Gameplay: Early Game, Starting conditions & Act Direction: can AoE4 break the repetitive genre curse?

Age of Empires IV IV - Discussion
21

If anything, I’d like the pace of the game to slow down a little bit, not speed up.
Most games never even reach an hour like you mentioned and finish up way earlier.
In AoE3 specifically which I play more regularly, a game can easily come to an end in less than 10 minutes. Which is, in my opinion, too fast.

AoE3 has this Treaty option which allows you decide if you want to invest more time into a game. Nevertheless this doesn’t change the pace of the game itself, which still feels too fast imo, but rather drags its end back by not allowing conflict between the players and forbidding rushing strategies.

That may be understandable up to a point for AoE3, since the context is all about building up a colony in the New World. Getting quick military shipments from your home city or rushing hard the enemy colony can make more sense in this context.

To a new medieval Age title tho, with all its amazing new graphics and audio that we’ve seen and heard so far, I would probably want more time to immerse myself into the environment and into the context of building up an empire from the ground up. Building a big beautiful walled city or giving epic battles within a large, strategic and unknown geography that first has to be explored and analyzed is the marvel of AoE.

Besides, we’ve already heard from interviews that the game will be designed as to be able to satisfy both tastes, having in mind the “more modern sensibilities” of players as well.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with the QoL features that should make the game more fun and give space for meaningful gameplay by reducing some of its old, outdated, chore-like micromanaging (e.g reseeding farms or auto-scouts). I personally want to see more that in AoE4.

22

A game can be challenging without it taking forever but I agree ultimately it will come down to what kind of audience you want to appeal to. Over time any other RTS/MOBA, Starcraft2, Dota have taken steps to speed the game up. In case of SC2 which I played for a long time, when they first sped it up people made the same complaints are you have, but really all it did was push people to do the same stuff in less time. Push people’s skills and actually a lot of players are just better now once the demand is there. Some of the reasons for the slow pace of AOE2 I think comes down to clunky controls (it’s an old game) micro is difficult cause of unit movement etc. Improved AI can help in those areas and the game can be sped up.

Maybe I’m just not seeing it. I don’t see much variation tbh each nation plays basically the same with some variations on the fringes. Also in reality the games not balances, only a handful of nations are actually playable.

Completely agree, maybe need to think about what starcraft 2 did, basically have different game modes for different things. Co-op mode that balance is less of an issue. Competitive mode that’s more streamlined and none of the padding, single player mode for some other stuff.

If that’s the norm then I would agree. But just have the look at the AOE2 reddit, there was just a 5hr game between 2 pros. Should not be possible.

If I had a wish list it would largely be take out the clicks required for economy management especially early game through QoL improvements. Focus more on strategic and micro decision in the mid game and late game.

2 Likes
23

Let’s hope it’s not another DOW3 mode, a single one made for everybody, nobody liked.

The thing by Starcraft2, you can still play the “slower” Wings of Liberty mode with 6 workers at launch without the new units. While Starcraft2 changed a lot over the time,
you can still play the vanilla version the way it was launched.

So having like game 3 modes at launch ? Basically would be one very classic complex. And the other would be faster, without “extra steps” and one even more simple for the casuals?

That’s sounds like a perfect solution.

1 Like
24

I rather play a 4 hour game than a half hour game, but that’s just me. Longer games give me more satisfaction. And if I need to game, I make time for gaming. I mean, who has time to do anything else in the modern world when they need to be gaming a minimum of 5 hours a day? This pretty much depends on what kind of a life one is running and how they like their life anyway, personally I’ll spend most of it gaming when I can.

Sadly so, yes. Even on dota, I loved the games more that went on for over an hour. The 20 mins rolfstomps were just boring but worked for the elo grab. It’s funny when you feel like the game is just about to start (you have some nice items to have fun around with), the enemy base already crumbles to dust. Bleh.

Just straight on disrespecting people who have a different taste than you, is not really a great argument now is it? Cause after all, DE has been selling quite well actually and has the largest player base since on aoe since…ever.

1 Like
25

And why the F not? :smiley: What’s your reasoning behind this?

26

I think his point is, the game flow might become clanky if it takes too long.

I will later write an article about mid-and-end game, there are various critical points, and its not so easy to explain, certain gameplay elements are like Schrödinger’s cat, might be an issue, or might be the fun part of the game.

27

I’m not following. But I’ll wait for the article for the better explanation. :slight_smile:

28

Sure and you can play 8 x 30mins games if an average game is 30mins long. No one is stopping you from doing that, however 1 game being 4 hours long prevents a lot of people from playing the game.

Not sure how this is disrespectful. It’s a statement of fact. I enjoy the game myself but can see how it doesn’t have mass appeal. In terms of total number of gamers, the total player basis is small. It’s just a fact. Most of the sales were made like almost 2 decades ago. Not saying it’s not good game or there are people (like yourself) who clearly love the game, but it’s a question of what the game needs to target. So yes if they want to target people like yourself then yes please keep making a game that takes hours to play a single game.

Not really, I’m simply talking about time plain and simple. The longer a game on average goes for, the less meaningful each action is on average. Shorter games mean decisions have more impact and are more obvious to a player or viewer. You have to strike the right balance between the two.

I come from decades of Starcraft, and when SC2 first launched it made this big mistake that a lot of elitists argued was a dumbing down, no don’t do it etc (mind you I was probably on that bandwagon myself) however it was clear over time, the game started with like 200,000 concurrent players then dropped to like 20k then only popped back up recently when they made some of these changes.

29

You are right for Starcraft, as it is early game focused. But Developers do extremely fail to design Starcraft clone. You should not loose in because you did run out of resources or enemy did make cheap rush move, but because your enemy has the better strategy.

Starcraft is designed like a boxer to knock out opponent in first round, if it does not work he is out of stamina. AoE is rather a technical boxer and that can go for lot rounds.

Issue is you can’t put AoE units and buildings into Starcraft gameplay, it won’t work. Because, developers don’t understand what they have to adjust. Starcraft units are designed as units that do damage every single target fast. AoE units do damage only one thing fast. So while even weakest unit like Zergling will eat Fortress in secs fast for breakfast. Majority of AoE units won’t even scratch a house.

AoE is mid and endgame focused. That’s what AoE units are designed for.

By the way in AoE you can make more decisions in mid and end game, as you have greater economy to back up your plans. And that’s why you can play AoE for hours, as it is still fun to do so.

1 game being 4 hours long can be very fun, if done right I would compare it to a dark souls boss fight, it feels very rewarding to finally win and not regretful to lose as it was a decent fight.

You are right, that’s accusation to be fun can be rare. That’s why I do think AoE requires more meaningful tools for the mid and end game.

-first of all better mid and endgame resource production, to produce actually tools to win.
-more room on the maps, to actually build infrastructure you need.
this alone will have great impact on that issue.

1 Like
30

Taking extremes to show a point is not really useful.

Staying focused for a long game is also a good skill to have. And losing a 30 minute game will be more frustrating than losing a 5 minute game.

So lets make every game 1 minute long?
Its right that early decisions can change the outcome more drastical, however you don´t want to design all civs to be good in early game else variety would be lower. Different civs should have different powerspikes(ages) where they show their full potential. It should be rewarding to survive vs a early-game civ as a late-game civ and winning the game by playing smart.

1 Like
31

I think we cannot relate anno and AOE. AOE always more real time than anno. Halo wars 2, too simple but it enough. AOE must be more complex but always make it simple and more tactical.

Tbh its really difficult to make old game using old looks to target new player.

32

Completely agree. Mid and end game is a lot of fun. That’s why I think you need more stuff at the start.

I think there’s plenty mid game and end game stuff already. It’s the early game that feels like it doesnt add much.

Current version feel like you are playing 2 games. You play about 20mins woth of PvE then 30-40mins of PvP. Maybe they should consider cutting out some of the early game. Like playing AOE2 fedual just feels like a waste of time. Nothing every happens there. You can just as easily move all the stuff that happens in fedual to dark and then skip straight to castle.

33

Am i missing something. Is AOE suppose to RTS or the sims? Real-time strategy

34

I do not know know where to post this but Civs like Mayans and those without Stables should have one. What they can build there is the mounted pikeman and skirmishers. They mount on donkeys to make it work. I hope the devs hear this.

35

Well in last years, base build was extremely simplified and lot was removed,
and I think there was a lot lost.

here for example old RA1 C&C tech tree and compare how it changed over years
to red alert 3, than to vs modern day game 8 bit Armies from “same” developer
Its very visible how much was lost.

1200×946 403 KB

1024×768 561 KB

1024×576 152 KB

so this is tech tree by AoE2

800×450 642 KB

You suggest simply to make tech earlier accessible? But what is than left for end age?

800×450 516 KB

My big fear, it might lead to lose a lot of tech tree.

36

get rid of imperial. Why cant castle be late game. you have all the same tech in this example, late game is no different just happens sooner.

late game doesn’t mean a specific age, it just means late in the game. many rts don’t even have ages, why are you fixated on this idea.

37

I love C&C series and RA3 is the most advanced one in RA series. Instead of useless units and buildings, you can reach all tech in a 1v1 game and you can even expand to sea. So it has much more options with active land, sea and air fights. Units has abilities which are tactical and micro oriented and it’s not like moba which is awesome.

38

To be clear with modern day game I did mean 8 Bit Armies^^

39

Problem is, what it turned out by other series.

Example 1
Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander were quite advanced base build RTS,
Supreme Commander 2 did reduce massively tech tree, removed tier 2 and tier 3 and flopped
by the way this guys had 10 years RTS experience as they worked on SupCom 2 and did there make the game massively more accessible

https://www.ign.com/faqs/2008/supreme-commander-tech-tree-887395

Example 2
Empire Earth Series

In both Empire Earth and Empire Earth II there are fifteen epochs. There are twenty epochs in total, as some are shared. Empire Earth III has only five epochs, covering the same time period.
I Loved the first 2 games, Empire Earth 3 is the worst thing I did ever see

Example 3
Dawn of War 3 Focuses on Accessibility. Big problem here DoW1 and 2 was already simple and accessible, they simply butcher with 3 the series.

Example 4
And let me tell you the tragedy of C&C, since Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight
it did not recover from simplification. We never got again something decent like Generals or Tiberium Sun.

Especially after all this, I do see it as a huge problem if parts of tech tree are cut away.

RTS are not a simple genre for a reason. Cut base build means cut away the gameplay and strategies that do come along with it, and that’s quite a lot in case of base build strategy game.

just a small list of legit extinct strategies in modern day disappointments
-tech-up, tech-rush, eco boomer, turtling, siege master “yes he starves without turtler”, world wonder pacifist

Age of Empires 1 and 2 are massively built upon base build. For this series, considering what happened by all others, simplification and accessibility, sounds like a death sentence.

40

8-bit armies has a different concept. There is no race, you create everything in your army. Like squad weapon and armor types, tank wheels/palettes, armors, weapon types, super weapont etc. That’s why it looks like it has less army and was not AAA game. Same devs are developing C&C Remasters.