This game is inferior to its predecessor

[StoneAgate0]

I’m tired of this stupid division of the community, especially when it comes to two really good games, AoE2 and AoE4. It’s clear that the goal here is just to be toxic and manipulative! Both communities feed off each other, keeping revenue and adding value to developing more content for both games!! Toxic AoE2 fans would rather stream other games live than enjoy AoE4. Is this because AoE4 is bad? NO!! IT’S JUST STUPID AND AN UNNECESSARY WORRY, LIKE LOSING YOUR PLAYER BASE! It’s not about this one being better or that one being better, it’s about the different generation of people, I’m from the old one, others are more current! Old bearded players fighting with young players playing AoE4 and being toxic, now that’s stupid!!

[StoneAgate0]

I’ll give you another example. On April 26th, there will be an Elite Classic III tournament for AoE4. It was time for everyone to stream this tournament. Why don’t they stream it? Because there is no audience? Is AoE4 a bad game? NO, NO, it’s because the stupid toxicity of the community itself prevents those who stream online tournaments from streaming this online tournament. And why? Because on one hand, they only stream AoE2, and on the other hand, AoE4, they only stream AoE4. Those who stream tournaments should be impartial about this, and what they do encourages toxicity; both would benefit from both games. For many of us, like me for example, I watch both AoE2 and AoE4 tournaments!

[StoneAgate0]

Two amazing games with slightly different player bases, doubled opportunities for content creators, it’s all just unnecessary stupidity!

[Huge5000RTSFan]

Well, its 1to1 same by Starcraft1 vs Starcraft2, there are simply people who are good at play Starcraft1 and could not move on to Starcraft2, after all they both compete for the same people.

We should simply learn what works and what doesn’t. So what works is symmetry. And it’s good, so we can make new games and even add new ideas to them, it’s just the rules should apply to all factions.

[MatM1996]

@Therenegade30

Why did they make such a mediocre sequel in comparison? Is it some kind of reboot? I’d like to know what kind of gameplay consumers are looking for in this series, because I also found out that the third installment has a smaller player base than the second and fourth installments, even though the third feels much more modern and innovative.

Yes, it’s a kind of soft reboot… because AoE 3 was never very liked and popular in the community in general (except for those of us who played it), the devs wanted to make it more similar to AoE 2 in everything (gameplay, context, ages, units) and from there adding things from AoE 3 little by little to attract again the players of AoE 3 and more modern RTS like SC2… AoE 3 was also very similar to AoE 2 when it came out and in the expansions they let their imagination fly… that’s why the European civs of AoE 3 are very similar to each other, unlike the non-European civs that are absolutely different from each other and from the first ones…

@KG19991380

this one is complex, aoe2 released in golden RTS era, and is second only to starcraft games in population, over the years people in 2 did start wishing aoe3’s QoL features that 2 simply lacked, but 2 had more coherent design and overall gameplay, so when aoe2 DE released and included all those QoL features which mostly originated in AOM and aoe3, it effectively made the already great RTS into the RTS that sits at the top of the stack as overall package, with massive singleplayer and solid multiplayer offering, so as a result, big player counts and excellent reputation.

aoe3 when it released in 2005, when RTS was already declining in popularity, meanwhile was actually praised on QoL end and visuals, but its a fact, that i have to admit despite loving the game as much as i do 2, that gameplay wise its not what aoe was prior to it, its almost spinoff level of different, and that massive shift for a lot of people came all at once, to add on top you used to have to grind home city levels to get good cards for civs, home city being another huge change alongside removal of stone as a resource, then the campaigns didn’t go historical route but rather took AOM base and made a fictional tale set in historic period, which didn’t sit well thematically with a lot of people. the last blow with aoe3 was system requirements, which were well beyond most of og aoe2 playerbase pcs, 2020s aoe3 DE corrected a lot of game’s initial problems, home city levels are now cosmetics only, map generation is actually fair now, new awesome civs and inclusion of more single player content and later CO OP play with historical battles, but DE’s problems were elsewhere, the game was incredibly buggy on day 1, took until at least december (game released on october 15th) to be somewhat stable, but another noteworthy thing aoe3 just can’t match 2 in is singleplayer offering, aoe2 just has so much more its not even fair to put side by side, on top the game’s design which isn’t entirely decided on going symetrical or assymetrical causes balance problems, DE has gone more assymetrical but that route is basically impossible to balance with all the one sided matchups, lastly DE downgraded the multiplayer interface like crazy, to the point that a fellow modder recreated original game’s multiplayer interface within DE. There were many really positive changes like in 2 with 3 DE, but not all aoe2 DE features are present, no alt box drag to select vills only, all you have is easy drag military, so half the fuction, the global queue in aoe3 DE is the same as in original game, so you can fill the entire queue just with 1 town center producing vills. but imo biggest reason for 3 DE having less players is people seeing die hard fans of 2 and recently 4 who never actually tried 3 talk shit about 3 without actually playing the game and making conclusions then

as for aoe4, well ensemble, original dev team was dismantled by microsoft in 2009, so a new developer had to step in, in this case relic, but now you have an issue, the engine was never made for this kind of RTS, so a lot of reworking was needed, second game had to meet sales targets, so microsoft used DE’s to build up player numbers to maximize aoe4 potential sales, and third, they already saw which game was most liked by people, that being aoe2, so they effectively tried recreating aoe2 in a 3d engine essence, the COH engine, while placing in enough new mechanics, like areas of influence for each civ, making civs in similar logic to aoe3 base game but with unified design of semi assymetric civ logic, having projectiles always hit as thats how COH works as well, reusing COH capture points as sacret sites and so on. long story short, aoe4 took aoe2 groundwork and trickled some of aoe3/AOM sparkles on it to give a still very mechanically similar civ roster at least visual distiction, so units that are otherwise the same across the board stat wise still use different skins depending on civ, but mechnically they didn’t want to depart too far from aoe2, aka they played extra safe. Sadly using COH engine meant every single bad thing about COH also made it in, and while some of it was addressed since launch there’s still holes, proper hotkey system didn’t happen till 9 months post release, mostly playable, but imo still insufficient max zoom out also took 9 months post launch while at launch both of these feedbacks feel on deaf ears and blind eyes, the open beta max zoom tweak was straight up insulting to everyone who played open beta

@KG19991380

the UI was so sterile, still is, it just looked dead, and even functionally the UI was a collosal downgrade compared to 2 and 3 of old, let alone DEs, even shift queue waypoint flags not existing made it over from COH2, aoe4 at launch played worse than aoe2 back in 1999, thats before i mention 150ms of input lag even in single player in aoe4 (old aoe2 and 3 input latency was none existent while in 4 you can clap by the time unit reacts to inputs)
a lot of this was since patched up, like missing hotkeys, UI panels sadly didn’t receive cosmetic or functional makeovers, but the damage was already done
and ofc, aoe4 even just looking at it has no soul and thats not smt you can patch in later, taunts and cheats are a dead giveaway of that fact, compare those to aoe2 or 3, its not even fun to compare

Yes, it is like that, no more, no less…

@GoldenArmorX

Portuguese with Ribauldoquin

They did the same for AoE 2…maybe at some point they’ll give the Portuguese another UU and make the organ gun a standard European unit like in AoE 4…

@GoldenArmorX

Fantasy of the Inca Empire living in the Jungle in the Campaign

In defense of Ensemble Studios, after the fall of the Inca Empire in 1532, the Sapa Incas and many nobles fled to the mountains and jungles and formed the Inca kingdom of Vilcabamba, which eventually fell in 1572 (six or seven years after the Blood campaign)…what would be questionable is their appearance in 1817 in the Steel campaign (they would have to have revolutionary units from the Peruvian revolution at least from TWC onwards)…

@GoldenArmorX

• 6.- Self-censorship due to political correctness decisions: Portuguese lack Villager Cards because originally the developers wanted to give them African villager cards, but in the end they deleted it from development and were left without extra villagers.

Yes, all for the sake of political correctness…

@GoldenArmorX

• 7.- All civs almost identical: No unique technology different, unique units just had different stats than the base ones of other civs.
• 8.- No Native, African or Asian civs, pure European.
• 9.- European armies were not those of the New World, but those of the Old World of that time.
• 10- All maps of the New World, none European or from another location.

Yes, it is for design reasons and lack of time… first in 2003 they wanted to set the game in Europe, but then halfway through development around 2004 they got a lot of info about the Native American civs and decided to set it in America, discarding Italy and Sweden in the process… and after that they didn’t have enough time to complete everything (since AoE 3 only had 1 and a half years of full development after the release of The Titans for AoM)… they should have focused on the 4 main European civs: Spain, Great Britain, France and Germany and in the middle include The Asian Dynasties in the original game)…

@GoldenArmorX

• 14.- The universities from aoe2 were eliminated. That doesn’t make sense, the Spanish built an absurd amount of universities in America… oh, and I understand, Anti-Spanish advertising again.

Yes, and yet the British also built universities in the Thirteen Colonies (Harvard in 1636, for example, which also had the first printing press in North America)…

@GoldenArmorX

Of course, the game still has room for improvement, but even how it is now, it’s still very fun, especially in team multiplayer.

Now, for all the points already discussed, I would say that AoE IV is better in several aspects than AoE2.

Of course, AoE 4 has a lot of potential and room for improvement… I think that by 2027-2028 with several DLCs on top (America, Southeast Asia, more African civs like Morocco, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe or Congo) it will be at its ideal point…

@LUZITANO

Age of Empires III is the game that least resembles the Age of Empires franchise.

The resource collection system is different. The game has cards that can influence the game a lot, etc.The combat scheme is also different because medieval cannons were primitive and simpler. Now, I particularly don’t like Age III and the economy and card dynamics in the game make Age III a non AOE game.

@OriginalKnot717

Aoe3 is more like a spin off, aoe4 is much more like the rest of the games in the series. I have many more hours of aoe3 than aoe4 having played it since legacy, it’s a fantastic game and they can both co-exist as they offer very different things.

True, originally AoE 3 was going to be a spinoff, but Microsoft didn’t want it… besides, if you leave aside the cards and the fact that it doesn’t have dropoff sites, it’s still a regular AoE (you have villagers and resources with which to advance in age)… besides, those of us who play AoE 3 don’t make us any less fans of the AoE saga just because we like AoE 3…

@LUZITANO

Does Age III have such well-crafted soundtracks for each civilization?

You have the themes for each civ, then occasional songs when things happen on the map (revolution and trade monopoly), the exclusive songs you hear in cinematics during the campaigns and the opening theme in the game menu (if you select and play with a European civ you have the base AoE 3 orchestral theme with drum rolls, if you do it with a native civ from The WarChiefs, you have a more native-sounding theme and if you do it with an Asian civ from The Asian Dynasties a more Asian-sounding theme, like from China or India… in terms of soundtrack, AoE 3 is not far behind either…

@Darkness01101

This is all preferences. My preference is AoE2, which outshined and outshines AoE3 by far, imo. And AoE3 probably outshines AoE4, which is odd for me to say.

@Darkness01101

Now imagine how I feel about AoE3 compared to AoE2. That’s how mediocre I feel AoE3 is to AoE2, in comparison. If you haven’t tried AoE2:DE, you should give it a try. If cannonballs shooting down troops is a big reason for your AoE3 enjoyment, though, you’ll be disappointed.

Yes, it’s like everything else… AoE 2 players say that AoE 3 is mediocre because it’s 3D and has cards, AoE 3 players say that AoE 4 is mediocre because it has ugly graphics and is set back to the Middle Ages, and then AoE 4 players say that AoE 5 is mediocre because it’s Ancient or Colonial, and so on…

@Franknezu11

oh just w8 what they did to aoeo now playable on project celeste

Yes, I love AoE Online… it has tons of content and you can also customize everything… the capital, the UU you have and the units’ armor…

@Infinito6739

Age of empire 4 is the best game of the series, only if you have more than 5000h, you can express your opinion

I’m not that far along… but I have 1500 hours in AoE 2 and 1200 or even more in AoE 3… I hope it helps…

@FloosWorld

I think it’s quite important to see AoE 3 rather as a sequel to AoM than to AoE 2 because some of the design decisions (removing stone, simplifying the way economy works with instant-gathering in case of Atlanteans) already was in AoM.
In that regard, AoM was also a sequel to AoE 2 and streamlined some of its aspects, such as Blacksmith/Armory upgrades, moving technologies you’d find in the University in AoE 2 to the respective building in AoM (Wall upgrades, Tower upgrades, Murder Holes/Boiling Oil).

If someone played AoE 2, a lot of things in AoE 3 will make a lot more sense if they also played AoM and vice versa.

@KG19991380

big kicker was, a lot of aoe3 design didn’t make sense as sequel to 2 unless you played all 3 games in order they released, and since AOM happens to be the link between aoe2 and 3 and just wasn’t played anywhere near as much as 2 or 3, it makes sense there’s a disconnect

Sure, AoE 3 is more of a sequel to AoM than AoE 2… and since many AoE 2 players skipped AoM when they got to AoE 3 they got lost and decided to go back to AoE 2… the opposite happened to me, I started AoE 3 in 2005 and when I played AoE 2 in a cyber cafe in 2006 I got lost and said “we are very different” and then I played AoM in another cyber cafe and I said “ah, with reason”…

@FloosWorld

moving technologies you’d find in the University in AoE 2 to the respective building in AoM (Wall upgrades, Tower upgrades, Murder Holes/Boiling Oil).

Of course, that’s why AoM and AoE 3 don’t have universities, since the respective upgrades are in their respective buildings…

@Lotor13

AoE4 basically combines elements from AoE3 and AoE2

Gemeplay is designated to be hybrid between old AoE2 - which is improved AoE1 - the original AoE formula, and innovative Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3,

@Franknezu11

but neither spectacular in the mixing which is a dissapointment if there an actual mixing we could have an extra summon abilities like aom god powers per age or the age up mechanic mixed or separately for uniqueness like aoeo or aoe 3 after expansions which they gave more variety than just an extra free building with some adjustment even after the rework of them most of them act lhat way reducing the point of being aoe 4 an game with assymetric civs like aom which did better onthe age up bonus

Sure, AoE 4 is like a modernized AoE 2 with touches of AoE 3 here and there (landmarks, mercenaries, Malian festivals, Ottoman visier points aka mini card deck and now points of interest) and some new things like troops on the walls like Stronghold and being able to build siege weapons to knock down walls… I’m curious what new things will they put in AoE 4?.. Unit promotions for each death, or some WC3/SC2 mechanics…

@LUZITANO

But then you want to compare a two and a half minute soundtrack to a two and a half hour soundtrack. The instruments in the Age III soundtracks are classical, but the civilization soundtracks in Age IV are medieval. Not to mention the beautiful documentary work they did on medieval weapons that you can watch during the campaigns.

@LUZITANO

Does Age of Empires III have such sophisticated mini documentaries?

Yeah, there’s no comparison there… AoE 4 feels like History Channel games and they put a lot of effort into the documentaries… AoE 3 at most, like AoE 2 and AoM, only has the compendium…

@FiveWind6951746

Landmarks are an improvement on TADs.

I’d still like to be able to choose any landmark at any age like in TAD… having to choose only two per age is like meh or okay, but it lowers it for you…

@OperaticShip743

For example, I would have liked the creation of units in batches (5 at a time). Except for villagers, ships and artillery.

Yes, batch training is missed, as it makes things more dynamic and doesn’t require so many military buildings, but I guess we’ll have to make do with landmarks…

@OperaticShip743

Minor factions, which do not necessarily have to be tribes if they do not make sense within Europe. They could be enclaves or another type of entity that is not considered a nation as such.

Sure, you can make military or mercenary camps like in the campaigns… or for example play on a “Bohemia” map and have Bohemian camps where you can create Hussite wagons… or on a “Urals” map and have Cuman allies and then if they include maps in America then like in AoE 3, have Carib, Tupi, Quechua, Mapuche allies and so on… in theory AoE 4 goes up to 1552 in the Rus campaign or even 1670 with the Malians, so something like that can be included… I would see a Japanese campaign going up to 1592 (Imjin Wars) or even 1615 (Siege of Osaka like in AoE 3) and a Malian campaign going even up to 1645 when the Malian empire finally falls…

@Franknezu11

does aoe 4 has a variety of mission like defense of vip villager/settler or survive the harzadous map meanwhile you micro with few uniots or at least an narrative in all the events which it seem aoe4 tries to fix it with the documentary which doesnt work well imo or some sea maps in the campaign?

Yeah, you got it right there…although in defense of AoE 4 it has the zone hold missions and the naval missions from The Sultans Ascends…

@Franknezu11

not true. old games has its own thing but at leats they focus on their gimmick. aoe 4 tries tor ecollect but ends in a product with no substance

Of course, AoE 4 is like a mix that doesn’t know what it wants to be…be more classic like AoE 2 or allow itself to be more varied like AoE 3…

@Adribird90

Let’s see, the fact is that AoE2 surpasses AoE4 in popularity, content, mods, accessibility, some mechanics that may draw more attention from a micromanagement point of view or tactics such as increased damage on hills. All this at the moment. Perhaps it will change over time.

Sure, time will tell… AoE 2 has 26 years of experience and content… AoE 4 isn’t even 5 years old, so we’ll have to give it time… we’ll have to see how the game is in 2026 or 2031…

@Huge5000RTSFan

I think main issue is a lot of the experimental RTS like DoW3 and Age of Empires Online were big disappointments, that’s why people simply demanded something that actually works, grounded and back to the roots like AoE4. Sure such game is not unique, but at least playable.

Yeah, I don’t complain about AoE Online… I love AoE Online… it has tons of content and you can customize everything: the capital, the UUs you have, and your troops’ armor…

@OperaticShip743

Well, the reality is that wasn’t the case. The studio never went bankrupt; it was only dissolved after completing development of Halo Wars.

@MedicMaaan

Re: the death of ensemble studios

This reddit post from 8 years ago summarizes it well: https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/5lr4md/comment/dbxu0tu/

AoE 3 was a commercially successful title for its time. There was definitely a divide in the community, but Ensemble getting shut down has more to do with corporate decision making on what they should be developing after AoE 3 (around halo wars, as previously stated).

The devs from Ensemble pivoted into AoE: Online, something that showed some promise but ultimately failed as a result of its F2P/microtransaction nature + dependency on Games for Windows Live. (For what it’s worth, Project Celeste is a fan-made project that exists because some people actually enjoyed the game. So at least someone cares enough to keep the fire burning!)

Yes, the whole story must be told… Ensemble Studios did not go bankrupt because of AoE 3, Microsoft dissolved it in 2009 before the release of Halo Wars due to the 2008 recession and yet a month later Ensemble Studios was reborn as Robot Entertainment (you have other sub-studios of former ES devs like Bonfire Studios that were bought by Zynga and closed in 2013 and after Bonfire’s closure, Boss Fight Entertainment that was bought by Netflix in 2022)… Robot Entertainment released AoE Online in 2011 and then directly focused on the Orks Must Die saga until today (even this year they will release OMD: Deathtrap)… they don’t make AoE games anymore simply because the old devs retired and the new ones are happy with OMD…

@FiveWind6951746

I personally enjoy all the games in the franchise to varying degrees. Each has its own thing it brings to the table. We’re all guilty of tribalism; some enjoy one game over the others, and that’s fine, too. In the end, I’m a fan of the franchise, as I’ve been playing these games for 26 years. One might not like X game for any number of reasons, but that doesn’t make it a bad game. None of the Age games are objectively bad, nowhere near it.

If one can overlook certain flaws in each game, then it is possible to enjoy them for their strengths. I wouldn’t want to play just one game in the franchise. Taking a diplomatic stance might be boring to some, but that’s just how I feel.

@StoneAgate0

I’m tired of this stupid division of the community, especially when it comes to two really good games, AoE2 and AoE4. It’s clear that the goal here is just to be toxic and manipulative! Both communities feed off each other, keeping revenue and adding value to developing more content for both games!! Toxic AoE2 fans would rather stream other games live than enjoy AoE4. Is this because AoE4 is bad? NO!! IT’S JUST STUPID AND AN UNNECESSARY WORRY, LIKE LOSING YOUR PLAYER BASE! It’s not about this one being better or that one being better, it’s about the different generation of people, I’m from the old one, others are more current! Old bearded players fighting with young players playing AoE4 and being toxic, now that’s stupid!!

Yes, it’s ridiculous…play all the games in the series and that’s it…then obviously you’ll have your favorite…I have like 1500 hours in 2 DE and yet my favorites are AoE 3 and Online and AoM and AoE 4 a little further back…

@StoneAgate0

I’ll give you another example. On April 26th, there will be an Elite Classic III tournament for AoE4. It was time for everyone to stream this tournament. Why don’t they stream it? Because there is no audience? Is AoE4 a bad game? NO, NO, it’s because the stupid toxicity of the community itself prevents those who stream online tournaments from streaming this online tournament. And why? Because on one hand, they only stream AoE2, and on the other hand, AoE4, they only stream AoE4. Those who stream tournaments should be impartial about this, and what they do encourages toxicity; both would benefit from both games. For many of us, like me for example, I watch both AoE2 and AoE4 tournaments!

@StoneAgate0

Two amazing games with slightly different player bases, doubled opportunities for content creators, it’s all just unnecessary stupidity!

Yes, the same applies to AoE 3…if it weren’t for ESOC the game wouldn’t even have tournaments…

[Huge5000RTSFan]

While it is a fact AoE4 is inferior to AoE2.
While it is a fact AoE4 is the best base build
RTS we had since the year 2007 Tiberium Wars.

[FloosWorld]

I’m still fascinated that people discuss AoE 2 v 4 in this topic whereas OP’s point was that AoE 4 is inferior to AoE 3, so AoE 4’s actual predecessor.

[Enjoyer]

Funny how people are saying Aoe4 is inferior but cant provide any argument as there is no any to make
those are just grumpy old boomers suffering from nostalgia bias
aoe4 does everything pretty much better except for single player content and mods

[FloosWorld]

I find it likewise funny that “boomer” and “nostalgia” are used as legit arguments whereas the average RTS gamer is in his late 20s to 30s, no matter which RTS you play and AoE 4’s marketing, especially prerelease was a huge nostalgia bait on AoE 2.

Either way: OP’s point was that AoE 4 is inferior to AoE 3 and I think you should rather adress this.

[Enjoyer]

I already gave list of valid arguments in this thread you can scroll up and read them and you know that you cant even argue about those
aoe4 music superior
aoe4 sound design superior
aoe4 gameplay superior
aoe4 mechanics and balance also superior

Aoe2 boomers dont have arguments like that they just cope somehow while playing "japanese or any other civ in aoe2 which just reuses medieval europe unit models XDDD i heckin love my japanese 2 handed swordsman in full medieval plate armor or the legendary japanese knights XD you gotta imagine playing the civ i guess but in reality all those civs are t he same
every feudal fight looking the same cuz unique units are unlocked via castles with the bland music playing over and over again and untis repeating same 5 lines over and over again also so peak aoe4 is so inferior to this xDD

aoe3 problem is that it covers the worse time period people are more interested in early medieval age
dont think its bad game and cant tell if its rly superior (which i highly doubt ) cuz i didnt play it as i was just not interested in the time period probably like many other people . I played only aoe2 aoe4 and Aom

[FloosWorld]

Your reply, especially the 2nd paragraph is unrelated to my post, but okay.

Edit: I also scrolled up. Your points are still AoE 2 v 4 whereas OP was AoE 3 v 4. Let me quote his initial post again:

@Therenegade30

Hi. I’m new to the Age of Empires series, and I bought the game recently because I like the battles and some history. I play Company of Heroes 2 sometimes, and some Total War games. I wasn’t really interested in Age of Empires games that much, until I recently found out that Relic was involved in the development of the latest mainline title in the series.

Since I usually play COH I got interested and bought it, since they have developers in common. However I wasn’t very impressed, because Relic knows how to recreate scenarios and war conflicts very well, and I don’t see much of that in this game. I was even less interested in the series, until a friend suggested I try Age of Empires 3, which had a free trial.

I thought it would be more of the same, but what a pleasant surprise I got. I loved how the cannonballs shoot down troops, the naval battles, and all the things you can interact with on the maps, like the tribes. I didn’t know this game was so different from the others in the franchise, and that’s why I never got interested in it at all. I don’t know why this new version was designed to feel so hollow in comparison.

Why did they make such a mediocre sequel in comparison? Is it some kind of reboot? I’d like to know what kind of gameplay consumers are looking for in this series, because I also found out that the third installment has a smaller player base than the second and fourth installments, even though the third feels much more modern and innovative.

[Enjoyer]

idk aoe3 has worse time period and i didnt play it so cant rly compare those
but i highly doubt its better than aoe4
i played aom aoe2 and aoe4 and out of those aoe4 seems to be best so its probably better than aoe3 too

i mean if aoe3 was so good it wouldnt have died .

[FloosWorld]

I wouldn’t call the period worse, it’s just not as popular as say the Middle Ages. Gunpowder Era still has room for amazing gameplay.

Funny enough, AoE 3 didn’t die either because its playernumbers haven’t dropped at all since the announcement in late January. The F2P numbers aren’t also really inflating the game as you mostly just have to deduct 1k from the current playercount.

The reason why AoE 3 was rather left in the dust is because Retold is now the newer game, MS have promised two preorderable DLCs (China + Unknown pantheon) which they must deliver as per Valve’s guidelines and as Retold uses the same engine as AoE 3, all devs working on 3 have been shifted over there. Simple as.

AoE 3 already pioneers a good chunk of the ideas and mechanics AoE 4 then later uses, such as Landmarks, which is the way the Asians in AoE 3 age up with or the Vizier System of the Ottomans which is like an extremely lite version of AoE 3’s home city system.
Things people love to credit AoE 4 for bc they only played 2 in their childhood such as units using torches against buildings or switching from ranged into melee mode when a unit is too close are also part of AoE 3 since 2005.

I highly recommend giving AoE 3 a try, at least in its F2P version.

I btw sat down in Februrary and wrote a guide aimed at AoE 2 and 4 players with the intention to lower the entry barrier for AoE 3:

Age of Empires III explained

---

To add my two cents re AoE 2 v 4: the only thing where I’d say AoE 4 is objectively superior is sound design. The rest boils down to personal preference.
And again “boomer” is not a legit argument when the average RTS player isn’t young either.

And in general, I’d recommend to calm down when arguing, especially in (heated) debates when disagreements occur.

[Franknezu11]

@MatM1996

Sure, AoE 4 is like a modernized AoE 2 with touches of AoE 3 here and there (landmarks, mercenaries, Malian festivals, Ottoman visier points aka mini card deck and now points of interest) and some new things like troops on the walls like Stronghold and being able to build siege weapons to knock down walls… I’m curious what new things will they put in AoE 4?.. Unit promotions for each death, or some WC3/SC2 mechanics…

old copncepts when you played aom, aoe 3 and aoeo. they may add smth from them thou but very diluted if you compare from their sources

@Enjoyer

aoe4 is improved and better designed that its predescesor it beats them in most of the aspects
people who think and say otherwise are just blind by nostalgia and cope

Music and sound design in aoe4 is the best its not even negotiable

Graphic are preference aoe2 can look better when you look at it from 1 angle but because its 2d it looks clucky and stiff in many situationss
advantage of 3d is that animations and everything moving looks much more fluid and you can rotate map and stuff in aoe2 cant even do that
Aoe2 has advantage of being better optimized and running even on old pcs and laptops with those graphics
this is the one of the reason it has more players aoe4 is optimized like shit

Gameplay is also better more dynamic and not stiff like in older games units got unique abilities which are more than just like +damage in aoe2 much more animations like charging bracing and other fun stuff.

Systems are better more balanced and well thought in aoe4
in aoe2 you always got most of the population in vills like 140 and armies are rly small all the time in aoe4 you can see actuall big battles as armies often are bigger pop than vills tech switching in aoe2 is also problem cuz blacksmith techs and armor upgrades all affect different type of units alot of times you see like only knights 60 knights and nothing else
aoe4 armies are more diverse cuz you need diverse realistic army composition

Civilizations are more diverse and all have cool unique things
and have unique regional models for units ( this should have beeen also added in aoe2 long ago)
aoe2 finally is getting some new models for elite units but it still has long wayy to go its boring to see same units over and over again with every civ

Aoe4 has a bit slow start early thats why some people may see it as boring compared to aoe2 where you just micro like a nerd from the start on arabia and there are more vill fights cuz vills are kinda busted in aoe2
but i dont see it as a problem i rather have aoe4 be that slower more strategic type of game than some micro nerd fest like starcraft 2 ,

So overall aoe4 is a great game it had poor start but nowadays people who say otherwise are just bitter and cant deal with the truth that aoe4 just surpassed aoe2 in pretty much everything aoe2 is still great game and have alot of hours in it but if youre not blinded by nostalgia you can see the huge improvment from aoe2 to aoe4 now

Im not even an aoe2 player but only the music on 4 is salvageable but mechnically is a mess comparing to truly assymetric aoe games like aom and aoeo or even aoe 3 to some extend. in case of balance aoeo has the most balanced one and the nest oen to that standard is aom and they gave more action than a aoe 4 match can offer. Abilities is the only aspect they can do smth but cmon the ahisorical and the implmention is poor. Also aom retodl did a bit better on that regard. overall all 3 are ebtter than 4 in their own strength

[Enjoyer]

Yikes more cope personal opinions and 0 arguments .
Now Aom is fun to play but only for some time i would say its even better than aoe 2 its optimized very good and has better asymetrical civs but it needed more cooking before being released as it has many problems that just made people quit the game after finishing the campaign game they just didnt stick the to play it

In aom even tho they increased pop numbers army pops are still laughably small like in aoe2 you get like 30 units-40 and then its just spamming fortreses and towers

Theres no city building aspect and defense siege in aom as as buidlings literally die to 1 mythic unit or to 1 god power

The God powers and timings in aom play too big of a role getting acces to 1 ability can make you win game alone

And no aoe4 is not mechanically bad its one of the best rts of the current time if not the best micro nerds just having problems with it cuz it focuses more on macro and strategy than micro like other games which is great there are enough of micro focused games on the market already why wouldnt i just play warcraft 3 which is peak of that type of games .

[Franknezu11]

yikes more cope about aoe 4 . aoe 4 lacks everything that makes interesting previous aoe .

aom is more micro as military untis are more pop expensive, god power can said the same as destructive as siege in aoe 4 or inlfluence powers which for some reason in aoe4 they decide to go moistly on defensive powers intead of agressive one which add the layer of aoe 4 being a turtle fest and being a snooze fest for a long time. add the fact early game units lacks dmg and you have this mess on basis and we are not addign the mess around overtunned civs. aoe 4 is a mediocre aoe but a below decent rts bcuz the competitors doenst offer smth better and that why the reason aoe 2 still popular. because they allow this

[Enjoyer]

HMM aoe4 is defensive and turtle hmmm its almost like castles and defense was really strong in medieval ages untill gunpowder came out which also rekts those in aoe4 hmmm
ye youre right aoe4 is great representation of medieval warfare devs put great chunk of work into making it so good

Overtuned civs ? hmm chinese pantheon on release was really balanced you know totally not autowin with fey beasts flood and the ENDLESS WALLs and towers SPAM hahahahahah dude ur so hyporcritical
AOE2 also had share of its op civs its always just gonna happen when new civs and changes are added to the game

aoe4 is popular simply because its good its just that
imagine how good it has to be that even that it runs like shit with its terrible optimization lack of single player content and mods it still managed to hold decent chunk of players it tells alot about how good game is

[GoldenArmorX]

@FloosWorld

I’m still fascinated that people discuss AoE 2 v 4 in this topic whereas OP’s point was that AoE 4 is inferior to AoE 3, so AoE 4’s actual predecessor.

The thing is that this thread has been closed for months (January-April), and was only revived by the AoE4 hater on the forum (franknezu) to praise, as always, AoE 2, so that’s where the topic change comes from.

Mst people here are just reposting to emphasize again why we like AoE 4 more than AoE 3 and AoE 2, so the haters don’t get carried away.

@Enjoyer

The God powers and timings in aom play too big of a role getting acces to 1 ability can make you win game alone

Yeah, they are very broken: In a 3v3, the enemy team destroyed an entire base by combining three sacred powers: Earthquake + Fenrir + Fullwinter. We lost ALL the buildings and army in that area, as well as many of our villagers.

And now that the powers are “repeatable,” they can do it multiple times.

Visually, it’s great to use combos like this, but the same can’t be said in terms of balance, since at the moment: “There is no balance between civilizations”, some being very broken, or certain combos in multiplayer are too OP.

I actually stopped playing it until they offer a discount for the Chinese Pantheon DLC, which is expensive.

[FloosWorld]

@GoldenArmorX

The thing is that this thread has been closed for months (January-April), and was only revived by the AoE4 hater on the forum (franknezu) to praise, as always, AoE 2, so that’s where the topic change comes from.

No, the thread has been already turned into a AoE 2 v 4 discussion before Frank posted again.

What happened is that the OP after three months actually replied:

@Therenegade30

@LUZITANO

Age of Empires III is the game that least resembles the Age of Empires franchise.

That’s exactly why it won me over. In my opinion, the others seem very oldfashioned.

[GoldenArmorX]

@FloosWorld

AoE 3 already pioneers a good chunk of the ideas and mechanics AoE 4 then later uses, such as Landmarks, which is the way the Asians in AoE 3 age up with or the Vizier System of the Ottomans which is like an extremely lite version of AoE 3’s home city system.

Actually, the idea for Landmarks didn’t originate from AoE 3, but from another game from the creators of the Asian Dinasties: "Rise of Nations"

Yes, they hired “another studio” to make the AoE3 Asian Dinasties DLC, “Big Huge Games”

They were mainly based on the idea of Wonders of Rise of Nations.

Big Huge Games

---

And I know this very clearly, because:

• I hated the vanilla version of AoE3 for the bad reprentation of Spanish Civ, so when its Asian expansion came out, and I noticed that they could ALWAYS give Monuments to all the AoE3 civs, and that it was never a technical limitation, I discovered a disturbing truth:
  – The only reason the Spanish didn’t have Universities, Plantations, unique buildings, or Wonders in their civ was because they wanted to make it JUST LIKE the rest of the other 7 European civs, so they wouldn’t differ too much and make the game “Ultra-simple.”

And that hurt me to the core. Even so, I greatly appreciated the new Asian civs in AoE3, but I still hated the revolutionary system, which didn’t allow Peru to be a revolution of Spain, but of Russia or Germany (which makes no sense).

Fortunately, they fixed a lot of it in Definitive Edition, but even so, there are things I still don’t like, but I won’t say them because I’d have to expand on this topic yet, and I already responded to the thread: Landmarks were a Rise of Nations idea.