Why AoMR will have to have worse readability

Age of Mythology: Retold Discussion
41

I won’t weigh in on the Atlantean looking like Romans debate, reused assets etc. But as for the Atlanteans being in the FOTT campaign, I have two main points I feel should be considered as to why it should be kept the same.

  1. Where else would the Greeks feature? The argument is made that maybe be the Greeks in the first two tutorial missions, then switch to Atlanteans. But that makes little sense? Either playing as Arkantos means you’re Atlantean throughout or you’re not. And if not, at which opportunity do the Greeks feature in the campaign? The FOTT campaign is about giving the player a good run at playing Greeks, Norse and Egypt. The NA campaign shifts the principle focus to playing as the new Civ, the atlanteans. Changing the Greeks to Atlanteans in FOTT will make give the atlanteans the lions share of the missions across both campaigns.
  2. Lore wise. To caveat, this isn’t an argument about the artistic choice to give Atlanteans Roman like armour and Incan like buildings. This is to do with the lore. In FOTT, the Atlanteans were a Greek colony, worshipping Greek gods. If we were to shift the focus to Atlanteans, the whole campaign would have to be rewritten to show a focus on worshipping Gaia or Or - which is what the NA campaign is about. The campaign focuses on Zeus and Poseidon - having Atlanteans as the playable wouldn’t make sense. Additionally, the Atleanteans after FOTT are an abandoned people, thought dead. On their own for a generation, they believe themselves abandoned by the Greek gods and people. They forge themselves a NEW identity. This is why they look different. No longer are they a Greek colony, but they are now their own people, worshipping their own gods separate from the Greeks who have believed them dead for a generation but whom the Atlanteans believed have abandoned them.
    I think thematically it therefore makes sense that they are a new people in the NA, emerging from their cold tundra with a new identity under new gods.
    Either way, the Atlanteans couldn’t be included in FOTT without serious rework to either the campaigns or the Atlantean pantheon to include Poseidon and Zeus in them
42

It makes sense, now that you explain it like that with the Trojans. And in that sense, I agree with you.

There are several parts of the FotT campaign where Atlantean assets could (should) be used. The first two missions, (an argument could be found for the third as well, even if its just ships) the dream mission, where you destroy an awfully Atlantis looking city as Hades alongside Gargarensis and Kamos, the only time in the campaign where you play Hades, and the last two missions where you’d still have to play Greek in the last mission, because Zeus.

You are right with the Tutorial stuff, so I even at some point suggested a hybrid faction of sorts, that’s basically Greek Poseidon, but with Atlantean models, textures and voice lines. Titan worshipping Atlanteans wouldn’t need to be featured, gameplay wouldn’t have to change…

But either way, not gonna happen…

43

First Mission of new atlantis is set 10 years after the end of FotT.
In what world is 10 years equal to a generation?
Kastor was 14 in FotT, and 24 in new atlantis.

44

Aye, fair point I stand corrected. Thought of the top of my head Kastor was younger in FOTT and older in NA.
But I feel my other points potentially still stand.

45

The issue with creating a hybrid faction is that AOE and AOM campaigns in general are to provide a single player experience of a faction outside of random map etc, coupled with a story and more content. A hybrid faction not available in random map to an extent dilutes the player experience of being Greek and Atlantean as they’re intended.

Now, I’m aware the original AOE3 created hybrid factions, but these were based off existing factions with only the Home City and flags (and voicelines? Can’t remember) changed. So it’s not outside the realms of possibility for them to do it. But the original intention was to expose players to each of the civs for a decent amount of time, hence why you play every single major god at some point.

Either way, it’s extremely unlikely it’s going to change as the rework would be too extensive. I won’t be mr tuna fish and claim I speak for the “majority” but I suspect it would also prove to be fairly unpopular with folks who just would rather play their original campaign as close to the original as possible. We can but look forward to newer campaigns with newer mechanics and factions, but for the original, I personally want as little changed as possible for the reasons I outlined above and for my own - arguably selfish - want for nostalgia.

46

Oh no that’s not what I wanted to imply.
You only really play as the “Atlanteans” in the first 2 missions, after that you are part of the Greek army besieging Troy so I thought it was obvious that you would play as Greeks after those 2 missions.

The explanation I made up for myself is that the Atlanteans didn’t develop a new identity but instead went back to their own identity before they worshipped Poseidon.

Not sure if that would confuse people to much. Since it’s a tutorial it should remain simple, especially the 2nd mission.

The campaign factions in the first campaign of AoE3 are completely unique factions.
They have unique tech trees with some unique limitations.
Almost all of their units are from other civilisations only the Maltese have one unique unit. That unit was later added to the playable Maltese when they were added in the last DLC.
They were kinda more “generic” then any of the civilisations because each AoE3 civilisation has a bunch of unique mechanics.

I think a lot of people would want to see small tweaks to the Fall of the Titan using at last a little bit of Atlantean in them, but not making them a playable faction.
It would only really change the 3 missions where you fight against Atlantis. Those missions could at last have some Atlantean units and buildings for the enemies, they don’t need to feature full Atlantean civilisations.

1 Like
47

Your other points still standing is up for personal interpretation. I personally don’t feel like the lore bit makes sense. With them “making themselves a new identity”, like, complete with new architecture and language and technology in ten years? While also struggling to survive in the frozen wastes they got themselves in, abandoned by the gods?
And even if I was to accept that, why did the Greeks recognize them as Atlanteans then, in the second mission?

The fact that the Atlanteans were added in the expansion retcons them being Greek in the original. They worshipped the Greek gods, and had Greeks stand in for them, because Atlanteans hadn’t been made yet, and the dev’s didn’t know they’ll ever make them, when they made the base game. They didn’t know they were going to do Atlanteans until close to the end of the development of the Titans Expansion, when they had been halfway done creating a Roman and a Mesoamerican civ.
We excused that inconsistancy, and came up with our own handwaves for it, because we knew Ensemble couldn’t go back and work the Atlanteans in the base game campaign, for many real life reasons, including technological ones.

EE gets away with it because it’s using legacy code it only has limited access to.

Retold doesn’t have either excuse. The only real reason they have to keep things as they are is Nostalgia.

The point about the hybrid faction, I take.
Still, there would still be the option of the upper city, you don’t play as, be Atlantean (but as Poseidon) in the first mission, and the first two missions being more or less the same otherwise, would still work with the other changes I suggested. Where you’d defend Atlanteans in the first missions as Greek, play Greek until the arrival in Egypt, fight Atlanteans in the dream mission, and then fight Atlanteans again in the last two missions, again as Greek.
It would turn into a “Why are there Greeks in Atlantis” situation, rather than a “why are there no Atlanteans in Atlantis” situation, but I think that would be an improvement.

In the end, it looks like the devs agree with you, and will happily sacrifice lore consistency and continuity for nostalgia.

48

I thought about making a mini campaign explaining how Atlanteans become Greek once AoMR comes out.

But I still think they should use some Atlantean buildings as decoration for Atlantis. It doesn’t even have to be an Atlantean civs. If you place Manors, Economic Guilds, Palaces, Military Barracks or Counter Barracks they always look Atlantean since they are not available to any other civ.

1 Like
49

Ah ok, got you. Apologies if I misinterpreted.
I think that’s actually a good notion, that that was their original look before they adopted Greek architecture and religion etc.
I’m pretty sure the Maltese from the original AOE3 were Spanish, just with a different home city. But I could be wrong, been a while since I played it. And the USA were British were they not?
Maybe they have done those tweaks already? Sure, we have promotional screenshots of the Poseidon statue fight but we haven’t actually seen the last missions yet. So who knows. Doubtful, but they might’ve done.
I’m curious in general to see what actual tweaks they’ve done. The original 5 they let us play didn’t have many tweaks save to a few mechanics, geography and building placement and map size. Obviously one of the arguments regarding the new VA’s is that they recorded new lines with the new actors so be interesting to see if that’s true and what they did.
But this is a little off topic for the purpose of the thread. Curious to see though

50

They had 2 Spanish units but that was it.
The civ also hat Mortars in the 3rd age but no Falconet and no Culverin and they could not advance in the 4th age.
They had the unique Hoop Thrower that does bonus damage vs. Janissaries specifically.

They changed the major god to Poseidon in the first 4 missions.
I think there will be a few later missions with a lot more changes since a few later missions are kinda bad. Same for the New Atlantis campaign.

51

Well first of all I said “I feel” my points still stand, so by definition it’s personal interpretation.
See the above point from Skadidesu regarding the Atlanteans having an original identity prior to adopting Greek and reverting back to that. I hadn’t considered that but it’s a good interpretation and makes sense imo.

And of course, all this boils down to is that the original campaign shipped with a game that had no Atlanteans. And the Titans and the Atlanteans came next. So of course it comes down to basic dev gameplay decisions made in 2002. Im not saying they sat down and thought it through with a fine tooth comb. Even the base game makes little sense and is very anachronistic as all the AOE’s are. Loose with facts and believeability but with a solid starting foundation, but mainly concerned with just good gameplay.

I see where you’re coming from regarding your last point of having Atlanteans as the enemy/upper city. But unless they made TC’s and temples with Poseidon but in the Atlantean features, it wouldn’t make sense lore wise regarding how the campaign is “worded”, if that makes sense?

I don’t think it sacrifices lore consistency or continuity keeping it this way, but that is a subjective opinion (from both yourself and I). In the end, for yourself, how game/immersion breaking is it for you? Enough to put you off the campaign? Like for example for me I have other issues with AOMR I’d like to see addressed over others, so personally if they did add Atlantean assets as you’ve suggested I’m not going to cry over it (not suggesting in any way that you’re crying over his matter. I get how wordings can be misinterpreted over the internet).

52

Ah, noted re. AOE3 factions. Still, proves hybrid factions for campaign isn’t outside realms of possibility.
Did they change the faction in 3DE to the new Maltese one now? Haven’t tried the campaign since it first came out!
Oh, goodness so they did! Makes a bit more sense that (Atlantean/greek argument aside).
Which missions would you put your money on being changed?

53

Unfortunately they have not.

There is a mission in the 3rd Arc where you fight as the US against he Mexicans but you play the campaign version of the US with no US units and the Mexicans are Spanish.
They should really update the campaign.

54

I always thought the Atlantean thing was odd. I started playing videogames with the original AoM and the Titans in 2004 when I was 13. It was the CD version I borrowed from a friend, and played for F* knows how long. My first game ever. Beat both campaigns, first on easy, then on normal. Got the gold edition for myself later, and after I lost it, I jumped at the chance to play AoM again in the EE on steam.
Back then, I just kind of shrugged and saw it as noticeable, annoying perhaps, but not a deal breaker. I still loved the game for what it was. As the years went on, and I played and completed more games, I got more vocal about those kinds of inconsistencies. Especially after I learned more about writing and storytelling. That also made me notice things like that more, and see them as a quality issue, rather than an innocent oversight.

Will it stop me from playing Retold? Absolutely not. Even with the game staying exactly as it is, I won’t cancel my preorder, or feel any regret. There are other things I don’t like about the game, that are absolutely just personal taste. Ragnarök heroes transforming randomly into the male/female/dwarf version, with completely no regard in what they were before, is something I didn’t like either in the original. But that’s something not many people noticed. I also remember suggesting a female and dwarf version of the Ulfsark, so the visual continuity could be kept, when transforming gatherers to ulfsarks, not having to change gender or species, using an old account, that had to be deleted, because for some reason, I was unable to log in, and the support here tried several things to let me back in, and nothing worked…
That went a bit off topic now…

We get a female version of the Berserk, so I see that as an improvement. (At the cost of having the Ragnarök hero only having one variation, and not three anymore, if youtube footage is to be believed, so basically one step up, one step down.)

55

I’m salty because I’ve found people to be dismissive of reasonable constructive feedback on the art style and genuinely shocked that people on these forums don’t care too much, but I’m not directing my saltiness at any one person just being a little passive aggressive :wink:

It is important because in halo 6 and aoe 4 the gaming community giving feedback about graphics. Both of those game received a lot of criticism on graphics and both made changes to graphics in response to such criticism.

That’s why I get frustrated on aom subreddit and these forums is there a culture of people gaslighting the gamers who have constructive feedback about retold graphics. I’m not saying it’s everyone but it’s really irritating when you make a good faith contribution to the discussion and people just dismiss it like your not allowed to say something.

Yes I hope people will enjoy the game and I will as well. I’m just sad because because the art style is not faithful to legacy aom in the same way that the other definitive editions are. Water, human units, some myth units, most of the trees look really good. Terrain, buildings, and many myth units do not look good.

I did see that Facebook post where they increased the color saturation in the campaign level, and it definitely moves the art style a little closer to what I would have expected. Hopefully that’s across the whole game and not just that scenario.

56

I don’t think it’s people being dismissive, although I’m happy to be corrected. People seem to be generally speaking relatively happy with how it turned out. Can some things be improved? Of course. But I don’t necessarily think that AOMR goes against Legacy because Legacy was always the most “cartoony” (I use that term very lightly) of all the AOM’s as it was the first on a 3d engine. I think the general look of the game is as faithful to Legacy as 2DE and 3DE were to their art designs of their legacies.

As I said, can some things be improved? I reckon so. I’m not 100% behind every detail, for example I recall the variations of water based on the climate with their varying reefs to be a standout from Legacy, and would like to see that back in. But I think they’ve done a good enough job for the most part. As you said, units et al are fantastic. Terrain appears to be a bit divisive. Which myth units do you also not agree with?

The new Facebook shot appears to add a deeper glow to the atmosphere to make it less bright. If this is a general change then I like it and I hope it goes some way towards bridging those like yourself and Mr tunaman and those like I. But at the end of the day, graphical design is a very subjective thing. Neither one of us are right nor wrong in our points of view. I think it’s faithful to the art of Legacy, you don’t necessarily. The devs are always going to struggle to get it bang on, but I feel they’ve got close enough.

From my experience here too, I don’t think people are gaslighting. I’ve only had one or two individuals who didn’t offer constructive criticism to a point I’ve made that they disagree with, I don’t feel I’ve really been gaslighted. I think most here are just offering their opinions and points of view in contrast to the ones who post. But again, that’s how I feel. If your experience is different then I can’t comment on that.

57

Well we need to make a distinction between thinking the game looks good vs is the art style faithful to legacy aom, which it is not.

I think many aspects of the game look good. If we weren’t comparing it to legacy aom I would probably 60 percent agree that the game looks good.

However, if you compare the other definitive editions with their respective legacy titles, you will see they more closely match the art styles.

On the art style itself -

If you read the early comments on some of these forums and on YouTube from the first gameplay trailer, a lot of people said they felt there was a mobile game vibe to the art style. I don’t know what you call that, cartoonish, stylized, but it wasn’t a minority opinion. A lot of people felt that way, and still do. A lot of people felt like there was a plastic, Lego, shiny feel to the buildings. Again, that mobile, cartoon vibe.

So that’s where the game is mixed. Most Human Units and water and trees look good. Buildings look really bad.

It’s also nuanced to breakdown the difference between lighting, textures, saturation, brightness, animations.

There are so many components to graphics.

When I think of legacy aom, I have always said that if there was a spectrum from cartoon to realism, aom vanilla leans moren towards the realism side, closer to aom 3. Retold unfortunately has an art style closer to aoe online or aoe 4.

So it’s totally fine if people are content with the new art style. But it objectively is not a faithful recreation of legacy aom art style.

And I say objectively because if I took a screenshot of age of empires online next to AOE 3 de and said “oh it looks the same”, it would be ridiculous to say that’s subjective. Aom retod is truly objectively not a faithful recreation of the vanilla art style.

That doesn’t mean it’s bad, they just went a different direction.

But I will make a longer post when retold comes out in a few weeks and do a deeper comparison dealing with grass and buildings and myth units.

58

I also want to add this as well-

If I have a unit that has blue to it, I can make a remaster that has blue on the unit, but I can make it with a different shade of blue, and different saturation. One of the reasons I feel retold is off, is that colors don’t really match vanilla aom. You can have the best textures in the world but if the lighting and colors are off its not gonna look like the right art style.

59

A huge problem that RTS has in general is that the genre almost completely died on PC and was never alive on Console but it thrived on mobile.
Many of the most successful mobile games are some kind of RTS or strategy game. Just think of Clash of Clans and all the games it inspired.
So people start associating post 2010 graphics RTS with mobile games because they have seen ads or gameplay of those games, maybe played some of them themselves.

Comparing the reaction to AoE4 you can clearly notice that AoE4 had way more people call it cartoonish. It was the biggest debate before release.

I don’t agree. But it’s hard to decide what AoM wanted to be like.
AoM was the first 3D game they made and it had to run on very weak hardware for modern standards so it was very limited.
You have to use your imagination a lot more when you look at the low polygon models and low resolution textures.

Compare those 2 Minotaur for example

1070×712 1.61 MB


The AoMR one obviously has a lot more detail, if you zoom in very closely you could potentially say the fur looks kinda plastic, but if you zoom in equally in the original AoM you get like half a pixel on 1/6 of a polygon.
So it’s how you imagine the AoM Minotaur to look like.

AoM could not look plastic because the game didn’t even have specular reflections yet.

That is somewhat true but for the opposite reason. AoM was more colourful and more cartoonish then AoMR. Many textures like the water and grass were a lot more vibrant then they are now.
The different lighting settings between different maps were more extreme then they are now. I remember Anatolia being super orange looking in AoM but it was a lot toned down in AoMR making it look more realistic in my eyes.

Since AoM was graphically very limited it is not obvious what it should look like in modern graphics. It’s a subjective transformation and not everyone sees everything the same way.

I personally don’t think everything is perfect but I don’t think anything is actually bad. At last nothing that I have noticed so far.

AoE3DE has diverged a lot more from AoE3 by now. Many units got entirely new skins for example. Dutch and Ottomans got unique Settler skins, every Royal Guard unit has a unique skin, a lot of upgrades and home city cards change the look of units, Saloon was replaced by a Tavern and so on.
AoE3DE feels a lot different compared to old AoE3 by now.

Looking forward to that.

60

My question would be, it’s 2024, are they not capable of making non plastic fur?