Where do you get this from?
There are tons of people who don’t find AoE3 to be an improvement on AoE2 at all and continue to play 2 because of it.
I think you may be projecting your feelings about the series onto the community as a whole.
9 Likes
4 Likes
Then we are not doing a good enough job of explaining. To me, the various minor changes add up to huge differences that ruin the game.
4 Likes
That still doesn’t change the fact that aoe 3 introduced new gameplay, features and high quality graphics , when I first played it was fun new and exciting
8 Likes
I understand what this series represents. Many playstyles (solo , campaigns, competitive, , editor…)and an amazing way to discover history, so don’t try to be more than anyone in this comunity or try to say who understands or not this saga.
A game that can develop from realease to years to come is the key to keep alive and expand the comunity. It becomes a game people talks about. Every successful game today does this. A perfect game with 20 years on develop dies quick.
A combination of awards, universal critical acclaim (many reviews actually specifically highlight the huge leap in graphical fidelity), and also personal experience – I was a gamer when they launched 
. To be clear, when AoE1 launched, the only other truly comparable RTS competitor was WarCraft2. Compare WarCraft 2 and AoE1 and you’ll see what I mean by giant leap forward.
Similarly, AoE2 was yet another graphical leap that wasn’t outdone until the release of Empire Earth. In terms of gameplay, AoE2 was obviously even more impressive and is one of the few RTS games that maintains an active player base of nearly ~25k on Steam to this day.
To be clear, AoE3 was by far my least favorite of the major releases, but even it pushed the envelope with its 3D engine, including its physics. Hell, the first original review that comes up when you look up AoE3 literally states: “After seeing the screenshots, our jaws hit the floor at the amount of detail” and " Age III 's graphics are unmatched in the strategy genre" – who the hell is going to have that reaction to AoE4?
Yeah, I really don’t think that stating that AoE has always represented the forefront of the RTS genre upon release is projecting. Sure, it has many more competitors now, but that should set the bar even higher for subsequent releases.
5 Likes
Nobody here is arguing AoE4 should not bring new ideas to the franchise. But we are critically evaluating the choices of which ideas to keep, which to ignore, and which to add.
8 Likes
Yeah, and the fact that it has new gameplay is specifically one of the reasons a lot of people (myself included) don’t like it; we don’t care for that gameplay.
New stuff just for the sake of being new isn’t an automatic improvement. I hate the home town/card system and didn’t care for the original requirement to level up in PvP. Sure, they were new concepts (at least to Age of Empires), but they made the game worse.
I also find the graphics to be less pleasing even if they are technically higher quality from a numbers perspective.
When I first played it was a disappointment.
A lot of the complaints on here (the vast majority) are subjective and based on what people personally like, not something that can be objectively measured as good or bad, but people try to present them like they’re facts.
8 Likes
The best we may be able to do is work to objectively discuss the existing five games and their features and analyze AoE4 against them. It’s ultimately still subjective, but if helps everyone to get on the same page.
5 Likes
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the leveling up for multiplayer either. And the reason the aoe 2 players will never be happy with any of the other games is because if the gameplay or mechanics are not exactly the same they don’t like it
7 Likes
You aren’t special, I was a gamer then as well it doesn’t matter.
Awards and critical reviews are just done by people like any other feedback, which is why you can have a game get massive high scores from reviewers and still suck and bomb.
It’s also why despite those reviews AoE3 is the worst one in the series to many people.
Adding new mechanics made the game less fun to play and the graphics don’t change that.
What matters is making good gameplay, which is why people were still actively playing AoE2 in large numbers even before the DE was released; it’s not the graphical update that matters it’s overall gameplay experience.
No, the idea that each game was improving on the previous is projecting though; 3 was not an improvement on 2 in any way.
4 Likes
Actually the card system made the game a lot better.
You have to be smart and creative EVERY match and not just use your muscle memory for static build orders without any differences every single match but the muscle in your head.
The cards bring strategic choices and you have to really study the system behind it and be creative with it.
It brought a depth to the game that aoe2 could never reach.
The Devs did something brave when implementing the idea of a Homecity shipment system and in my opinion it was one of the things that made it the by far best game of the series.
From aoe1 to 3 it only got better and better every time.
Sadly, part 4 will probably crush that trend and jump back to game 0.
6 Likes
Yeah I agree, the deck system added a whole new layer of strategy to choose between age ups, early forces, native specific maps, and could be scouted to counter choose to rush or turtle.
I like how it also rewarded people with XP, so even if someone did try to turtle they would leave behind trade post and the other player can get a few shipments ahead. As a FFA player it was nice to reward the more aggressive players with most shipments since other passive players would be booming, so it helped narrow the gap sometimes.
This is also good because since the economies and millitaries of AOE4 are so similar in strength (I seem to notice many battles just cancel each other out and is difficult to push into a base until trebs come in) the one with the more kills and XP can also get a shipment ahead to help push the ball in the direction of the victor.
Downside were: it did take some research if you wanted to play MP at a higher level as to what are some optimal build orders, that could then be modified, But learning optimal builds is still essential for MP AOE2.
and in legacy people needed to level up their civs… but even the pros play with level 10 cities and win, and after about level 40 most/ all the essential cards are opened up.
3 Likes
Yes, I wasn’t claiming that I’m “special,” I was answering your question of where I am getting this from – no reason to turn so negative. Perhaps it was better to ignore your question from the beginning, but I am assuming that you, like any human being, also gets their thoughts and opinions from a combination analytical thought and life experiences.
We don’t actually disagree. I wasn’t a big fan of AoE3 when it released and it didn’t even put a scratch on the throne that is the masterpiece of AoE2. I also agree that adding features or functionality just for the sake of change isn’t always helpful. You, however, missed the point: AoE3 still continued the trend and legacy of pushing the envelope further, primarily visually. Sure, they took some risks with the introduction of RPG elements to an RTS and I wasn’t a fan, but they definitely continued the trend of setting a benchmark in terms of graphical fidelity. That is my fundamental point – AoE is the genre that should be setting the benchmark for RTS’s for 5-10 years, as it always has.
I didn’t say that AoE3 was a “better” game then AoE2 (it never was and it still isn’t), but to say that it wasn’t an improvement in “any way” is just blatantly incorrect. You’d be really pressed to say that Havok physics or bloom lighting effects weren’t an improvement. Also, perhaps you’ve forgotten, but multiplayer support was significantly improved in AoE3 vs AoE2 and it wasn’t even close.
Going back to my overarching point here though: Each major AoE release (1, 2, and 3) set the benchmark for the RTS genre when they were released. Maybe your memory is rusty of those days, but mine is vividly clear – the games literally made your jaw drop because nothing was comparable when they released.
Even AoE3 – which we agree was the worst one of the 3 – had things like this highlighted in its reviews:
- “Age III 's graphics are unmatched in the strategy genre.”
- the graphics engine boasted “all the high-end technology you would normally find in first-person shooters”.
- “After seeing the screenshots, our jaws hit the floor at the amount of detail”
- Age of Empires III is a superbly balanced and polished game"
So, let that sink in. The worst game in the AoE series (which still managed to sell multiple millions of copies, if we want to use that as a success metric) was largely lauded for its graphics and polish.
Now, who here, in their heart of hearts, expects that AoE4 will receive glowing compliments like this? What does AoE4 do, either graphically or gameplay wise, that a game like CoH2 didn’t already do in 2013?
2 Likes
AOE 3 is a masterpiece (I speak for legacy but DE looks better)
just because one sold more copies (easier system requirements, and castle age)
has nothing to do with how well the game plays.
Often the best things in life have much smaller audiences.
I was 15 when AOE1 came out so I grew up with them but it took me 3 years to afford a computer that could play AOE3 so people who wanted to play had big hurdles to jump… its by far my favorite for so many reasons.
8 Likes
I appreciate that you love it – that makes me happy. As you stated, it doesn’t do so well on the metrics that most people would use to gauge success, but continue to enjoy it like a fine wine fellow gamer!
For me personally, nothing even comes close to AoE2, but regardless, my question above stands:
What does AoE4 do – either in terms of graphics or gameplay – that CoH2 didn’t already do (and do much better, arguably) in 2013?
If you are and others are going to trash talk AOE3 like that then that is part of the conversation… AOE 3 had many great features, aside from just graphics. It is smooth, dynamic, with so many variations etc… and really nothing about it makes it the worst game in the series. Its the best but least appreciated, but just because more people like POP music does not make it the best genre of music.
Why are you talking about CoH2? for someone who pretty much only plays AOE games I have no idea what that game is…
Peoples zealot like love for AOE2 and hate for AOE3 is why AOE4 looks like it has no identity of its own and was afraid to innovate. How does AOE1 even compare? except maybe for nostalgia, it is a pretty basic game… AOE2 is a good game, but its not quite all that players make it out to be either. It has issues…
(yes it was a rude and hypocritical comment that you deleted that part and have written so much about AOE3 in comparison but tried to chastise me for breaking point)
Peace be with us…
5 Likes
I was having a conversation with HolyArtifact92 and we both agree that AoE3 was the worst game in the series. No need to jump in from the sidelines as some valiant defender of AoE3. As I said, I appreciate that you find joy in it, but it’s not pertinent to my conversation with HolyArtifact92.
If you want to dig into what I didn’t enjoy about AoE3, I am happy to do that. In fact, I think the some of the things that AoE4 inherited from AoE3 are actually what is causing some of its biggest problems, namely the camera / camera angles.
So, there’s really no argument here: You love AoE3 and that’s cool. Me and the other person having a conversation don’t care for it.
Man, you’re missing out! You should really give Company of Heroes 1 and 2 a try, they are some of the best RTS games ever made. Also, the reason I mentioned it and why it’s relevant – the studio that made CoH2 (and is making CoH3) is the studio making AoE4.
If it is not pertinent to your conversation then ignore my valiant ramblings of how great AOE 3 actually is. I am allowed to state my opinion in a public forum, if you want a private one, please speak in private messenger. Your missing out on some of the best RTS gaming experience. I direct my comments to others who would read your conversation and think, “Oh well aoe3 must not be worth my time” and certainly there are better things to do with ones life than playing games but if one is going to play games AOE 3 actually has much to offer.
If camera angle (which seems fine to me) is the major gripe I think you could find much more to appreciate. How does AOE1 even compare to AOE3?
I really do not need to play any more RTS, I have never get tired of AOE3. Its the only game I (rarely) continue to play. Was hoping AOE4 would change that since I actually like medieval (or ancient even more) themes better but this game looks so awkward and incomplete.
3 Likes
My comparison was contextual to the time period (i.e. I’m making that argument that each major AoE release set a new bar in some or many ways, not that AoE1 is “better” than AoE3).
Like I said, that is great for you, but it’s also really hard to take the advice of someone who hasn’t even played some of the most significant RTS games of the last 2 decades. Seriously, many people who played the CoH series (like me) actually expected AoE4 to one-up that game, which to date, has not been bested in terms of how well they executed and the innovative modifiers they introduced.
Also, I think we don’t have to worry that anyone will somehow be swayed by our posts into never playing AoE3 (lol), but by all means, continue to post in its defense, I ain’t got a problem with it.
1 Like