Dev never said this is the goal. I hope it isn’t and readability comes with experience not first time experience.
1 Like
Bro, haven’t you watched or listened to anything so far? It’s ALL about first time readability. All they talk about it how everything needs to be identified “at first glance”. Somehow readability from experience is not a concept for them anymore. That’s why the scale got all messed up between 2019 and 2021, that’s why there’s no more detailed textures on units, that’s why weapons are huge and flat colored, that’s why lances have giant flags on them, that’s why arrows used to look like logs.
I completely agree with you though, it should come from experience and learning the game, not the game being dumbed down so people in the audience, not even playing it, can guess what’s happening on the screen without having to learn it.
1 Like
Then we both just hope someone will mod it all so it looks better next year.
Maybe @CelticKeeper
Good day.
Unfortiunately I can’t create graphical content, I can only take existing graphical content (Civ 3 units/AoE Campaign units) and convert them, port them over to work as basic units in game.
The civ 3 units I have access to are to low quality to work with new games such as AoEVI…it will look just as bad as the current AoE4 dev units look. (Not in scale but in garphical quality.)
If you have propper unit/building graphics to start with , like the brilliant campaign units in DE2, you have a solid base to work off of. My friend Jugernaut is so talented that he can take different unit assets like helms, shields, armour and weapons to create new units, but if you start out with crappy enlarged foam looking weapons and armours created by the devs then you are stuck, you can only polish a ■■■■ so much…
Theoretically it could be possible for my friend Jugernaut to create propper ,realistic sprites for the game, but that will take so much work and time that it won’t be feasable. Remember, we don’t get paid to create the mods, we just do it out of passion for the game and in order to make the game as enjoyable as possible for us.
Even if Jugernaut managed to create units that are fitting, and realistic, for AoE4 they wil look so out of place compared to the Lego block buildings that it really wouldn’t work.
Unfortiunately in order to get what we all want for AoE4… a propper 2021 graphical RTS game, you wil have to discard the Fortnight / lego crap and recreate the entire art work from scratch.
1 Like
I remember Mythbusters doing this and it looked really good 
3 Likes
Hahaha I thought about that…it still remained a ■■■■ though hahaha
2 Likes
You basically disagree with the first base rule in game design. The game needs to be intuitive, and, if it has a tutorial system, it has to work without any further explanation if possible.
The only thing in a game you should need to learn would be strategies, how to beat a section, and then you can master the game.
Easy to learn, hard to master.
you shouldnt have to Learn what certain symbols mean, of how to identify units. A good game design allows for instant recognition. You should see the spear and the horse, and come to the conclusion Spear kills horse ideally by yourself.
You should be able to identify anything on the screen at a glance BECAUSE (and this context is important here) you are playing an RTS thats all about actions, reactions, and timing.
You need to quickly see the type of units attacking you to counter them.
And yes, you could just learn that. But there is no fun in that for most players. The player type who likes dark souls may like this approach, but the general RTS player wont.
Also this has not a lot to do with MP per se. In SP its also important to react as fast as in MP. its a general design, just because they are aware that viewwers should also be able to enjoy the game, doesnt mean they create the game for them.
They create it after basic game design rules. Easy to learn, hard to master. And basic UI rules like intuitivity and maybe even the center of attention. And thats what makes a game good.
3 Likes
What in the hell are you talking about lol. This not the first rule of game design and this is not even the first rule of RTS. How do you recognize units and what they counter in RTS that aren’t fought with swords and shields then lol? Are you saying Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, Red Dragon, Red Alert, StarCraft, Warcraft, Command & Conquer, Homeworld, Dawn of War 1, Rise of Nations, and Grey Good, just on the top of my head, are all failed RTS because you HAVE TO LEARN the symbols, learn how to identify units, and learn the crounters? What do you mean my dude?
And we don’t even have to go that far. What does the Italian Genoese crossbowman in AoE2 counters with his huge pavise shield? Cavalry lol. What about the Vietnamese unique archer ? Other archers. You argument has no logic but your own knowledge of generic gameplay mechanics. Never in the history of RTS you haven’t had to LEARN WHAT UNITS DO. It’s the most basic thing to do.
I could respect your previous cases in favor of dumbed down UI/UX and graphics for the sake of being able to read intense and fast paced battles of large scale, but arguing that you shouldn’t have to learn what units are and what they do in an RTS past the tutorial is beyond crazy. I don’t think I will give much thoughts or credit to your future messages.
3 Likes
Well, I can only tell you what I learned, when I actually studied game design.
I am sorry if basic game design knowledge is something you wont give much credit too.
I see how there is some aspect to learning RTS, and also that Age 2 didnt show the counters well WITH LATER DLCs. But that doesnt change the fact it is, in a way, bad design.
But you do have a point, the most important part of game design is designing a game that fulfiss its purose, which, most of the time, is being entertained.
As said, Dark souls player types are entertained by learning perfect wasy to deal with bosses. Maybe RTS players are partly aswell.
But still, easy to learn hard to master is THE main pillar of a good games design, unless it specifically targets a certain audience, Which I think RTS do not.
Therefore yes, I think it should be possible to easily ascertain the type of unit and what it counters. However, you can master the game by using formations, reacting quicker, being faster, changing and developing tactics etc.
The challenge of an RTS should NOT be remembering which unit does what against which unit, that should be kinda obvious.
And it is, imo for base units in the age 2 game, aswell as seemingly 4.
Of course there may be special units which counter things you wouldnt expect them to. These are special units for a reason.
Im talking base gameplay, base units here.
A pikemen should look like its a threat to a rider. A swordsman should easily be distuingishable from an axemen, and this is done in the easiest way by having large weapons.
2 Likes
also, for example CoH also uses the main units as a rock paper scissor system thats easily understandable and cna be derived from our world. You dont have to LEARN a tank destroys a riflemen in close combat.
The symbols fit the vehicles well.
just one example.
1 Like
Allow me to quote this here from the “RPG fanatic”
Source
Rule 1
All games should have a premise, theme or focus determined from the start. All games should have a target audience. Don’t just design a game system without any central concept and then plug in some flavor text, because you will just end up with a system that is far removed from the story concept and that will break the suspension of disbelief in the player. They will try to understand why they have to, for example, fly through hoops in a Superman game (Superman 64). Come up with the concept of the game first and then design the rules around that concept.
Wow, already here it’s pretty much on the very point.
Who is the target audience for AoE4?
Rule 2
‘Verify and Validate’ at every step of the design. Constantly ask yourself what the game is supposed to be about and if the current design is making that happen. Ask yourself if the game is fun, and every time you add a new idea or mechanic, double-check to make sure the game is still fun even with these changes. Remember that no matter what game you make, all games are entertainment. If a game fails to entertain its target audience then the game is badly designed.
I have to say this hits, because many “PvP focused” RTS forget to make gameplay and AI fun for single player.
Rule 3
Do not design the rules of the game to simulate a virtual world. Games are not virtual worlds; they are social activities; even a single player game requires the player to socialize with artificial intelligence. Games are, fundamentally, about learning new rules and applying those rules to overcome challenges. Essentially, the rules of the game tell the players how to behave. Do not design the game mechanics to promote behavior that detracts from the game being fun and enjoyable for the target audience of that game.
“even a single player game requires the player to socialize with artificial intelligence.”
WOW, so on point.
Rule 4
Kill your darlings. Do not fall in love with any game mechanic or idea. Any idea or mechanic that hurts the gameplay should be changed so it has synergy with all other game mechanics / ideas. If the idea cannot exist in harmony with the rest of the game design, it should be scrapped. Save it for a different game.
I have to say after “Mobile bases in C&C4TT and MOBA Core in DoW3” that really hits.
Those games failed from the start on due to a mechanic that made no sense in its execution.
Rule 5
Don’t overwhelm your target audience with too many choices. What is “too many choices” really depends on who your target audience is; obviously, a strategy roleplaying game should offer more choices in a given situation than a 2d platformer for young children. But everyone can be overwhelmed with choices, and when this happens it can result in a player being too afraid to do anything or trying to generalize too much. Again, game mechanics are supposed to lead players and tell them how to behave. When you are dealing with multiplayer games like MMORPG, you don’t want people to take half an hour doing something like trying to decide what spell to learn while everyone else is waiting on them to decide so the raid can continue. Look up “Paradox of choice” to learn more. The summarized version is that the more choices you offer a player, the longer it will take for them to make a decision. With respect to your target audience, don’t overwhelm the players with unnecessary choices, especially if most of the consequences of the choices aren’t fully explained to the player.
Ok its one rule I do not agree with, in case of RTS.
Rule 6
Understand your target audience. A lot of games have crashed and burned simply because the designers didn’t understand what the target audience of the game wanted. This can be seen in the numerous game sequels which have been ill received by fans of the franchise. Also, you cannot understand your target audience if you haven’t played the same games they do; don’t design an online fantasy roleplaying game for people who like fantasy roleplaying games if you’ve never played World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons or Final Fantasy. You need to know what experiences the players have already had and how they felt about those experiences. It’s actually more important to play the games they disliked than the ones they liked, because the design flaws in bad games tend to be more obvious than in games which were successful.
this is on point
Rule 7
If your game is going to be plot heavy, then write a good story. A good story means characters the player will build an emotional attachment to. The biggest reason a story sucks in a game is because I the player don’t care what happens to the in-game characters, let alone what they have to say to me. I skip through cutscenes and skim dialogue boxes because I just don’t care about the flavor text because the writers and designers have failed to give me a reason to care about the characters. A perfect example is City of Heroes; many of the quest giving NPCs are supposedly really powerful heroes, yet here they are sending me, some superhero noob, to go fight villains and delivery messages while they stand in one spot all day. Why should I care about what those lazy bastards have to say when they aren’t even willing to fight alongside me or even pretend to act like a mentor? Because the NPCs were designed to hand out quests as if they were a quest pez dispenser that is how the players end up treating them.
its indeed on point why Dow3 story was so bad.
Rule 8
The game should not require the player to read numerous essays in order for them to learn how to play; the design of the game should teach players how to play while they are playing. Any game mechanic that is not intuitive and requires lengthy explanation from a forum post or a website page should NOT be part of the game, period. People play videogames to relax from work or school and not to do additional homework.
I would say an even bigger issue is if you don’t have a proper essay.
Especially by RTS games you need a clean and clear counter system, a working one by the way.
Rule 9
Listen to player feedback, but make sure the feedback is coming from the target audience of your game. If you’re making a game based on a comic book, don’t ask people who don’t like comics to test the game; ask people who are passionate about comics to test the game. If you’re making a MMORPG, don’t ask people who rarely play MMORPGs to test it, and certainty don’t ask people who haven’t played many MMORPGs or don’t play MMORPGs often.
So on point, by DOW3 they clearly did rather ask more the DOT2 players than Warhammer.
Rule 10.
Make a good game. A good game is a game that will positively challenge and occasionally surprise its own creators. The key words are, “positively challenge”; a game that frustrates its own creators will certainty frustrate the players, and a game that bores its own creators will bore the players.
5 Likes
I do not know the forum nor the person responsible, but I can comment on some of these rules.
If we talk about general game design rules, Jesse schells the art of game design is still considered THE most general ruleset/ must read book. And it DOES have similar points. Although they are no rules per se, i may have overstated there, its rather guidelines, or as jesse schell calls them, lenses. I must admit having mistaken the most important rule. because there are many. For me personally though, the game being intuitive (easy to learn, hard to master) is the most important one.
if you are interested in game design and not shy to read, Its a must read.
Also if you compare age 4s current state with these lenses, I would say age 4 does a lot right. but now back to the Rules by RPG fanatic (which I assume is a known game designer, although their profile doesnt state that)
(I did actually write my thesis on game design, in German, although on a very different style of game- which is why my following analysis may be a bit long)
- Premise, theme, focus and target audience, combination of gameplay and story concept (which doesnt HAVE to be a campaign like story).
Target audience of AoE4 is simple. RTS players, especially age players, but also RTS players. Aswell as Ppl who can be interested in RTS (newcomers to the genre), to a lesser degree but of course, as an AA game needs a bit more audience.
However the other stuff, theme, concept into gameplay, fits age 4 well. We see the story, the cineastic cutscenes of the documentary, fading into gameplay. And the UI (As I mentioned a lot in other threads, and surely is NOT for everyone) DOES support this Theme. If you do not play campaign, you still have the documentary style, including the ghost workers. So the theme stays.
It is actually very well explained, why the player has to build bases and fight.
Conclusion: while the target audience may indeed be widened a bit for age 4 (as its SP and MP RTS players, aswell as newcomers) the game itself stays stringent with its theme.
- This fits well to the devs saying they play the game each day, and also the council basically existing and giving feedback to important decisions. Of course we doint know yet how well AI will work, but from what we saw in gameplay, I think the walls may be a fitting addition. MAYBE the amubush mechanic COULD be a mechanic that doesnt help the fun, but I think generally such feature would not make the game less fun, albeit chaning gameplay up a BIT.
Conclusion: from what we heard by the devs and see so far, it seems this rule is taken into account aswell. Much clearer than rule 1 I think where you could argue if its followed enough.
- yes, thats true. And I think so far SP age looks like the campaign will make socializing with AI possible. But we dont know a lot about AI (settings, difficulty, intelligence) so far tbh. I think there are no rules which destroy the fun from what I can see, and the devs saying they want ppl to continue to MP after playing SP is only natural, and CAN be done IF the socializing with AI works well.
Also, if I may add, I find this rule very weird as in the second half it seems to be about game rules in a different way than the first half (first half focuses on socialization, not rules) could be 2 subpoints or 2 distinguished rules.
Conclusion: Cant say for sure if that will be done, as we dont know how AI behaves yet. Campaign steup in general seems to provide possibilities for social interactions though.
- That one is just true. It also makes me THINK these rules were made by the former game designer of AoE, this cthulu guy on youtube? as he has a very good video abput that made recently.
On the other hand that rule is also kinda general knowlege.
I dont see any such mechanic in Age 4 so far.
Conclusion: we will never know, unless we will find a mechanim not yet showsn that doesnt fit, if this rule was followed. But from experience I assume it was.
Also the council may have helped here - although on the opposite way- the devs though about killing the “darling” water combat but werent sure and players informed them, they should stay. Interesting to see the rule kinda the other way around -dont kill the Playerbases darlings, even if they are notvery useful.
- that rule is probably most similar to what my favourite rule is. players should be guided by the mechanics, not by external learning. But here Strategy games are already seen as needing more choices, because of the target group. Still there could be too much.
And you know why AoE actually follows this rule? because of how aging up works (and of course the perfect tutorial campaign of wallace in aoe2).
Because in age 1, you dont have too many choices, you are not overwhelmed, But each age, you get more.
If anything though, Age 4 seems to break this rule, its a LOT to take in from the beginning. However theyalso said they will have a more detailed introduction system, maybe this way they can counter the overwhelming ammount of possibilities already in age 1. That makes sense then, catering to old school rts palyers who wish for options, but not overwhelming newcomers (as long as they play the tutorials)
This also marks my pount - players shouldnt need to learn/memorize the game mechanics, they should ideally be leading and natural.
But I dont see your problem with the rule, as it clearly states you have to add choices accoridung to target audience, and RTS needs options so its fine.
Conclusion: Age 4 may break the rule a bit more than age 2 did by age 1 gameplay, but also apparently provides betetr tutorails to avoid overwhelming new players. Also maybe its not really breaking that rule but rather interpreting the “Respect to target audience” a tiny bit different than age 2 did - offering them even more choices.
- Indeed - I think this in AoE4s case mostly depends on 2 things.
a) are the loud ppl in the forum a majority? Because with arrows/dimensions, changes were already made after the target audience disliked those. Yet the graphics are not changed. I assum ethats mostly becaus ethe arrows and smal ldimension change (many still want more changes to proportions) were wanted by EVEN more ppl than the rest. Maybe the loud ppl wanting realitsi graphics are not the targe audience, or acually few.
b) how the council was chosen, because THEY represent what the Devs believe to be the target audience. From what I gatheres, there were indeed many Pro players in the council. That may suggest the target group would be esports. But i think tahts only because these are also the channels with the most influence on ppl. Which is why they may have been chosen. Other ppl chosen just did good for the community, working as mods, creating mods, helping the staff, providing reasearch, keeping aoeO alive - so basically the council is made of the most active, entusiastic age players. NOT just esports ppl.
x) I wish to edit another letter here - The Beta will show IF this rule was correctly followed. And IF the beta comes and a Majority of players will be content with the base gameplay, the rule was followed. If not however, tehy either decide to change the game accordingly, ,and follow the rule. or ignore it. Because while the council should be a nice part of the target audience, Age InsidersWILL be the better representation of the average.
Conclusion: Council, if chosen correctly, shoul make the devs deliver. beta feedback and how they react to it will show if the council did indeed represent the target audience well, and if the devs followed and/or still follow that rule.
Short version - I think it will work greatly. Age 2 did great, and even though the documentary style makes identifying with the heroes harder, you can stil lsee the focus on them, like Johanna, and like The english crown line. Yes, there will be more than 1 character to buld a bond to, but if the cinematics deliver, we will be able to bond with any of them.
Conclusion - looking quite well to me. If the bonding with characters will work is the only thing in question.
now that is what I am talking about. This and the combination with the rule before where I mentioned it.
If this rule would be followed to the latest, there woul dbe no neeed for an essay as everything would be self explanatory. This imo is what the base units and counters should be, and It seems will be too.
However age hgaving many uniquie units of course means you can not have them all self explanatory, just roundabout (like a knight with a spear will be more effective against walls of infantry).
This is where that rule is broken and indeed an essay is needed.
Conclusion: from what I see, age does this well by depicting units with oversized weapons that clearly indicate what they can and cant do (like lances on french knights- one charge they are good against infantry, then the lances are gone and they cant charge, so have to close quarter combat now, bad against pikes). This mainly is true for the base units, and not the UU, but they wil probably have similar indicators (like the mentioned lance).
However We need to know more details about gameplay of all units before we can safely say that the rule was followed - after all currently its entirely possible knights have a +100 Bonus against spears, and spears against archers 
I think they do this well in the forum. I guess the realism fanatcis are NOT the target audience, They do not wish to deliver a realistic/simulation type of game for medieval times, but a fun depiction and an RTS where ppl have to see their units.
But of course if their target audience were all age players, that would be impossible, because you cant make everyone happy, i guess
Conclusion: that depends on who we think target audience is. To me it seems they target ppl who like playing rts and seeing what they do rather than ppl wanting to embrace a true to history represetation of the medieval times, although they DO try to stay hiostorically accurate, but not in graphics.
However the beta being so late is a minus point here. I still hope it will come after PAX. If it comes later, I think this rule is only partly held true, just because ofthe councils influence.
10)
Well, no need to say anything here, right?
The game doesnt seem too frustrating to me regarding gameplay. but we will see - in the beta.
1 Like
Relic is probably going to announce next COH
Italy and African theater.
Te funny thing: many people Will be more angry with Relic and Isgreen when they’ll wee see how much beautiful the next COH Will appear.
2 Likes
I very much doubt that they have been working on two major titles at the same time. My guess is that it’s likely a DLC/expansion or remaster rather than CoH3
I don’t think so. They were already working on new COH: there was an official pool sent to some insiders three year ago
And i Repeat: if COH3 Will look Better than AOE4 Adam Isgreen and the Relic team on AOE4 Will receive a lot of criticism: pretty sure about that and i know how people thinking.
2 Likes
Thanks for the link. wow, was it wise though to work on two iconic AAA franchises simultaneously? Unless CoH3 was just in a designing / foundational phase all these years and its main development begins now that AoEIV is actually almost done.
They had two different teams. Relic has 230/250 developers but i think the best of them are on COH. The old guard on AOE Is only Quinn Duffy
3 Likes
Two projects: One Is AOE and the other Is COH
Actually quite a lot, my personal impression is,
Microsoft kind of does “again”, break the very basic design rules for an RTS.
-1- focus on (newcomers to the genre)
To play certain games, you have to acquire skills to do so, or they simply won’t be fun. Remove the skill to play the game, does ruin the experience for the existing audience and doesn’t get a new one.
-2- focus on (PvP Audience)
While the first group has no interest into the genre, the second one doesn’t exist at all.
It’s something very basic, you need to focus on an audience that does actually exist.
+1 they kind of have a habit to announce too soon their projects,
like while DoW3 died some weeks after release, they did announce AoE4
They probably realized AoE4 was and is under Microsoft management doomed,
so made a proper RTS to stay alive as a company.
That game was announced in the post mortem of DoW3,
but they did not specify which one it would be.
It’s the next COH: pretty sure about.