In last years we had seen several attempts to live up to big franchises, that turned out quite bad. Terminator, Command And Conquer, Starwars, Empire Earth and Game of Thrones, apparently having a bad sequel is quite a possibility. The Problem is, you can’t simply tell the same story again, but coming up with ideas that might alienate the audience is not better.
Command And Conquer is a prime example, how a franchise about to base-build, was annihilated by a 4rth sequel with mobile bases.
Lest be specific, what would be by a AoE2 Sequel a must have and what can be changed.
My question is does AoE2 really need a sequel? DE is one years old regularly updated including new content comming. DE brought the game to a more modern look and gameplay with the graphics and some new QoL features. I dont think a sequel would be relly needed next 10 years tbh
It’s quite easy. Release DLC’s, while not fixing the main game, keep bugs in and don’t care about em, just give those players their DLC so they can throw money of them while. Because they don’t understand yet that DLC =/= Support for the game.
Pathfinding is bugged
Patrol is bugged
Lumberjacks randomly stop working
Farmers stop working after farm decay
Game freezes after reporting a player
Late-game is one big Power Point presentation with 1 FPM (Frame per Minute)
Lobbies are not permanent
Allies not showing and or flicker like wtf
Dozens Failed to join Match
Matchmaking doesn’t consider your banned maps
Mapshots not existing
and those were only the ones that i knew on the top of my head
Well Game of Thrones did build slowly over 7 seasons several story-lines and plots, that were finished in season 8, so season 8 did feel quite rushed with plot-holes.
Is AoE4 even planned as a sequel?
The is quite a high chance with all the " random new stuff" AoE4 might not turn into a good game.
Mongols are supposed to get mobile bases and magic eagles, where a flying animal will do reveal locations, makes simply no sense in a historical base-build game.
Look at Cossacks: European wars. Look at the formation mechanics, the artillery physics, resource management, capturing buildings, etc. Take the parts that work.
Do that, but with the scope of civs of something like Empire: Total War.
Yes, Cossacks 1 and 3 (never played 2) are pretty much what I want an Age of Empires game that is a sequel to AoE2, to be.
The only issue I have with Cossacks, is that it is only centered around Europe, while it would be cool if it got more non-european nations (Cossacks is built around nations, not civilizations).
They could actually release 2 new Ages, if you are technical about it. Renaissance Age and Reformation Age.
I would honestly support it, as long as the new Ages introduce new units that are more sidegrades than upgrades.
Paladins are already plenty strong as it is.
Got does not need a sequel the story is over,if you try to add more after the main story is over its going to end up more ridiculous than it is eg.danny waking up with magic arya finding america jon building wildling kingdoms.
Regarding the game aoe 3 is the sequel and aoe 4 should have been a sequel to that not trying to make another aoe2.
АоЕ4 looks like a reboot in that case. How successful we shall see. Ofc I will buy it but all I care is AoE2 and my only concern is how would AoE4 affect the good old game. If its a nice game great but if its not I cant say It will trouble me much.
the game was never supposed to be about spamming the same units (villager) and structures (houses, farms) over and over and over again to the degree that we do it. it’s just an accident that resulted from stretching a 75-pop game to 200-pop.
age of empires was always at its best when it was about smaller scales. aoe1 and aok economies were spread out with a handful of gatherers on a wide variety of resources. fights were small. exploration was fun and relevant because the maps weren’t just symmetrical scenarios that you would memorize ahead of time. not being able to afford everything made the decisions actually important.
a lot of that gets lost when we’re forced to play on settings where the maps are just barren land between players. now we just figure out where to wall, make over 100 villagers, 20 of each production building, research every upgrade, and just crap out endless streams of units to reinforce deathballs
today’s age players don’t make the units of each era and see them fight. each age is just treated as something to skip as quickly as possible in order to get to imperial age
on some maps, the first 20 minutes still have some of the classic age of empires gameplay. but the settings they choose for ladder keep dumbing the game down to make it more like DM and less like RM.
a true age of kings sequel would reduce the scale, make exploration important again, and let you experience the unique battles of each age instead of just racing to imperial all the time
I do not know if you ever played either AoE1 or 2, online, when they launched.
In AoE1, after a month, there were already a majority of player doing Tool Age Slinger rushes, or Fast Bronze Hoplites.
The gameplay always was like it is now.
How developers intend a game to be played, is most often exactly not how people will play it.
A great example is Magic the Gathering, where devs make new cards every set, for the proposed gameplay of it, yet every year they have to ban some of them, because the players find gamebreaking interactions between those cards and some older ones, taht just abuse the game rules.
Good games are meant to be broken. Developers have long ago embraced this kind of unintended gameplay, as a game in which the rules are extremely strict to enforce the desired gameplay, is no fun, and becomes very monotonous and predictable.
A true Age of Kings sequel, would push the boundaries even more, with more civs, more units, bigger pop cap, more optimizable economy.
It would do all the things this game does, but better.
First of sure smash new ideas together is a common approach, but by a sequel changes should only happen if they need to happen and make sense. Or it might be seen as out of touché, and therefore worse than the source material. The valid point is, by AAA sequel people would like to see a game that is fleshed out, not something creative.
It’s indeed a good idea to check the scale and variety.
We have quite interesting possibilities
-population goes from 50 till 500.
-small and big maps
-the landscape can have big changes, from dense forests, till wide open deserts
-there is a difference between ages
-the are much more ways to win a game, somehow weird that only in AoE we have world wonders and relics, but they are completely optional
We require indeed a sequel that would amplify all the good stuff from AoE2, but how to achieve it?
Actually it would do both, true sequel would focus to make the game at any scale, small or large to be fun and playable.
I think we have point 1, the game should be able to adjust the gameplay for small and large scale.
Like should workers by population limit 100 harvest 2 times faster, than by limit 200? Should people by population limit 50 start with 4 workers, limit 200 start with 20 workers, limit 400 start with 40 workers?
