yes it does. Which I personally think is an ok addition, but not groundbreaking. in RUSE however it was a great system and huge fun. Safly there was never a RUSE2, only Wargame, which were similar in gameplay, but clearly not in design, and took away what made ruse really special
No, wait, don’t wag. Explain how you can evaluate the RTS, and this is a game in which gameplay and the feeling of the gameplay are important, only from a video that lasted 2 minutes? Maybe you really discovered a new way of evaluating games that leading experts do not know. This is ridiculous, as I understand it, you evaluate food the same way by the pictures?
Tomorrow i’ll post my Steam library, ok?
I evaluate a game from what i seen, nothing more. Graphic Is not good for a 2021 game and all criticisms around web are a thing. And i Repeat, i’ve a very good experience with RTS games.
Buried? I actually studied with one of the junior game designers of that game - and from what I was told (not by him though) the kickstarter and the game exceeded expectations.
But sadly it didnt have enough MP content to stay strong.
the USA DLC looks neat though.
How do you mean this type of marketing? the ultra late beta?
indeed. I just meant to say that if you (as I) see that CoH 3 looks like an AAA RTS, the age 4 should aswell
I think we are ca on the same level of opinion then, although you seem to tend a bit more towards CoH while I tend to age
And yes, age COULD use some texture updates, but they are really no must have at this point, from the latest trailer, at least imo.
Also CoH could also use some improvement son human models, but since this gam estil has a year to go, thats quite likely
I never said AOE4 Is not and AAA title. I said that a Premium game should have a Better Graphic for this reason.
That is, I understand correctly that you evaluate the game only in terms of graphics? Are you playing picture? In this case, it turns out that a bunch of games in your opinion are bad, Undertale for example, right? It turns out so, and you are talking about some correctness of your method of evaluating games? I will surprise you, but the graphics in the RTS are the very last parameter, because you look at the game from a height, it should look good from a height, it doesn’t matter the principle of the details. In AoE 4 you have hundreds of units, in COH 3 you have 5-6 units, of course they differ in detail, and the game where there are fewer soldiers will be more detailed, because attention is focused on them. I don’t understand why I should explain the obvious things if you are such a fan of RTS.
PS Microsoft, it’s time for me to start paying.
- I will surprise you, but the graphics in the RTS are the very last parameter, because you look at the game from a height, it should look good from a height, it doesn’t matter the principle of the details
This Is the main error Which some people Is going to make: Who’s saying Rts can be played only with zoom out???
I Always played with zoom in when my armies are fighting because it’s beautiful to see the battles more close: It Means more immersione and a lot people want a good Graphic for this reason.
- I don’t understand why I should explain the obvious things if you are such a fan of RTS.
You Don’t. Your Is a point of view, nothing more.
So we have found the cause of your problem, you project your personal desire and style of play on how everyone is playing according to you. The problem is that most people play RTS for the sake of playing a strategy, and not looking at models, this is very stupid.
What you say is a subjective opinion about how to play RTS, what I say is a logical fact.
- What you say is a subjective opinion about how to play RTS, what I say is a logical fact
readability and gameplay are the main request of competitive players. Most of players don’t know what Multiplayer Is. This Is the fact. Campaigns, skirmish and scenarios are the most played modes. Ask to those people if the would wanna have a Better Graphic. Answer Will probably shock you.
Proof, please. You cannot prove this using only your own opinion, while we know that tournaments and the sports component attract viewers who will not want to play the game and buy it accordingly, as is the case with AoE 2 DE
I understand that StarCraft, WarCraft and the current version of AoE 2 are empty in multiplayer … Do not even fool yourself.
Folks, you need to chill, you are freaking out because a big studio is working in more than one project?? They have more than 2 teams, COh is more than a year from release and Age 4 is going to release in October, it’s normal for this to happen.
About the post launch support we don’t even know if it’s Relic that is going to be responsible for, and even that for Post Launch fixes and expansion you need a smaller team, also normal, and we don’t even know if it’s going to be a smaller team, maybe the 2 teams working on different games are from the same size. And we know that Microsoft now have a good tracking record of post launch support of games, even outside the Age franchise, some say that Age 1 was abandoned but I don’t think the plan was to support Age 1 with multiple expansions, just remaster to preserve legacy, since everybody plays Age 2 and 3 anyway.
And for Relic shows more about Coh 3 than Age 4 its not their call , it’s the publisher call, they set this, and Relic is using the Games2gether platform from Amplitude Studio (another Sega company) to gather feedback early from players, so it’s make sense but if you play it you will feel that the game is very much Pre Alpha. Now I wish we have way more info about age 4, specially since the beta will start too close of the release, but this is a Microsoft call, not Relic.
And also for people drawing comparisions for DoW3, it was Sega who pulled the plug, Relic made a big forum post after the cancellation talking about the overhaul and new faction they were working at the time.
So the point is to wait and see what is going to happen, for me Im just happy that two of my rts series are getting sequels, if they end up bad I will discover when I play it, or through reviews.
Amen dude, i kiss your words.
Do you have any evidence for that?
The Steam Achievements for AoE 2 DE tell a completely different story.
26.1% Beat an AI opponent on “Standard” difficulty in a 1v1 game.
15.3% Complete the William Wallace Campaign.
14.9% Beat an AI opponent on “Moderate” difficulty in a 1v1 game.
9.1% Beat an AI opponent on “Hard” difficulty in a 1v1 game.
5.3% Complete the Joan of Arc Campaign.
AoE 2 HD tells a similar story
37.1% You have sought glory in ten single-player battles, fight on!
13.8% William Wallace Campaign Completed
5.6% Joan of Arc Campaign Completed
Overall, this would suggest that only about 1/4 of people play the Campaigns and 1v1 skirmishes.
An argument can be made that people aren’t playing vs AI but not 1v1 but it’s hard to argue that more than ~6% of people play campaign.
I agree with everything you said except for AoE1 DE it was definitely abandoned. That alongside with AoM, is a big slap in the face for the community who love those games.
They won’t even mention them in any of their interviews when they talk about AoE2 & AoE3, there is no excuse for that behavior and I’m 100% sure that should they announce new DLC/Expansion packs for both games a lot of people would buy those and even more would start playing those games again.
I’m searching It. I’ve already posted It before.
Skirmish against AI Is not competitive scene.