First of all, AoE III has never had a revival game, like HD and DE, its also not fair to compare 2 versions (not dlc) with one other.
It also doesnt matter which one has more players, it matters that there is still a pretty big fanbase on AoE III and it should not be ignored.
I agree that on economy they removed certain parts, but in my opinion i like the changes. I do not agree they removed Military stuff, they added way more on that.
Its fundamentally bad idea to combine 2 games that have very little in common with each other.
What works in AoE2, won’t work in AoE3 and vice versa.
AoE3 is going to get its own remastered, so why have similar game in middle age?
AoE II and III have a lot more in comon than you think, in its base its still almost the same.
Except for no stone, trade and no gather points, no base concepts were removed i believe unless you know more.
How does native villages not work in AoE II? How would trade not work in AoE III?
“AoE3 is going to get its own remastered, so why have similar game in middle age?” Sorry to say but this has to be one of the stupidest things i have read on these forums. AoE II literaly had 2 remasters/revivals, HD and DE. And i didnt say i wanted a AoE III clone very clearly, i want them to combine both in what works together and then add upon it, like a normal franchise does. Not look ate one game in the franchise that wasnt even the one previous.
About the AoE III DE, we are most likely not getting new content, only graphics changes. Would be surprised to get new civs and or maps that actually fit the games theme, seeing we get like no news.
Hopeful they blend the two so both the AOE3 crowd and the AOE2 crowd can get on board and be excited with a new game. My preference would be to have Asymmetry similar to that of AOE3 Nilla (I thought TWC and TAD went too far), but remove the card system. I hope the feel and micro is more like that of AOE3 than AOE2, but that’s harder for me to speak to due to my lack of experience in AOE2.
In short, I don’t want a modernized AOE2 or AOE3. Both were great games but both have room for improvement. Using a clever mix of them and adding new features/feel would be best imo!
Hope to hear more news soon!
Fundamental difference:
In AoE2 you must not take points.
In AoE2 you must not destroy your enemy, you can build world wonder to win.
In AoE2 you need proper unit combination, of offensive and siege units.
In AoE2 you have random maps, so much less streamlined gameplay.
There is a significant difference with 4 resources, as you have not simply a different resource, but an large tech tree branch around defensive buildings. In AoE2 I can build so many towers and fortresses as I want. I can build my castle where I want, its quite limited in AoE3. It’s a bad idea simply to throw lot different concepts into the game, the game has to be build from start on around a good concept first, then you can take further steps.
A few things more similar than you might realize based on your post:
Even though there are similarities, I’d definitely agree with you that they are quite different games. I don’t want an AOE2 2.0 but I also don’t want an AOE3 2.0. I want something the majority of the community can get behind, has a familiar feel while at the same time introducing novelty, and has a competitive 1v1 and team scene. Hopefully they’ll stay on top of patching balance problems after release!
AoE III, you do not have to take points, the trade posts are optional and are no way needed to win, they give a nice buff not more.
Come one, who builds wonders in AoE II, most times its even turned off by the host, nice that the option is there but almost no one uses it, and in my opinion is the wonder the thing that doesnt really fit a rts.
AoE III, is also proper unit combination, if you only make musketeers versus basically anyone who understands the game he will make skirms and counter etc. There are more counter options in III than II.
AoE II random maps are just as random as AoE III.
Is it really a good thing you can build unlimited towers and castles? I agree the limit of AoE III isnt that good, but i wouldnt say removing the stone was the problem of AoE III defensive, more so the build limit. It works also the other way around, having more resources is also bad, stone always felt unnesicarly to me, there is no unique camp needed for it and there are like 2 techs that cost stone and like 3 buildings, could well have been replaced with wood.
You dont seem to understand after all this, that i say the best of AoE II and III, that means thr things that really do not work are not implemented, regardless of the team, because you keep getting stuff in the discussion that isnt part of it.
Trying to appeal to everyone will end up appealing no one. Dawn of War 3 is a good example. Again, copying mechanisms from a game for the sake of “implementing the same mechanism” is no good strategy. The only rule is to make a good game, that means only implementing mechanisms that fit together and add depth to the game.
AoE III had more depth than AoE II.
“Implementing mechanisms that fit together” yeah so you can still add from AoE III and II. Why would mercenaries not work according to you?
“copying mechanics from a game for the sake of implementing the same mechanic” where did i say that? I said if it worked and people have fun with it than why leave it out? You know a healthy franchise has progression but also stuff from previous games? Well guess what AoE III is also part of that.
If they want to make “creative game”, Age of Empires 4 is the worst IP they could have had picked up.
Combine 2 good games, doesn’t mean you get one good. I Personally think if AoE4 want to have a chance as a game and not be another flop, it has to focus on core franchise and genre features. There was a very good reason why for example heroes from Warcraft 3, did not show up in Starcraft2.
For AoE III card system to work, the game has to be build from ground on around that feature, or be included in a way it does not harm the game. As a non PvP feature, it can be a gimmick for story mode or co-op, but at no circumstances show up in PvP. Problem is, developers might not have the budget to make it a separate mode, in such case its better to leave such mechanics for an RTS out, especially considering how many people did dislike it and developers lack skill to balance it.
Having 100 of cards is not possible to balance, having 10 cards will be lame and distracting.
For creativity, we have the spin off series, like Age of Mythology.
There you could build up, all kind of stuff, like power cards and unit magic.
Yeah and for a medieval rts game we have countless others. And in it self AoE II has multiple rereleases and no one wants another. Please get that no one wants another AoE II, because thats what you want. You cant have a franchise alive when all it does is stick to the same again and again the only one that is still doing ot is EA with fifa but more criticism is coming towards that.
Its not just the card system there are way more things that do work like i said why wouldnt the mercenarie system work?
I just wanted to add that considering arguably AOE2 is the most successful Age game in the franchise that they should mostly base the game design on it.
There are a lot of systems which were terrible in AOE3. I can’t find the article anymore but the AOE3 devs actually wanted to sell their games under another name because they knew they’ve created something which just slightly resembled an Age game.
Although I am an AoE 3 player, the unit system of AoE2 is appealing to me;
How the weapons and armors categorize the unit, rather than constantly extremely complicated civ-specific-unit-stats in AoE 3.
That the AoE 2 has ‘everyday’ civilisations which barely have any differance inbetween is appealing whilst gameplay is enjoyable.
I believe AoE3’s civs lack a truly similar concept although one could argue different stats still makes the same unit-type.
On the contrary, I do enjoy the civ concept of Asians where the ‘consulate’ building enables various other-civ- options.
And the Saloon & Native Posts which enables Natives & local outlaws dependent on the map.
Other things I’d wish to see in AoE IV:
The immersive Graphics of AoE 3,
the option of fogged map as a game-lobby-setting,
Various Computer AI’s Difficulty levels, personalities & portraiting texts.
An Age 1 scout unit.
Great campaign ! ! !
Etc
The task by create a game, is not to add several features, but add features that make sense.
People want first of all a game that is good.
So many franchises life long with basically stick to the same again and again
Assassin’s creed / Total War/ Call of Duty/
Will you ever see Call of Duty ride a horse in middle age and Assassin’s Creed fire a rifle in WW2, with excuse they wanted innovation?
What Age of Empires needs are features that do work, Age of Empires works in terms of free and complex base build and clear units counters, where people win by use the right strategy. Anything that does harm this, should be kept out of the game.
Flip a power card to win is so lame. Stick to it essential buildings, lot units and resources is so random, its either balanced or makes sense. If I scout in AoE2 OK stables means horses, in AoE3 you might not build stables, but still spam horses with cards. Mercenary system in AoE3 isnt good either as it forces to take and hold locations and units are randomly depending on map, that is also not good for RTS as you need to know what you do encounter.
You see the main reason why RTS do flop is, developer just are forced to pull of new ideas, no matter how harmful they are for gameplay experience. In each dev blog you can read, “yeah we had a good idea for the game, but than comes some “high ranked guy” and say add this and that, and it has to be ready by tomorrow.”
Blizzard was like the only RTS dev team ever to say, ok this is the gameplay people liked, so we make just another one. In games creativity is not appreciated, if it is gameplay breaking. Especially if it breaks the franchise DNA.
The card system isnt broken, the only thing broken is the home city lvl requirement. You can send units via homecity but every card is a one timer in most cases especially early game and you will lose if you only have units in your deck.
I never said implement it straight in, you act like you cant fix it when you can. You can fix the lvl requirement, you can remove the chance which mercenaries and your point of forces you to hold points is invalid as thats also the case in AoE II.
You havent once brought a good argument why adding the things that worked, improve the things if nescisarry is a bad thing.
Civilization is still popular and has changed a lot since the beginning. Disctricts didnt exist first which can be seen as the same thing as adding homecity (which is just a reasearch and unit tab in one where the xp is the resource) and they removed the multiple unit on tile mechanic.
Civilization has improved on its previous games and added the things that worked and removed which didnt.
I’d want tech trees to be more varied, more complex, and a far greater number of things to research. (Somewhat akin to Civilization in terms of number of techs… or at least how long you’re researching new techs, relatively speaking.)
This would translate to me as a game with ‘more depth’. I don’t, necessarily, like in AoE2 having every single tech researched every game shortly after Imperial Age. I’d more want it to be that if the game really drags on for 2 or 3 hours, you still haven’t researched everything there is, and there are still some neat, nuanced techs yet to research.
I’m not a big fan of an apocalypse technology being researchable shortly into the final age; whereby whomever researches it first yields cataclysmic powers over their enemies and the game comes to a quick end. Or a tech that provides such an awesome economic boost that others get left in the dust right away. I think AoE3 had something along these lines, if I’m not mistaken.
Such apocalyptic techs or economy boosts could come eventually, sure… but more like an hour+ after hitting the final age… after you’ve continued to research cool stuff for that hour spent in the final age. Something like this, rather than having everything pretty much researched 5 minutes after hitting the final age.
And each civ being uniquely different, to a reasonable extent (i.e., as much as possible). It’d be a lot of development work, no doubt, but at least for Single Player or games with friends, it’d be nice. Especially if the save game function works where you can resume them at a later date, particularly after a patch update, and 10 years from now, too.
For ranked games, I could see this as not too desirable, because everyone only wants to play for about 30 minutes, probably.
I get what you mean with apocalypse tech, i think you mean the 50% gather bonus from the capital building.
It is indeed a very strong tech, but it is hard to get, 5000 food and gold to even get to Imperial and then 1000 wood gold for the food one, 1000 food and gold for the wood one etc.
This is pretty much possible in treaty games within 40 minutes for casual players, but in normal gamemode it takes a little longer.
But i do agree it needs to take a bit longer to get.
If there is going to be so much tech, and i get that people want longer games, but they should then also make it that its optional. I dont have much time to invest usualy 1 hour and then i can play like 1 game. But its a good.optoin for people wo want longer games.
“The feedback from the fans was sometimes blunt,” Mann remembers. Players know what they want. But you can’t follow their wishes blindly. “We had Age of Empires 3(The original article mentions Age of Empires Online but no such card system exists in that game) players who would have liked to have had the card system from that game in AoE 4,” Isgreen says in disbelief.
From gamestar magazine
So no card system,thankfully
I get why if the most people dont like it and the card system is a core function that they dont implement it, but seeing he says in disbelieve and that he doesnt even know its AoE III instead of online makes me afraid they dont care really about the fanbase.
To be honest apart from game rules and some time periods, nothing beween IV & II are the same. Relic never makes same game. Trust me on that. I played all their games (including the MOBA ■■■■ DOW 3). They love experimenting, taking risks and I like their game because of that. I mean just look at it, Homeworld -> Impossible Creatures -> CoH- > DOW then see their sequals, if they got any, never a same game.
Anyways, I really thought these guys are done after DoW3, but oh boy they probably got one of the if not the popular RTS game. They have a lot of riding in their soldier. If they mess this up, they’re literally done. Not kidding.
But I hope relic just don’t use their ■■■■■■■■ flag for resource gathering mechanic. There are some things in AoE, like the core gamplay, that shouldn’t be allowed to change, otherwise we riot.