All comments welcome.
All comments welcome.
Probably all teams involved at World’s Edge. But, now that AoM DE got announced, if AoM 2 is ever going to happen, I hope Creative Assembly makes that one, they’re definitively the best choice.
I’m going to assume no one here is like a 12 yr old something like that.
Tell me what’s wrong with this line of thought, or why does it just get overlooked or no one thinks about it: you are free to make ‘your own series’, and write it was ‘inspired by’, you don’t have to create like a new AoE or AoM which simply steals the name, but otherwise, is 100% different. Where people will be fooled that it will be anything like the original one, because it won’t be: it’ll be from scratch, new devs, new source code, new engine, etc. which is why AoE4 was so horrid, and I feel bad for any people that actually bought it thinking it was like a ‘new AoE’ (just a generic cashgrab/name steal) and even never realized it, and put up with that nonsense they pulled (as if they just needed a ‘patch’ to fix that horrible design). Is there anything wrong with that or why do people keep failing by saying they want an AoM2? If so it will be just as bad as AoE4 and bare little resemblance to the original one at all, again.
You hope ‘Creative Assembly’ would make an AoM2, after they’ve ‘never’ made any such game, and they’re like those ones who make ‘Total War’ which is actually is a terribly bad balanced game, mainly marketed at little kids, that bears no resemblance at all; where the ‘top strategy’ there is usually like, really braindead people teamstacking defending like some super-defendable town and trying to gain significant pre-advantages before the match ever starts (not even by randomness!). These game series is all about starting equal and balanced gameplay, TW is the epitome of something that’s really unbalanced and broken, with no balance at all, once past the ‘amusement’ phases and figuring out how a few things work on that engine, it’s basically boring or dead at that point because you know how to win or how not to win and some dumbs who think like ‘sitting on a hill’ is a strat will try to rig and teamstack it while picking best factions and whining about the whole thing. It’s exactly the definition of a ‘brand name steal’ and a cash grab that you’d want to avoid, other than it shows how easy it is to trick these gaymers and get their money, it degrades the quality, e.g. no one will probably ever want AoE5 now etc. or will be highly skeptical of how good it can be.
At least on like AoM, or AoE, you can be like a top player or ‘outplay’. There is a learning curve. Choosing civ and choosing map isn’t giving someone like a literal hugely enhanced chance to win, unlike in Total War sometimes with the battles and maps where they ‘want to defend’ yeah because it’s easier etc. Those games like CA make are all gambler games where once you learned even slightly how they work the game already becomes boring and unbalanced, you’d just pick the best factions and cheaters do things like teamstack/defend cities with stone walls and 2 layers of citidels/walls on them; they could choose not to do this and make it a bit more fair, but 99% of them don’t, it shows what type of players actually play something like Creative Assembly would make,(beyond the age of like 15 when you gain sentience of some sort). And anything they can pre-determine, not realizing y it’s not really fun/balanced for the other players to just teamstack and defend a town where odds are your teammates will be bad and it will be a waste of time. That was the pitfall of their games back in like 2003, and they never changed it; recycling the same engine and changing out some 3d stuff sometimes and I guess people show their willingness to get scammed. They have such “realistic” battles, but if you want ‘more realistic’, then one side had a significant advantage usually, not fun for the ones with less advantages then to waste their time, even if they’re slightly better than their opponent! you can’t even to my knowledge replenish ammunition anywhere on the battlefield for ranged units, along with tons of fake/broken things there that only imo little kids would actually overlook. Also buildings are like these unbreakable things you can never move over so chokepoints and simply placing things in those is supposed to be ‘fun’ somehow but it just limited what you can do, which is why many of them just like to defend on city maps because of how literal no action/easy/boring it becomes then to hold chokepoints and dictate how many things like ‘how many arrows that can literally defeat me can you bring’. That would be like on AoE2/AoM if the lobby says ‘guys, i trust u, only make like 10 archer units max’, you already know they’re mentally impaired and lost most of their matches at that point, but that’s basically what happens in every Total War game that I’ve ever seen (on their more modern games/engines). Almost all those same salty TW players they market to will lose on like an AoE game, if they simply weren’t reacting, don’t learn fast, aren’t as smart somehow, etc. with only very little randomness involved. In these RTS types you start out equal all the time (on purpose) with balance, then your decisions and strategy will impact who will gain an edge (or if no one gains an edge yet). I don’t see how a cash-cow company like CA that markets to ‘that type of audience’ mainly braindeads, recycle the same engines with little changes in it for 70$ every single year, would be fitting to ever make a game that people actually competed at like AoE2and AoM (and the other ones too but not as much peak interest there); and weirdly enough, to this day people compete at these games at a serious level, because it has ‘actual balance’ and most times ‘the better players win’.
They are totally different in who plays them and also fundamental balancing- one is for goldfish ####### who think running around with a horse archer or ‘being on a hill’ is a tactic, and one is for someone who views an overall counter strategy, where you have much more than 1 unit, can master and make a counter that is fairly balanced (if you have not fallen too far behind already); you can bring up things or respond. It takes effort to set up a fun match and most of those totalwar players are simply not smart enough to set up the match in a fun/fair way, to remove laggers, or at least agree to re-enact something in a certain way on purpose (with likely new/non caring players, like myself) which would be really rare probably. In CA’s games which are for kids there are simply situations you literally will always lose in and that’s unacceptable. You could have already outplayed and won most of the battle, but then found like there’s some uber fortress that literally can’t be penetrated in the center, so no matter what you do it could be waste of time. It’s for doufus (not so smart) people who think like camping on a hill, pre-determining ‘simply better’ conditions for themselves, camping broken bottlenecks that are 100% unavoidable, = being smart or skilled somehow, rather than exploring the game by realizing it’s there for fun and not for ‘being gud at’ or anything like that. I don’t care about winning, I’ve won every single battle at least one time or many types of them by that point, the point is do your best and enjoyment, but for that game series it’s just not that enjoyable against most players who don’t set up the game correctly. You could only like ‘inch a win’ with the odds highly against you if you truly had way better players on your team and all of you did what they had to do, but that is rare for such a playerbase to actually be good at things and seek challenges out rather than familiar easy things. Imo CA would be the worst devs to actually make such a game (also would be the first time ever attempting it too), and yet if they wanted to nothing’s stopping them:just no matter who it is, let them make their own game with their own series name, and see how it does. And I kno as I’ve probably wasted over 100 hrs of my life on that game and countless more on this series. It takes some sentience to realize when it’s a waste of time vs something cool you can improve at, or have sort of mastered in life, at least. TW at best should never be bought at anything above 10$ (if at all) and is only fun if like literally no one knows yet what they’er doing cuz you really just point and click unit blobs and they fight one another.
Anyway I just finished working out and am sitting making a late night rant so apologies if you were offended somehow but it’s just the truth anyway.
Sure thing gotta love their aesthetics I mean look at Troy Mythos and the style (Hydra <3 Cerberus (who should be a unit) and even the Minotaur etc) it’s great imho I just would appreciate an sold RTS setting like AoE, AoM, StarCraft etc more.
@Skadidesu already posted a hint to a secret game of CA which hopefully could mean a side project which is very similar to AoM maybe (hopefully)
If AoM:R is a remaster then the developer will be Forgotten Empires with potentially a second them like Tantalus (who worked on AoE3DE that uses the same engine)
If AoM:R is a remake in a different engine it could be anyone.
Creative Assembly is a good candidate because:
I don’t have any insider knowledge, I’m just guessing.
My uncle doesn’t work at Microsoft/Sega.
Nice observation. Could make much sense.
And no insult to your uncle but I thought your mum would work there. Well maybe not it seems how unfortunate.