Score of this game Is changing

I think this game Is pretty good but i’ve already said that the main divisive elements are:

lack of innovation

It seems many people are sharing their negative reactions and while in Steam the final score is very positive there are, are the same time, many negative reviews

On metacrictc the user reviews are setting the score on 76%

I’m pretty sure this game Will be improved in the next months but i think the First DLC should be a Graphic DLC with 4k textures, more animations and optimizations.

I would like to know the Road Map of upcoming contents.

The percentage of positive reviews actually went up from 82% to 83% since yesterday, so I’m not seeing a swing to negative reviews. :man_shrugging:

Now, if the developers a year from now still haven’t added most of the post-launch features the ratings may change.


I’d like to give my perspective on this as a new-ish player. I grew up on AoE2 as a kid and I’ve played a tiny bit of SC2. That’s about as far as my RTS experience goes.

I’ve seen a few of people speak of… lack of innovation and a few problems with graphics, UI and the AI in the game as issues. Now, the AI bit has no positives to it and I assume will be improved on in a few patches.

All the other ones, people are listing issues where I see positives. AoE4 offers what the few high profile RTS releases of the last decade or two did not offer. It compiles the essentials of RTS games and offers a smooth experience that anyone can get into.

It’s no secret (hell even I as a non RTS player have seen the buzz) that RTS as a genre has not been hot. By pumping all these resources into a game, they’re certainly not exclusively targeting diehard RTS veterans. They want to create a balanced game that allows for relatively easy entry while still maintaining the high skill ceiling of for example AoE2, SC2 or WC3.

In all honesty, I think it’s succeeded in that. Sure, if you ask many diehard fans they’ll be a little disappointed at some of the changes, but in my opinion it’s a resounding success. Would you rather have an, again relatively small increase in skill ceiling or a much larger pool of players to compete against and with?

Yes, most of the casual players entering the game won’t amount to much, but that doesn’t matter. At the end of the day a larger playerbase means more funds and therefore a better supported game with a potentially larger competitive playerbase as well. Now, there is no guarantee the skill ceiling will be much if any lower at all, after all the variance in map types in this game is pretty impressive and my first thoughts say that could contribute a layer that many RTS games don’t.

Anyways, tldr of my thoughts; yes the game doesn’t live up to an innovative, wonderful new type of RTS for veterans. However, it does compile some of the best and highest quality aspects from RTS games over the years. It delivers them in a smooth, friendly environment which allows for easy entry into the game. Larger playerbase is a means for success and I think it’s important to keep that in mind rather than judging every feature purely from a veteran’s point of view.

There’s a big difference between metacritic and Steam reviews and i really don’t know Why.
The most of critics are related Graphic and animations.