I agree there’s a lot of room for flexibility. I think games like Age of Empires have room for the “simpler” civs (I say this as someone who normally plays English haha), but I definitely don’t think all civs have to be that straightforward. I love the Malian design, for example.
I do agree very, very loosely with the idea of overburdening a new player with an infinite amount of choice, and the amount of civs in AoE II and probably III (less familiar with III, as I’ve often said) can probably feel overwhelming at times. But to be clear: I wouldn’t say “no more civs” in response.
I also agree (very loosely) that things that *can *be made overcomplicated, but at the same time I don’t believe that units and mechanics should therefore be simple either. Overcomplicated is bad, but I’d rather the devs try and make things complicated (and get it wrong) than not try at all. So we’re probably pretty similar on this!
Thankfully, after satisfying the under 30 minutes competitive community the dev now take a look at the casual gamer’s demand. Finally i could look at something nice after i lost a match.
The earlier form of AOE4 feels to me that it was trying to replicate some aspects of AOE2, but only on a shallow level (ie a lot of literally shared units). The reason why I say shallow is that AOE2 actually has a far more intricate counter system and very asymmetric techtree to add more variety to that shared unit roster. So all games are trying to achieve a decent level of depth despite the technical limitations. If AOE4 wants to gain its own identity it should not simply copy that superficial level of design, otherwise it will turn out more blend than both AOE2 and 3.
Well if the game continues to develop, that’s an inevitable stage.
Like the long-simpler-than-AOE3 game (AOE2) has now started to also be considered as overcomplicated by some people.
This might be a bit overstretching it (they still need to fix those weirdly scaled buidings as a top priority), they should implement corpses to be seen after a skirmish or battles. It doesn’t have to be a bloody mess or gory (or they can sell it as a DLC choice for us blood lovers), they can do it like the ones on Elden Ring’s battlefield.
So no visible body parts, just some body armors, swords, spears, flags etc lying around the battlefield. They can also implement those roads appearing after you placed some buildings into the battlefield as well, the more battle happens in that particular area, the fewer the grasses or darker the dirt becomes so that it really becomes a battlefield.
Agreed. Isn’t it incredible that this PUP is shaping up to be even better received than adding Malians/Ottomans? I mean, that was good, but this is proof that players do notice attention to detail and polish.
Adding content just for the sake of it, if your foundations are tepid at best, is a recipe for failure. Strengthening the core of the game, especially tackling the texture limitations Essence had as well as phasing out inefficient rendering mechanics, plus acknowledging that civs should’ve been more asymmetric is the winning formula. Add to that the small little details like clothes swaying in the wind, the Ottoman bombard following terrain, etc. and you feel encouraged by devs taking criticism to heart and not blindly staying on course.
People appreciate these things more than content. There must be a balance of course as you can have the best looking RTS with zero content, but if anything, this is proof of where the main focus should be. I see praise raining down on this PUP even on Reddit. This is very, very good.
Oh yeah, for sure. I mean, I’m a specific type of nerd, so the whole “we rebuilt our terrain renderer” gets me sitting up anyway, but the fact it also looks a whole lot better is undeniable.
I was refreshing the forums while downloading the update to see what it actually looked like, hah. Was a few hours before I could see it for myself.
Funnily enough, nearly everybody on Steam is asking for new civs in the discussion / announcement thread with the PUP update notes (also it seems to be the only platform where that’s the overriding request - to the extent some aren’t impressed by this PUP).
The thing is, we know new civs are going to pop up at some point, that’s a fact. Paid DLC or free, who knows? But it’s a given AoE4 will have more. People can ask for civs all they want and I’m sure it will happen.
But improvements to the game engine? Man, that’s something I certainly didn’t expect and I would like to believe devs had to course correct once they saw the complaints. If they address the water and still-soft building textures, I would consider this game to be graphically done in the technical sense. We joke about the chickens and other stuff, but that’s apart.
More ironically back then that thread had people aggressively boasting the brilliance of AOE2’s design and strongly advocating AOE4 following AOE2…now try to compare AOE4 with AOE2 on this forum in 2023 and see what happens.
I say this because for this they bring out a lot of absurd excuses too:
“It’s that it makes readability difficult and doesn’t stand out from other troops.”
“It hinders mobility and movement.”
“It’s that we would have to wait an eternity for the operators to shoot.”
That’s how games improve XD.
Those who complain will be mostly satisfied and give the game another try if that aspect gets improved.
Those who “don’t care” and “are fine with whatever it is now” will…still not care and be fine with whatever it is later.
Apparently the first group is more worth appealing to.
Man would love for someone to ask the developers the real questions. They’re quite slippery and avoid anything controversial about their product. I’m glad to see things are getting better, but it is upsetting to look back at unfinished siege operators and know that the game was quite literally launched with unfinished features that we appreciate.
Funnily AOE4 siege units still pack and unpack. And AOE3 also has artillery that unpack quickly or slowly. So the thing is not with siege crew. Obviously, having crew or not, the siege units will still feel the same as they are now, and it is also still possible to make them feel different from each other.
But no “having siege crew will make siege weapons clumsy”.
My point is always the same: if a design principle prevents all possible improvements or cannot be adjusted to accommodate improvements, it’s a bad design. Good designs should be robust and flexible. For example the developers should be fully capable of adding siege crews while not interfering with readability or control otherwise they are incompetent.
Most designs of major products are robust and flexible, and the developers competent. But the “defenders” always have a habit of assuming they are not:
Siege crews will make units indistinguishable and clumsy.
More unique units will confuse players and take forever to remember.
More zoom will hurt the visual quality.
Higher quality textures will destroy optimization.
More aesthetically appealing icons will violate the overall UI design.
etc.
The hidden message of all such statements are actually “The developers cannot make…without…” and those people believe they are praising the developers XD.
The two things you mention are unrelated. They are slippery about their product, maybe as a consequence of their lack of communication. But, a lot of the endless arguing in this forum happens because they have no official stance on criticial issues that the community is split on.
And so, additionally, because the game was launched without features that many expected, you have multiple groups talking about what should or shouldn’t be in the game, meanwhile no one is there to actually comment on what is the case.
I very much know that it is part of the development cycle that some content never see the light. That isn’t really the focus of my statement.
So yea. Here we are to wonder forever. I very much like the additions to the PUP–but being reminded of their take on communication is very bitter.
