Yes the main problem are textures, models, sizes, water. Many aspects of the game are worst than previous and current games.
1 Like
Itâs not a matter to be or not to be purist. We are talking about quality here. Changing our mind relating to new games itâs a good thing when you have in your hands a Better product than the previous ones. DOW3 has been another step into the new approach to RTS but It was big failure due the graphic and the moba gameplay.
Aoe4 had a Better launch of course but only for two reason:
-
there were not other RTS
-
itâs AOE.
2 Likes
unfortunately due to the limits put in place for mods, the community cant change that either.
1 Like
had nothing to do with the gfx, gfx is always debatable, and there will always be people turned off by gfx, some will hate iso, some will hate 3D, some will hate cartoonish, some will hate it if its too realisitc
it failed because of the gameplay(as you mentioned), and lack of SP replayability, but not gfx
no, it had a better launch because it wasnt a MOBA, there are more warhammer fans than there are aoe fans. but making a bad game isnt going to attract them, even if its from a larger pool
in the same way that making another bad version of SC isnt going to attract current SC fans
i laughed so hard when he got to the stats on SC players⊠i love how disconnected people are unless theyâre fed actual numbers
thereâs tons of people on this forum (especially the aoe2 forum) that keep saying the game is bad because its too similar to SC, or they mustnt do something like SC did it because its a dead game or whatnot
and in the end we know that the SC playerbase is easily 10 times larger than aoe
but at the same time, going by the videos claims of what makes a good game and who it should appeal to DOW3 should have been a success.
Total war, HOI, stellaris, stuff like that are all very deep and wide games. there seems a defining line between catering to casuals and catering to âRTS casualsâ, and the moment devs stop over it, they nuke their game
Except DoW III didnât have a huge amount of competition either. And âitâs DoWâ. Popular enough in its own right.
Have you even tried? 3D isnât the be all and end all. What we have here is a lot more than either DoW III or CoH 2 got 
the problem is that things like even creating new abilities isnt possible without to the state trees. thats something that was possible in coh2 and dow3.
all you can do is copy an ability and change how much damage it does for example
Itâs a good thing we have the PUP then, eh?
Also thatâs not technically how state trees work, but theyâre definitely very limiting at the moment. Still plenty that can be done without them - have you tried? Iâm seeing folks make all sorts. I would if I had the time. Stuck just helping out instead.
Numbers donât lie Gorb⊠Age IV is not doing any better, nostalgia effect ended now reality hits and hits hard.
5 Likes
Numbers donât. DoW III was doing far, far worse by this point.
Iâve already said how I believe Age IV can be better. But I donât believe your suggestions are the way to get there. I doubt you can prove they will, either.
You donât need to believe me, you donât believeme back it the day when I predicted that DOW lll will fail even months before release and I can show you proof if you wantâŠbut you should believe numbers and how this game is loosing a loot of players every dayâŠ
1 Like
Nobody wants a game they like to fail. The difference is, you donât seem to like the games from the offset. Which is a weird place to be in, because I know plenty of critical folks who still want the game and / or franchise to succeed.
You have this weird investment in DoW III and peoplesâ opinions on it. Itâs irrelevant. The numbers donât match up to Age IV in the slightest. The things Relic are delivering are completely different.
But feel free to provide whatever proof you want. The game is losing players. I mean, itâs common to every game, but I appreciate that itâs not ideal. So stop inventing things I wasnât even arguing about, and maybe try responding to the things Iâm actually posting instead 
It hit hard that the game was not complete and there was not enough content for casual gamers. Although you should not fool yourself, history has shown that there are games that have taken flight over time if they do things right.
1 Like
They come back, but they are (almost) never big comebacks with such a sad start. I donât see an Engoodening of No Manâs Sky happening with an RTS game. 
It should, with community supportâŠbecome what it should have been at launch, a cool, fun game with content for all.
3 Likes
Plot twist: even if we have got a better release state (a more âfinished gameâ), I doubt it would perform much better and even if it does, it was carried by Single player
I think the reason why RTS games became boring and unattractive by now is the âMETAâ in multiplayer. Itâs simple math, there will be always the best way to play each civ and unit. As we see, usually a multiplayer RTS reach its meta in 1-3 week, after that everyone starts to play the same strategy that they have seen from pros. Until the next balance change comes. The devs canât change the balance every week, so the game becomes boring very fast.
MOBA games also have this issue, but not on that level like an RTS.
Same in card games, ânet deckingâ, in Legends of runaterra there is even a function in the game, that allows you to put the proâs deck code into the game and you can import it in a second. 90 % percent of players in runaterra ranked uses the same meta deck, 0 creativity.
I always tried to figure it out how should this issue be addressed, but I donât know. Mb with a high lvl ingame randomization. But with not just resource and relic posts.
Upgrades that always change ingame? What I would like to achieve is that in every game the player should evolve a strategy ingame, according to the randomized rules.
4 Likes
Rotating map & Team bonuses can add some refreshments without the cost of relearning a Civ.
With a/bi weekly rotation of maps with scripted events (day-night, avalanche, rain+river-rise, etc) and Team bonuses based on several combination factors (Civs+map+Week) you can force different ways to play every so often.
Itâll always boil down to a meta, but much slower and most players will have to react to changes in real time without a Pro guide.
Itâs not something that can be properly addressed. The issue with heavy randomization like that is that people are already up in arms about map generation favoring one player more than another at random, imagine adding in randomized costs or technologies to that mix.
A developed meta isnât a bad thing. Itâs never been. With how widespread information is nowadays and how easy it is to spread your own, combined with a much higher number of people that play video games, developing an optimal strategy is par of the course and not unhealthy in the least. The issues with developed metas is when the meta in question is either boring, unfun to play, or just straight up busted. But you also have to account that people absolutely despise change, especially in MOBA communities as an example you raised. People were up in arms over the last season of League with the new items, screaming about reverting it, despite the new items being a boon to the game in terms of skill expression. When asked what meta they want to go back to, most people will say the early seasons of league that they conveniently ignore was the age of Atmogs, where everybody was a bruiser due to the available items and the fact they were nothing but plain stat sticks with uninteractive items.
A good meta is one that allows for player skill expression and is something thatâs fun to play. To use card games as an example, a good meta is where every type of deck is playable and can win against any other type of deck with no one deck type dominating the ladder. You have fluctuating win-rates but everything can hold its own at a 50% winrate. A bad meta is one where an archtype is overly dominant upon the others that it makes archtypes that cannot deal with it (Aggro against Control that has too many options to shut down aggro early game and guarantee reaching the late game as an example) obsolete.
1 Like
This is the reason why they arenât actually strategy games, theyâre execution / micromanagement games. Because strategies can be copied, the player who wins is the one who is best at executing it, generally by being able to perform more actions per minute. This isnât necessarily a bad thing, most other games are differentiated by ability to execute the thing you want to do. For example, in CSGO you want to shoot your enemy in the head, and move your mouse in the correct pattern to perfectly counter the recoil. In Rocket League you might want to launch an air dribble from the wall into a flip reset musty flick double tap off the backboard, but the percentage of players who can become able to actually do that is tiny. It doesnât stop these other games being extremely popular.
BeastyQT take on this is spot on and it leaves something to think.
The devs have been doing a great job overall, you can see they put a great amount of work and effort in the game and that they are also listening and implementing feedback.
Its easy to demand things and to complain, but most of us as players have no idea what is like to be on the other side.