“were they satisfied i am sure another proportion wouldnt be”
If there were graphics that weren’t cartoons, no one would have complained about “overly realistic graphics.” That is one of the problems I see, that by making the game unrealistic they have divided the community unnecessarily.
3 Likes
my point aswell, the graphics in general look quite ncie especially zoomed out, but the units need more detail. But i am sure they will get that. after all, we just saw late aplpha/early beta gameplay at the insiders eevnt 
1 Like
I see your point, but believe me, were the graphics realistic, we would have far worse problems. Because in that case, the historic detail faction of the game community would be even more of a point of discssion, and many ppls would probably find the game to gritty (or not gritty enough, both would surely happen).
They decided to go the route they deemed best, and focused on the nice depiction of medieval times, as was age 2s focus aswell. A colorful middle age.
I see the complaints, but The game is still more about the gameplay. I nearly never didnt purchase a gae with amazing gameplay because I didnt like the art style
1 Like
also age never was a realistic depiction. maybe you chose the wrong word with unrealistic. or you mean the game art style.
The guy who created the theme, complained about the people who criticized the graphics and did just a little say, how much he like the previous graphics of the game. He even took the comparison to another game as an example. They twist facts.
There are several topics about this case. Let people express their freedom of opinion and do not ask for something, that violates the rules.
The people that you address, do not just talk about the graphics, no, they mainly attack people, who have a different opinion about the graphics of the game. They twist facts again.
You do that. They drive out decent people, who like to discuss objectively.
If one criticizes the graphics in this forum, you can also see a same bunch of people jumping out and shouting “graphics is not important so you should not complain about it”. That’s actually quite fair.
2 Likes
I don’t have any problems buddy. Only you have any problems and claims)
In what place?)) Can you show me?"))
There is something colorful and even a bit naive about the Middle Ages that those graphics portray well indeed. That’s why I’m rather satisfied about them and even asked for more colors.
4 Likes
I’m not going to react to provocations buddy) If you think so, fine.
There will be no debate, all I wanted to say, I said)
1 Like
I really like the graphics/ art aesthetic. Even more and more… The colors are beautiful and makes the game seem really lively. Its just some of the proportions that bother me… If they made the buildings too big to start with, they should have redone them so that doors look like the accommodate people and not just scale the whole thing down… I would like that fixed and operators on siege units, and well, then I think they would be set up for a top notch game.
3 Likes
I doubt we wil see ops on siege weapons, ghostly ones at maximum. thats just an age thing, I would say. also it would feel wrong if you couldnt get rid of the units carrying the ram unless all its hp are down. Which would be the only good way to implement them.
But we shall wait and see
2 Likes
not having crew on siege is an age thing? no… its not… Age 2 had it on 2 units, and AOE3 had it on all of them.
Yet ghost crew is better compromise and part of AOE aesthetic? No totally disagree here. Its distracting and breaks immersion even more than just not having them. You wouldn’t need crew for a ram or tower because they are inside it and its covered.
I really see no excuses as to why no crew would be on the units… it just seems lazy and short cutting…
3 Likes
ok, which age 2 siege equipment had units? 
I only remember rams -no units there, but garrisonable, skorpions, and self packing trebuchets. There never were operators foor these?
Bombard cannons dont count since they basically were a human unit.
For age 3 I am not sure, dont quite remember anything except canons which again, of course had humans to operate them.
However siege operators to me sounds like pl running around rams and trebs etc, which imo is not very age-like.
What I mean is if you want these kind of things, ghosts is the best you will get. I dont see rams, trebuchets and even skorpions being populated with humans except for maybe ghosts.
i assume that this is for readability rather than age rating. A ram would at least need 4 humans to carry, but its only 1 unit. which is why (bombard) cannons can have a human operatoir
1 Like
I really don’t know why everybody is talking about graphics while the gameplay could be terrible. AOE4 graphic work fine for what they’re supposed to do.
1 Like
This graphic is disgusting, it is like a 10yo game or a mobile game.
0/10
4 Likes
You won’t need to buy it if you don’t like it.
6 Likes
Bombard cannon (yes it counts) its a siege engine, used like a siege unit, build at the siege workshop… how are you going to justify and twist logic to make it an infantry unit?
There is also the Portuguese Organ gun.
You do not seem like you play the game much if you have to try to remember what units there are, missing mangonels. and even Petards.
Yes Age 3 had humans on cannon and it looked great… even horses in limber mode to take them across the battle field. The units stayed close and even simple animations enhanced the game immensely.
Why is ghost a better option? it just adds to make the game more cartoony, because units operate like cartoon characters with no operators and little fake animations… just make them part of the unit with color. If anything this feature is very “unage” like.
Again Rams would not need operators because they are covered and same with siege towers. The operators are protected by the engine itself.
by your last argument about needing humans to carry being linked to its pop space…
Are you ok with mahouts to have a driver and a lancer counted as one unit? The tower elephants will have a driver and 2 archers… (with upgrade)
Having everything count as one pop is incredibly oversightful in my opinion… AGE 3 would be ruined if all units cost 1 pop. Cannons would be uncounterable if they were so spammable.
Anyway they are making AOE 4 not AOE2.1 and should innovate and differentiate the games without holding onto limitations of over 20 years ago. Just no excuse not to have some operators even on some units… The Chinese rocket thing looks like a joke.
1 Like
You see, in real time strategy games what matters more than graphics is visibility, you need to be able to tell the difference between a Pikeman and a swordsman, you need to tell the difference between a cavalry with a mace or a fire lancer, I think aoe4 did a good job at that
5 Likes
ou are right, i forgot Organ guns. However i think i Made clear that I think human Operators should be Part of the model if needed to move. Also i was talking about siege engines, but Not siege Units in the Games Sense (therefore no Saboteur)
I do See the Point with Missing Operators in Dome siege Units. Im sorry, i was a Bit Blender by PPL asking for persona in ships in world of warships for ages- i somewhat react allergic to these Types If requests now.
Yes I do believe that 1 unit per Pop Space is correct. Because that makes the Game easy to learn. The fact a unit Limit was needed Simply Shows how age 3 was balanced.
I AS Player want to be able to Play any way i Like, including Cannon only. There should be an easy counter to that though. Which age 2 did have. But thats another topic.
Seeing how trebuchets already are built by Ghost workers I assume WE will See the Same fonsone other siege equip aswell. If WE are lucky.
But i do Not see IT AS a Problem tbh. Gameplay comes First anD should easily Be Understood. Imo there is no need for siege Operators. But WE will See soon If there are any ,