No you didn’t ask ME before. Check who you’re replying.
BTW, a RTS game (which is almost a dead genre) that has several good designs PLUS good marketing PLUS good nostalgia can stay alive nowadays does not mean THEIR ONLY STRENGTH IS NOSTALGIA. I think that’s a simple logic.
Ok. not u.
Anyway. i still did not hear any competitive RTS without micro.
I want understand how this conclusion were made:
Yes, it should be balanced. But at least aoe2 have soooo many micro that even TheControllerPlayer could hit top5%/ The lefty hit 1600RM. Also johnSlow - is 2k MMR. (check his POV. it’s a joke. 40-60 APM )
what example of success for RTS in e-sport without micro?
PS sc2 - too much micro…but aoe2 - perfect balance (based on examples above) with no micro and low apm u could be great but u never be the best. Perfect balance.
And i dont want aoe4 to copy aoe2…but remove micro and game will be “clash of…”
First of all, my thanks to everyone that posted under this thread. AoE fans are typically smart and knowledgeable and this topic is so much richer and more substantial because of your contribution.
It is not my intention to set off a civil war among AoE 2, 3 and 4… We have to acknowledge all AoE games are genuine classics, it’s a series like no other. The mere fact that it’s HISTORY-based (and not ethnocentric, Eurocentric, or Asiacentric) sets it galaxies apart from lower, lesser computer games. In particular, both AoE 2 and 3 are incredible games with its own strengths and weaknesses. We all hope AoE4 will be fresh and unique yet incorporate lessons from both AoE2 and AoE3. This topic is definitely NOT about AoE4 “killing off” AoE2… it’s not about diminishing AoE2 or AoE3, it’s about imagining how AoE4 could be better.
The current discussion is absolutely essential nonetheless, we must carry out this discussion. This is a pivotal and decisive moment in Age of Empires history. No matter if you’re an AoE 2 or 3 player, or both, we all wish AoE 4 success and we all want to contribute.
I see most people commented on points Number 1 & 2, yet Number 3 is perhaps even more vital here. Because it cuts into the essence of what makes Age of Empires unique: respect to HISTORY. Sometimes forgotten, this was the vision of the true forefathers who bestowed AoE on the world… No son, it is not a coincidence that the icon of a “Wonder” is the Turkish Wonder… Sir Bruce Shelley and Sir Sandy Petersen had encyclopedic knowledge of History and a DEEP respect and admiration for Turkish Civilization and the Ottoman Empire, much more than ANY other civ (no I’m not a Turk).
Matter of fact, it should be clearly stated here that the 8 base Civs choice of AoE4 is already QUITE controversial… If we look at the timespan of AoE4, Rus were less than a savage tribe in the beginning of the period, then in Castle Age, Rus were enslaved by Mongols and Turks-Tatars, and were almost inconsequential even at the end…
Turks and Byzantines, on the other hand, were full-blown world superpowers right at the core of the timespan, way more powerful and influential than English, ‘Holy Roman Empire’, or Rus during 70% to 100% of the timespan (plus YES, the firearm revolution started by Turks did utterly “disappear” Mongols from History forever, it is a fact), yet Turks and Byzantines were left out!!!..
SC2 as an e-sport is pretty much done for, whereas the legacy SC/BW is still going strong. The point I am trying to make is that sequels are generally not received well in the RTS scene, and this is not to say that sequels do not have better mechanics. Aoe2 is a very simple and basic game, there is nothing great about its mechanics.
Aoe2 balanced? maybe. But that is simply because it lacks variety.
Try to take off your fanboy glasses and look at things into perspective. Aoe4 is pivotal to the long term viability of RTS, there is no room to get it wrong. The only reason we even get DE for 2 and 3 is because of nostalgia and the core user base that simply didn’t give up. Don’t imagine theres any other reason.
This is totally untrue. AoE2 has been played by thousands of ppl in the last 20 years because its a ROCK SOLID masterpiece of a game. And the popularity is due to that. If only nostalgia was the thing that drove these thousands of people to play it, then as well you would see fairly big communities for games like Stronghold and Empire Earth as well.
again. 10/10 position It’s bad, but…
but provide some examples? Is it hard?
Or it’s ur speculation?
let’s try something new, microing were a thing in all successful strategies, sc2 is dead, so remove micro.
still waiting for game examples…I provided a lot of examples why and how aoe2 balanced in term of micro. No examples with game successful without micro in terms of e-sport.
This definitely seems like you are just cherry-picking two particular civ lineups that would play out this way. There is no need for Vikings to put Berserks on the field against Japanese, and as such, Samurai have little use here. With your Ethiopians vs Byzantines example, I think that you would definitely see Cataphracts appear, and both Skirmishers and the Spearman line come at a discount for Byzantines, so it makes sense that you would also see them. AoE4 might be a great game, but I don’t see that as a good reason to hate AoE2. From here, especially from point 3, your argument seems to just go downhill and make less and less logical sense. Why are you making such a big deal out of Turks, and the fact that their wonder was used as the wonder icon? It makes no sense to almost anyone reading your post. You can transfer to AoE4 if you like, but I think that a lot of playerbase will remain with AoE2, and indeed, continue to grow, especially as the game becomes further refined and honed over the years. That’s my take on this.
Quickwalls? That’s your example? Honestly I can hardly think of anything lamer, more pathetic than quickwalls. As if life were Tetris or sth. Like putting down a floor instantly picnic stops raiding cav on their tracks. If anything, it’s the ultimate example of game design flaw…
You see I’m not against micro at all, I just believe there should be a little bit more of macro decisions and paths. A slightly different balance. That’s all.
Appreciate your contribution here. Hate AoE2? I love AoE2. That doesn’t prevent my brain from criticizing it when criticism is due.
About History, it’s what makes AoE so special. It’s not about making Turks special; you either know History, or you don’t. It is what it is, period. Please refer to my last post above:
Blockquote
I see most people commented on points Number 1 & 2, yet Number 3 is perhaps even more vital here. Because it cuts into the essence of what makes Age of Empires unique: respect to HISTORY. Sometimes forgotten, this was the vision of the true forefathers who bestowed AoE on the world… No son, it is not a coincidence that the icon of a “Wonder” is the Turkish Wonder… Sir Bruce Shelley and Sir Sandy Petersen had encyclopedic knowledge of History and a DEEP respect and admiration for Turkish Civilization and the Ottoman Empire, much more than ANY other civ (no I’m not a Turk).
Blockquote
Matter of fact, it should be clearly stated here that the 8 base Civs choice of AoE4 is already QUITE controversial… If we look at the timespan of AoE4, Rus were less than a savage tribe in the beginning of the period, then in Castle Age, Rus were enslaved by Mongols and Turks-Tatars, and were almost inconsequential even at the end…
Blockquote
Turks and Byzantines, on the other hand, were full-blown world superpowers right at the core of the timespan, way more powerful and influential than English, ‘Holy Roman Empire’, or Rus during 70% to 100% of the timespan (plus YES, the firearm revolution started by Turks did utterly “disappear” Mongols from History forever, it is a fact), yet Turks and Byzantines were left out!!!..
Better Gameplay ↛ More Popular
Ok, I can appreciate that you might love AoE2, just the way the the first post is structured, in how it provides a lot of critique, few things that you think are good, and becomes progressively less logically cohesive, led me to form that opinion. Your point 3 still doesn’t really seem to be relevant to why you think AoE4 will be more successful than AoE2. Can you explain this connection a bit more?
Lol okay, believe whatever story you like the most, m8.
Again, how would you like to see the ottomans implemented compared to AOE2/3?
There were much more convoluted or straight out butchered civs: e.g. the Celts in AOE2 are strange and the meso civs are handled quite badly by both AOE2 (all the european tech given to them) and AOE3 (aztec artillery archers and Uber skull warriors, what?). But the ottomans/turks seemed quite nicely represented.
Very sus 
The meta in age2 has always been archers + pikemen/skirmishers + a few stranded knights. There is literally nothing that can effectively stop this, because the counter system is out of wack and archers are doing a ridiculous job at killing cavalry (also terrible path finding for melee). The civs that best fit this combo are also the top win % civs. Skirmishers are still very OP and in critical mass cannot be really stopped.
Bro, you’re way out.
I like aoe2 just as much as the next person for what it really is, but saying the game is a “ROCK SOLID masterpiece” is very far from the truth and just nostalgia speaking.
I am not sure what point you’re trying to make here. When did I ever say micro needs to be removed? oh wait. I didn’t say that.
SC2 died because of the stupid design that strayed way too much into cheese territory (to the point where cheeses were basically encouraged by game designers), away from macro battles of the original one, it has nothing to do with micro.
lol, how come you say that AoE2 isnt a masterpiece? It literally was a revolutionary game when it came out and still played even with a quite solid competitive scene (although small in comparisson with games like League, DotA and CS, but still).
As far as I can see, you’re only trying to make a point by trying to bash AoE2. You didn’t even answer to what I said: if NOSTALGIA was the thing that drives those thousands of ppl to play AoE2 everyday, then you would have communities as big as this one in games like Stronghold and Empire Earth. Do you see any C&C tournments these days? No. But still a major classic RTS and many people play it due to true nostalgia, which is NOT ENOUGH to sustain a game community. AoE2 is still played and sponsored because — and I will say it again — its a ROCK SOLID masterpiece of a game.
Aoe2 didn’t revolutionize anything in terms of gameplay, it just built upon what the starcraft, warcraft, C&C and age1 built. It was an interative evolution in the age of franchise.
It is a successful game, a masterpiece? Nope. Aoe4 really needs to avoid trying to be aoe2 in true 3D.
You got a point here bro. I know I can be a bit mysterious in writing, I might have added a counterpoint; maybe it is an implicit test to readers in our community.
The point of this topic is to suggest ways to make Age of Empires better, potentially enable AoE4 to succeed and, who knows, become the new Classic… But that doesn’t mean I believe AoE4 will surpass AoE2; actually bro, if anything, I’m seriously worried it will not.
About point Number 3 you’re asking, as I explained above, Including Rus in the base game but not Turks & Byzantines (read below), is something BEYOND PERPLEXING, it’s total and absolute BETRAYAL of HISTORY and the Age of Empires spirit and tradition we cherish, a knife on the back, a dangerous mistake to make…
This is just too much. Let me be honest with you here bro, I love AoE2 and 3, they are amazing all-time classics despite their flaws, but currently I’m not even planning to play AoE4 until (if) they announce the DLC with Byzantines and Turks as the first expansion. Better late than never.
I have already spoken about this. The fact is that these games have no support, they look terrible and they are simply difficult to play, and there are no servers either.
AoE 2 is very popular thanks to the nostalgic fans, if you ask every AoE 2 DE player, 95% will say they have played the original game before.
It’s not bad, but it’s hard for a new player to play 2D RTS now without feeling nostalgic.
I recently showed AoE 2 to my friend who hadn’t played AoE before, and it was literally hard for him to play it, it’s a shame, but it is so, the game looks flat, it is beautiful, but its age is given out by unit animations, a flat picture, and so on.
But the main problem of AoE 2 for a new player is 40 factions, which in fact are one faction. They differ only in 1 unit and 2-3 technologies, most of the battles take place between archers, skirmishers or riders who are all the same, and when a person who is used to StarCraft or other more modern RTS plays this, he does not have a good feeling from the game ( Not too long ago, Alex007 is a StarCraft 2 commentator, first played AoE 2) and it’s hard to blame them.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to play without a sense of nostalgia, and AoE 2 takes its well-deserved place among the classics, but this is not enough to be a good RTS in 2021.
People need something new, modern, a new step in the Age series.
Actually AoE 4 is a new step.
If that’s the case, why is it your 3rd point on why AoE4 could well surpass AoE2?
Because despite its highly controversial (awful) choice of Base Civs for AoE4, all is not lost yet. It’s certain there will be DLCs in the future. They still have the opportunity from History, to design a truly unforgettable Turks and Byzantines Civs, so much better than AoE2 Turks or Ottomans in AoE3.
Ok, we got there in the end. I finally understand all you points!