I know my friends, I can be sure here. We all didnt quite like age 3, all have many many hours in 2, and age4 feeels and plays similar to 2, so many hours will be played.
Also the gamepass argument still is quite strong, even though of course there are other games there aswell.

The question was to bring my friends to get the game. I have SC, but it never was our game. I played enough of age 2 for my taste. I need someone to play against AI is therefore, at least in my circle, a valid argument.

My friends already know why its a fresh title, and so does anyone in the forum I hope. Climbable walls, hiding in forests, and yes (although we argue on that later) the 8 quite asymmetric civs, aswell as updates on costs and especially early age variety (dark age with very different unit types) make the gameplay “fresh”.

See, you dont get the point there. You describe exactly what I find SO interesting in age 4, which I and my firends couldnt get from age 1.3 and O/M.
As you state, each civ had a very specific way to go. Thats nowadays called a meta. But it first needs to be build, found out, and strengtened. When we played age 2,3 etc, there already was a meta. So, to take your first examples, you KNEW Chosons went for swords.
And thats my 2 points here.

  1. in age 4 as it is a new game, a meta will evolve fast (because dedicated age players and pros are quite fast in finding good comps) BUT it will have to evolve first. So on release, all is possible, we ourselves can find us a need tactique :slight_smile:
  2. And you are wrong to think that each civ in age 4 is precisely good for 1 thing. That was the most interesting part about the beta actually, and I am still of that opinion - Each civ has multiple valid ways to play. On HRE, you could go fast next age - or build your first prelate with the starting gold.
    Of course one of them will become meta. But there is multiple ways to work here. The house of wisdom - which way would you build it? Maybe I would build in a different order?
    That makes the game exciting.The units may be more similar, the base building / gameplay however not.
    And yes, any new strategy game would offer that experience. But then again age 4 is also Age of empires, a series at least my friends recognize and love in a way.

This was simply referring to the example games stated in the post before mine. These were city builder RTS for solo players. Of course its not age 4 exclusive xD It still is a relevant point to make.

No, I dont think you see scenario editing as I do. I just boiled the idea down to similarities to stronghold, of course there is much more. But I wouldnt explain to my friends, what they already know :wink:

You are also right about the AI. But its neat side things that show atttention to detail and make a game worth much more - in my opinion.

To conclude, You are not part of my friend group, which I “pitched” these quick and dirty points to. Of course therefore, you disagree with some/most of them or at least my depiction.
If I were to make a professional essay, I am sure It would rather focus on unique technical points like better AI. And be more detailed about the great stuff I see in the game. But I wasnt asked to and didnt mean to :slight_smile:

I could have made it much shorter- the game is fun, go buy it. Thats the only info someone actually needs to decide to get a game, if they and you believe in the same aspects :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

If you just throw out “it’s new”, that doesn’t make for a good designed game or enjoyable gameplay experience for anyone.

That’s meta developement.
You can technically have a different opener or unit comp in any Age as well, even playable ones, but it’s just “less optimal” and people know that.
The same thing will happen after a few days in Age4, that’s every game for you.

You were specifically asked what you’d tell your friend to get Age4 specifically, so something that is unique to Age4 to advertise the game for friends.
My whole point of going one by one into the things tht you’ve written is that you failed to engage with the actual comment that you were answering.

Either you’ve kept it on generalities even tho one asked you for specifics “it’s age, it’s new and good” while sugarcoating it with adjectives that don’t say anything, or you brought up points that fit more for other games and are not age4 exclusive “because of the PvE, we can play stronghold with it”.

you really would not be part of my friends :smiley:

and yes, thats what I said, its meta development. And for US, for MY FRIEND GROUP, this is the first time we can actually play an age game from the beginning, before a meta develops. Which is a valid argument.

If I argue about my friends getting something, I dont have to look elsewhere. I wont, and I dont think it makes any sense, to use any argument for other stuff.

Age 4 has this, this and that. Thats how I advertise the game. If other games also have that, its nice. But none combines it all. Points 1-10. If tehre is, please enlighten me.


I’m curious why you are worried about playing a game before a ‘meta’ develops. My friends and I used to play Age of Mythology a fair bit, as recently as four years ago. 2v2 or 1v1. No one, myself included has any clue about any ‘meta’ for AOM, maybe a vague build order or two, that’s it. Just pick any RTS that none of you have played much and just play it. There is no ‘meta’ unless everyone is hard core tournament watchers and forum readers. You and your friends could do the same. Everyone will likely be at the same skill level too, since they haven’t been playing it online. As long as one person doesn’t go online reading tons of forums posts for an advantage, you’re good. A large benefit of Age games is there are actually opponents of equal skill levels to play against. If you play with your friends, you don’t have to worry about that, and you can play games like Cossacks, Rise of Nations, Age of Mythology, Spellforce 3, all with minimal online player base but great among friends.


I’d say its looking like a nice blend of features from the previous Aoe games.
Prelates remind me of the Priests/Pharaoahs and the Khan reminds me of Hero units like Arkantos from AoM, the unique age up mechanics remind me of AoM’s god age up. (apparently Aoe 3 also had some sort of landmark system for the japanese)
A little bit of batch production as bonuses from some buildings is also an interesting call-over from Aoe 3. (English Wyngard Palace and the Mongol oovoo bonuses)

There are also some great new features such as being able to upgrade towers and castles individually (like choosing what weapons you want to mount/if you want a tower to have a stone exterior)
Being able to mount your units on walls! (yeah I know this has been a thing in other RTS games but its totally new for Aoe)
There are also some good QOL features like a hotkey for villages to “seek shelter”. Or the fact that unit info is really detailed now such as being able to see what weapon your units are using(they switch weapons sometimes and the weapons give different attack damage and speed values) and what specific damage bonuses that gives.

HRE maa after mS

They’ve also added some very fun active abilities to units which reminds me of starcraft/warcraft gameplay. This rewards good micro and also just adds more flavour to battles/units.

The environments look really pretty and I feel like they’ve streamlined some of the basic Aoe 2 gameplay for the better. Such as scouts being able to herd and hunt, being able to very quickly place farms symmetrically, and base building being an important aspect of the game (rather than just thinking about walling with houses).

Multiplayer looks to be a lot more geared towards competitive gameplay which I really like.
I look forward to going up the ladder and comparing performance with friends.


because its a fun experience, and a first one for me at least.
Yes you can play older games, but we know about them, and most of them are only fun because of nostalgia tbh.
maybe its just me/us, but being part of a game in a series this large from the beginning, exploring said game with a modern day perspective and more knowlege than we ever had before, makes it a unique experience, similar to back in the day with age2, but there because it was my first PC game.
Back then I didnt know about meta etc. But now I do.

Its hard for me to explain what is the core that makes this so special, so unique to me. It just takes me (and them) back in time.
Its like believing in santa again for a short amount of time. Its magical. And it will not happen often to get such opportunity.
any other game, we didnt play as much together as age(2). So it wont be the same with any other game. Its just… personal I guess :smiley:

1 Like

Yeah, same for me. Even though it’s a new game I feel really nostalgic of the excitement I got from AoE when I was a kid. Back then I used to think AoE1 and AoE2 graphics were the best humans could achieve. Now I see AoE4 and it’s modern graphics and it’s like how I thought AoE1 looked back in the day. Really takes me back to my childhood when times were easier.

I’m hands down excited to play AoE4. I won’t have friends to play it with like I used to, but it’s still going to be a fresh experience after like a decade of AoE2.


Fortunately (despite growing older), the friends I used to play with will reunite again. It will be a familiar and new RTS experience. Nostalgia definitely plays a part!

In respect of established ‘meta’, if you are a competitive player there is certainly fun to be had in a new game where you have the opportunity to have more of an impact on the meta. Potentially discovering and building new strategies before anyone else.

This is not really possible in a strategy game that has been around for years which has a fairly competitive (and sizeable) community working on these things. Of course you can stay blind to this and just play for fun, but if you will join the competitive community, there will be that established way to do things if you actually want to compete.

It is even more difficult now with streamers and YouTube videos just showcasing what to do.


The same will happen for AOE4. I’d argue even faster since there are already modern communities and content creators starved for RTS food, ready and waiting to pick it apart. On top of that the game has less depth than it’s predecessors, so even less data and permutations to go through.

I agree that it will happen faster this time round. It happens to every game now with the vultures circling with build guides and walkthroughs to grab people’s attention.

Not necessarily a bad thing if high level play is accelerated. But hopefully there is enough depth to sustain a competitive community with a reasonable sized playerbase.

Yes I know there are a few that make doomsday predictions. These people will not be at all important for the community.


also maybe thats just my interest in game design. I studied it and could probably have become a professional, but decided not to go that route, because it would change the fun I have at game design, as I need the game to also sell :smiley:

And with a completely new game and meta, the possibilities in my head are just andless.

1 Like

Appreciate the compliment, Drongo.

If it is any consolation, while I try my best not to restrain my criticism of different things if I feel it is warranted - despite being well aware of likely community backlash before posting, I’ve never doubted your sincere interest in the franchise. I believe your videos are usually quality and do far more good than bad for the Age community. Keep doing you.


I blame AOE3, AOM, other beautiful RTS games and the year 2021 for ruining our visual experience. :sweat_smile:

Why did AOM show me in 2001 that there could be water where we could see sharks, whales and walruses or flying units like Pagasus or Huge units like Titans and godpowers like earthquake, implode and Meteor Shower? Why did BFME show me that crew operated walled trebuchets can throw huge boulders on units with great impact and it would look so satisfying? or siege units can be pushed through forests cutting down the trees? or that it can rain in RTS games? Why did AOE 3 show me that those small units can have ragdoll physics and trees can fall down by impact of cannonballs and buildings collapse differently each time according to attack?




Imagine AOE 4 in 2001 or imagine if these games didn’t exist. We would have been so insanely impressed looking at the graphics and considered them as highest level our 3d engines could achieve. but now being spoiled by these better games, its hard for my brain to accept anything lazy or low quality.


“But these games are not as popular as AOE2 which means visuals are not important at all”


Gameplay is king. Insert 20 other characters on the lack of importance of graphics in RTS games.

1 Like