I played 3. which was, tbh, boring as hell. Also I didnt really see the asymmmetry there, but maybe thats because I realy wouldnt bother to play anything but campaigns. And in these the gameplay of the cultural similar civs felt quite similar.
AoM I played a looong time ago. And its fairly possible the game was much more asymmetric than age 4 will be.
But from nowadays standpoint age 4 shows very very much asymmetry.
Because if one main gameplay pillar is changed, it makes the game asymmetric. And it even makes it bette rbecause the general gameplay of building and fighting system stay the same, only the way you play changes drastically.
Edit: I don’t think it is growing but dying is a bit of an overstatement as lot of people still play StarCraft 2. Also it was quite popular for several years, even if it did die now it still would not be considered a failure by any means.
AOE 3 has a lot asymmetry if you compare Europian civs with Asian civs and American civs. The comparison between these is similar with the asymmetry AOM has.
I understand that smaller diversity between civs makes more people easily to jump in a PvP game. But In my opinion the asymmetry AOE 4 has will lead more people to decide play it.
It is wrong to compare the AOE 2 and the players it has with the players other RTS have. For many years, AOE 2 was there without competitors practically. A 40 years old person for example, who was playing before 20 years AOE 2 and now has a family etc has not so much time. When he opens the pc usually he plays something he knows. For that it is hard any RTS to have more active players than AOE 2 for the next 10-20 years. But in my opinion the asymetry AOE 4 has, will make it a big success because it will make many players want to play it. I can not imagine any AOE 2 player, not want to play AOE 4.
When I played AOE 3 at first only with the Europian civs, I didn’t liked it so mush because of the little diversity civs had. After I played the Asian and American civs, I loved this game. I didn’t liked AOE 3 before because I thought why play this instead of AOE 2? Now with the asymmetry It has, I like it so much, every time I discover something new.
I don’t like the Asymmetric civ design for many reasons. First as this is not a game between different races that work differently like Undead, Elfs, Zergs, whatever… or Factions with different capabilities.
It’s a game about human Empires. The basic gameplay should be consistent across all the Civs except Nomads like Mongols that break the logic of normal empires.
So all civs should collect resources, build the same things and have a swordsman, a pikeman, an archer, etc… like all the others and on top of that have their own unique versions of things. That civilization have a unique way to collect X resource, have unique buildings that do something, have an unique unit or version of unit (like an unique pikeman).
The most important aspect to differentiate the civs are the visual and art. All the civs having unique models for their buildings and units already make them very different even if the units do the same thing.
Using Asymmetric design means we will get a very low amount of Civs because you can’t make enough competitive gimicks just to create a new “playstyle” that in the end is just the same thing the other civ does but with extra steps. Also, it makes the game way harder to learn. Having symmetric civs like AoE2 means people can jump to one civ to other and just need to learn their unique thing while the rest of the gameplay is the same.
We don’t even need to talk how harder it is to balance Asymmetric factions while Symmetric you just need to adjust numbers and done.
well… there is age 2 DE for you, which already offers that type of gameplay, Which is probably why age 4 went the asymmetric route.
I mean ppl still complain age 4 would dimply be age 2+2, if there were no asymmetric civs… it would really be another age 2 only in 3D
Relic is well known for marketing words, they made Dawn of War 3 but everyone is a space marine, space marine, space marine with shields, space marines with scrap armor. I don’t believe in anything what Relic is advertising unless I get to play the game myself on my PC.
A lot of people (including myself) are quite happy to compromise on number of civs in favour of more distinct civs. Personally, I like to try lots of different playstyles and that’s much easier to do with 8 very different civs than 12 very similar civs.
You’re right that asymmetry makes the game harder to learn and harder to balance though. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying. But those are challenges that can be hurdled.
100% agree with the original post. However, to keep this assymetry, it is essential that ther aren’t too many new civs introdcued, only a few (max 3-4)
I don’t agree. I don’t think it is so hard to balance unique civs with different play style. The hard part is to make a unique style for each civ.
Lets say you have a new civ with unique upgrade tree and unique units. If you manage to make ( via the upgrade cost ) the time the civ to lvl up each epoch to be similar and you also make the dps/cost units have to have similar values ( I am not say equal because the weeker units must have bigger dps/cost rate because some units will die and the dps drops. Also you can change the ratio by an ammount giving a small bonus to the units with bigger speed ). You can even make functions that determine the balance values. I am not saying that the final result from this will be perfect, but will be a very good balance start. Testing can give you some balance changes that functions did not take into account.
All this methodology could lead to mistakes if units had special abilities etc, which makes a lot harder the balance. For example it is a lot harder in my opinion to balance the 3 races in starcraft than to balance 8 civs in AOE 4. ( probable it is a lot harder to make 8 different play styles, now I am speaking about balance difficulties )
I play AOE3 A LOT and the asymmetry is REAL and awesome!!
Btw for everyone asymmetry refers to the fact that all civs get different economic, military, and deck card buffs. This pattern is continued in AOE4. In AOE2 generally its more symmetric (all civs get cavalry but the Franks get EPIC cavalry, and this other euro civ gets +5% to cav). So the tiny differences create small differences which get amplified.
Whereas in AOE3 The aztecs dont get cannons or cav - they do get light infantry but its a different unit almost. Makes the Aztec vs France MU interesting.
but the balance is … tough to achieve but I’m hopeful!
Well, I indeed still play Age 2. In fact, most of the fanbase indeed play AoE2 the most. It reigns supreme against all other RTS currently despite being a 20 year old game, so it really does something right.
But this criticism is more about the Era than the game itself. Most people were waiting for the conclusion of the Ensemble studios plan of age 4 being Napoleonic Era + WW1.
About the gameplay itself, i’m sure most Age of empires fans like Age 2 and Mythology the most and will not complain about the games of the series being inspired by it.
Replacing every single cards with bonuses and UT would require a hefty amount of balancing. Also, AoE3 civs are very asymmetric for the amount of civs they have. They aren’t claiming to try to be Starcraft 2 asymmetry, which I would say is the extreme.
Of course it needs to exist. Age of Empires 2 have a lot of technical limitations because of it’s era and a lot of dated gameplay mechanics and unfriendly usability.
And technical problems still plague the game everywhere. I still have problems with pathfinding and stuck units on AoE2 despite the amount of work they did on the game. Attack-move STILL don’t work correctly.
There is a huge amout of potential on the Age of empires 2 framework that can only be done by making a new game from zero. Manned Walls is a good example of something a lot of people asked and cannot be done on AoE2.
