Well you can have some peace in knowing that all of this arguing ultimately doesn’t matter.
The game is going to come out in less than 2 weeks now (whether people like it or not) so we can just move on and enjoy playing it.
Obviously this shouldn’t mark the end of feedback, but that’s a dialogue between the devs and players.
I can’t wait!
It’s not a matter of opinions though. If I said I am moving to Age of Empires 4 from Command & Conquer because Age of Empires has less kinds of resources that you are required to gather and that I hate the unit limit of C&C then that’s not just my opinion, man.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to play anything, the essay he provided however is full of factual mistakes.
I feel this has a lot to do with the map design honestly.
A lot of the “stealth forests” are just random small patches dotted around the map.
There was a map that employed it much better but it was in the closed beta so im not sure if I can talk about it.
But this is definitely something the devs should look into with their map design. Its a cool system, make us use it!
They should also do something where your units become a silhouette when in stealth trees. I’m not sure if it’s a thing. Because so far I tried putting units in stealth trees but I don’t see them change. So I don’t even know if they are hidden or not
Yeah I barely used it tbh so its hard to remember how it worked exactly.
One cool feature though was that units would whisper when given commands in stealth, made for a really immersive experience. Just wish it gave more benefits/more opportunity to use it.
Also scouts were able to see from outside the stealth forest which was a pretty useful aspect to them. (other units lose vision of the outside when they get into the forest)
There are only factual mistakes if you have take the most literal interpretation of what he said. This isn’t a research paper so imprecise wording should be acceptable.
Let me write his points in short form as I understand them and if there are any facial errors please point them out.
Age of empires 4 is the biggest recent RTS title release and jts not looking like there will be other release coming up soon. Op is frusturated by the current balance of sc2 so age4 can act as an escape from a meta he isn’t enjoying.
Op enjoys playing aoe4.
Op enjoys the discovery aspect of a new rts game. Given the meta is unsolved everything feels viable and macro is more interesting. Add in the more complex eco of age4 and OP thinks it will be enjoyable.
Sc2 is no longer being regularly updated. Age2, and age4 are or are likely to be maintained. The only aoe game that matters for this argument is aoe4 since that is what OP will be playing. Saying aoe games are not update because aom and aoe1 are relatively abandoned doesn’t effect an aoe2 or aoe4 player.
Aoe4 currently feels more forgiving and therefor is more enjoyable for OP.
Op has fun playing, doesn’t find it stressful and isn’t as frusturated by losses.
Op had fun in aoe4 teamgames but not sc2 teamgames.
(This one the only one that is dicey but I interpret it as the following) OP is frusturated by repeatedly losing to the same comps in sc2 and a new game removes that frustration. At least for a period of time.
They do change significantly visually.
Oh ok, maybe I didn’t notice it. Or maybe the trees I put them in wernt stealth trees. Dunno.
I have no issues with essay when it is phrased like you phrased it.
If you absolutely insist that I nitpick, I would add to point 4 that nothing currently effects AoE4 players since it’s not out yet, and I would simply wait to see how much support it gets, if any, before I conclude it will get more than SC2. So I would change it to
I think there was nothing wrong with the overall direction of the initial post.
Exploring on more RTS games and enjoying games even tho they play differently, maybe even for exactly that reason.
But the fact that the underlying sentiment/motivation was so paired with spitin’ on SC2 and “toss op” kind of derailed it too much from a AoE4 topic towards a SC2 Forum post “fix it pls or I switch the game” type.
For AoE franchise, yes, for RTS? No, Stronghold crusader comes to mind.
Influence system?
Only new thing here is that they follow the scout, which I do grant you is a (small) innovation.
Every AoE game has this?
Pretty sure age of mythology had this, not sure though.
Idem to shepherding
AoE I has this.
AoE I and II have this.
Not new to the Genre
AoE III trade route
Trebuchet AoE II, all artillery AoE III (its literally the same as constructing a trebuchet)
For €60 2 small innovations in shepherding is not really worth it, but thats my opinion.
60€ is a lot for even most AAA games here. The regional pricing can be kinda ridiculous. For all the Americans, 60€ is essentially 70 USD.
I’m annoyed at the pricing. Still might buy, but it’d hard to tell if it’s worth it. Even if there was an AoM2, I probably wouldn’t buy it at 60€. I think the pricing is based off of the American dollars. In Brazil the prices are terrible too.
It boggles my mind as someone who grew up on NES games that retailed for ~$60 in the 80’s that people will complain about the cost of games when they’ve remained essentially the same while gaining massive amounts of content vs what we used to have.
It’s also interesting that people don’t care about the story, gameplay, etc. they just want “new” stuff as though that automatically means better.
The more “new” stuff that is done the more likely it is that the game will suck over all, particularly if you’re expectation is that they come up with something no one else has ever done in the genre.
Posts like this are why people think modern gamers are entitled. To hell with hours, possibly months or years, of entertainment for the cost of ~8 hours of movies at a theater (just the tickets), they didn’t come up with something no one has ever done before and then make it work with all the existing mechanics that people expect from the previous games (even though they really only care about AoE2 and AoE3, which had massive differences).
How you want to spend your money is your business, but you’re going to be hard pressed to ever buy a game again if you expect every game that cost the normal market price to develop something completely new and make it work. That, or you’re going to convince yourself that terrible mechanics are good/new when they aren’t.
I mostly agree. It is true that most games are priced correctly in the country they were developed, but the problem is where.
Different countries have different economies and financial situations. In Ireland we make a lot of money overall, so an expensive game here could be extremely expensive somewhere else. Games need to be priced proportionally to the places it’s being sold, but that’s near impossible.
I’m not saying AoE4 isn’t worth the steep price. Worth is a matter of opinion, and I personally love the game (favorite in the series, and that’s just the beta).
Poorly pricing products internationally is definitely a problem and isn’t always an easy one.
Authenticators for Blizzard’s Battle.net are like $5 in the US, but I’ve heard they’re upward of $70 in some countries because of tariffs on “encryption technology”.
$60 in the US isn’t an expensive game, it’s a standard retail price for AAA games and has been for decades (seemingly immune to inflation).
I totally agree that companies (particularly large ones) should be putting the time in to appropriately localize their prices.
Where did I say I didnt care about gameplay? If there is going to be a new game in a franchise I love, I expect new stuff, because otherwise why would I switch to the new game if the old one has the same if not better?
I expect an expansive game to atleast have some innovation, sorry to break it to you, but AoE IV really lacks innovation. You think €60 for FiFa 2021 would be worth it? If a game has less innovation I expect the price to be cheaper as you didnt spend any time really on that part. Story driven games are more worth such prices, because usually stories have new elements to them, they dont have to be innovatios as long is it is to some extend an unique story the game tells. AoE IV will use history, of which the stories have been told multiple times, definatly the one of Joan d’Arc. AoE IV’s stories are already existing, games like portal or half life told new ones.
“New stuff” doesn’t mean a brand new mechanic to the genre. The game is entirely new stuff, a whole new set of campaigns, new races with larger differences from AOE:2, a mix of mechanics from AoE2 and AoE3, etc.
These all provide a new experience for people to enjoy.
If you don’t consider any of that to be new, that’s totally your choice but you’re the one who’s going to be upset all the time when games are never good enough for you.
The fact that you’re comparing FIFA and AoE4 shows how little you understand about the differences between games.
Yeah, a game like FIFA where each version is the exact same base game (Soccer) with the same rules on the same field isn’t that different each time.
Building new campaigns requires a ton of people to make, including voice actors for the VOs.
Having new mechanics for the races requires testing, and having more varied races means more work.
So again, you can consider creating all new mechanics to the genera as being the only “new” stuff, but in reality it isn’t and you’re the only one who’s going to end up disappointed as a result of that mentality.
The rest of us will buy the game (and others that provide new content to explore) and enjoy our time with it.
But don’t confuse your opinion that there’s nothing new with it being a fact, nor your opinion that $60 is expensive (when it’s standard for a US game).
Its standard for gold bars to cost €628, but I guess that isnt expansive because its standard. Just like you deform the term new, to also mean storytelling, I can deform expansive to mean costing a lot of money, €60 is sure not a lot, but it is still a decent amount. Its also on the higher end of prices for games, thus it can be considered expansive.
It doesnt, every fifa adds a small amount of changes and changes the teams. AoE IV isnt really any different, because the core (which is soccer for fifa) is still the same. I am not saying this is wrong, but for what it adds to the core its really lackluster.
The funny thing about this, is that your post is also opinion, you cant simply speak for all others that they will enjoy the game and all buy it, I can give numerous examples of other people not willing to buy AoE IV. Its about half half on these forums of people thinking the game is going to be a succes or a failure. But you yourself fail to see that you are writing an opinion here, just like I am and it doesnt mean either of us is speaking the truth.
Thats not new either. New set of campaigns? Those stories are all existing already and most of them have already been told. Sure the way the campaign plays can be different, but the story isnt. The “races” arent new, HRE, England, Rus, Caliphate, Chinese, Franks, Delhi and Mongols all have been in on of the predecessors of AoE IV in one form or another. Combinging stuff from AoE II and AoE III doesnt make the mechanic suddenly new or unique. Even the combination of it doesnt mean this. AoE IV is really close to AoE II, with really minor elements being changed, which have minor impacts.
do you mean cultures or…?