IV is for me better.
The problem is, both shots are using zooming and camera angles which don’t even exist in either game. We need to see side by side actual gameplay comparisons, with maximum graphic settings for both, and maximum zoom out levels for both (and also closer in zoom levels as well- the full range).
Better in details? I doubt it.
Have you seen turtles and ducks in the water, all kinds of bird species flying across the map, and siege operators in AOE-4?
If the shots were made with their respective graphics engines, it is basically the same. There are many angles that would be in a normal game.
What a pointless video. It uses promo footage from both games… which in neither case represents the final gameplay. Why bother?
Because many of us want more gaia and details in AOE-4. I personally want more art for this game and the comparisons speak better for themselves.
Are there significant differences?
By the way, I did not make the video. I only found it on youtube by chance.
AoE 3 de has better graphics for sure. They are much sharper and more detailed, especially things like animals and water. Terrain is a toss up, trees and water look better in aoe 3 but the cliffs and grass look better in aoe 4. Units are better in aoe 3, they are sharper and the textures are better. I had to go into my NIVIDIA settings and set the sharpness up for aoe 4, so it looks a little better now paired with the resolution maxed.
What resoultion are you using and what level of sharpness?
I have sharpen set to 1 and resolution set to 100 (1920x1080)
The strange thing is that you assume I meant that AOE-3 is better when I didn’t even mention it in the title.
Like most promo footage in 3D RTS games… you will barely ever play the actual game as it is shown:
- Camera fly-overs zoomed out further than actually possible.
- Removed LOD-related things like pop-in and fog or otherwise reduced render and view range.
- Flat camera angles which can never be achieved in gameplay as we can’t change the camera that way (in some games even showing a skybox that’s not in the actual game).
- Cherry picked and staged scenes (vs. the auto-generated maps and meta city layouts you will play with most of the time).
- Parts out of in-engine cutscenes.
It gives the viewer some action to witness and that’s fine. But it doesn’t lend itself well to be used as a graphics comparison (what this video is doing).
Where did I assume that?
So do I. AOE3’s environments (even OG) felt much more alive and “physical”.
DE went really hard on high-res, high-detail and high-contrast ground textures as well as added clutter items (little plants, more grass). That puts a lot of strain on the eyes. Not a big fan of that. AOE4’s ground on the other hand is a washed out mess (texture style combined with color choices and that ugly fog over everything).
There is really no comparison when it comes to water. AOE4 added nice and bumpy looking stones along riverbanks, but that’s the only positive for me.
Environment compositions overall in AOE4 can be quite unrealistic and gimmicky. Mostly due to the dodgy map generation. Forests for example always seem to get placed as round blobs.
I just think it doesn’t help the discussion to use misleading footage in a comparison. Not entirely your fault as it is not your video.
Only the banks of the rivers. Also in AOE-3 there are ponds with swans, turtles, etc.
It only remains to hope that the game improves over time. But the fact is that AOE-4 should outperform AOE-3 and the other remasters by far. For some it is better 3, for others 4 in graphic terms, but the fact that a remastering is compared to a new generation game makes AOE-3 proportionally better.
The environment and terrain are impressive in AOE 4. The AOE 4 unit graphics, scale, and building sizes are absolutely horrendously awful beyond belief! So AOE 3 and all other Age of games clearly win in those departments. In my opinion.
A video from 6 months ago?
AoE3 - at this point - could be considered “an ambitious sequel to AoE4”…
It all makes sense now