>40% discount only a year later
>First expansion is free
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>40% discount only a year later. >First expansion is free
>40% discount only a year later
>First expansion is free
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
it bombed bad i heard
Dead genre. It did about as well as it could have under the circumstances, tho.
I feel like the dead genre meme is simply because every rts is trying to be 'the next big esports thing', when that niche is filled.
I been saying for a long time that the next RTS that harnesses the sheer creative power of community content / map editor ala comfy / whacky warcraft 3 / starcraft custom games -- and like roblox today -- will be the true next big earner, because that niche had been vacant and then actively killed by blizzard who don't want to miss out on 'the next dota'.
its funny how in chasing the big money the devs lose sight of actual things that will make them said money.
It's a dead genre, anon. It's not because of esports or Blizzard or whatever (I've found this site really overestimates the reach of Blizzard products), it's just that it was creatively exhausted. The trend of RTS wasn't towards esports, it was trying to make them console-friendly because developers could see the writing on the wall. You're right that modern games can't get a look in because compgays just want to play whatever shitty game from the 90s over and over again but it isn't why RTS tailed off.
>it's just that it was creatively exhausted.
Which is the reason I bring up blizzard and warcraft 3 specifically, it was a pretty mediocre but fun game with a powerful editor that allowed the game to survive much longer than it would have if it tried to force e-sports down everyone's throat.
players being creative and basically turning it into a party game is what kept this objectively meh rts alive much longer than it had any right to live.
Like if you talk to people who like warcraft 3 they'll probably tell you how much fun they had playing tower defense / footman frenzy / dota etc., very few people actually cared about ladder esport shit.
I'm just sad no other rts figured out that giving people powerful editors and tools to make their own games is how you keep the game alive.
>You either restrict it and lose content or you don't and it gets poached.
yeah that's fair enough, either way you'll lose something, but I think if you don't treat community projects as your property you'll be a lot more likely to have goodwill that can potentially translate to longterm income.
But I guess in a world where it's all about this week's grift no one truly cares about that, and rts are inherently higher effort and smaller profit projects.
>hey had playing tower defense / footman frenzy / dota etc., very few people actually cared about ladder esport shit.
Yeah and now those games like Tower Defense and Dota became their own genres, even Footman Frenzy has it's own standaleone game. When given an RTS toolset most people made various strategy or rpg games instead. They didn't use RTS tools to make more RTS games. What was possible to be made with these tools has already been exhausted too. If you have a truley new innovated design it makes more sense to prototype it something like Unreal or Unity instead and put it on itch.io where anyone can play it for free, theres also Roblox again. We have access to more powerful tools for free and a much larger audience that doesn't even have to buy some game to play what we make now.
>I'm just sad no other rts figured out that giving people powerful editors and tools to make their own games is how you keep the game alive.
Not sure what you mean most RTS have map editors, it's just Blizzard that made custom games/arcade a focus but that was really just a byproduct of how battle.net worked
There's losts of custom games for AoE 2 but they were usually downloaded outside the game iirc.
This game didn't even have ranked pvp for like 4 months after release and was heavily marketed with historical campaigns and documentary style cinemaatics
No RTS even as a single player experience is just dead. The type of people who would be interested moved onto other things like colony sims and even in those games they prefer no combat or one sided combat as the defender. In the majority of single player games in most genres the player and most ai/npcs are not symmetrical and gamers like it that way, it's part of the power fantasy.
>I been saying for a long time that the next RTS that harnesses the sheer creative power of community content / map editor ala comfy / whacky warcraft 3 / starcraft custom games -- and like roblox today
Roblox already control that market. Why would the majority of potential creators make a custom top down game instead of something in Roblox. Then there's the whole issue of Unity and the general ease of using game making tools and ai these days.
People made stuff for SC1, WC3 , HL1 and Quake etc back in the day because it was accessible and available.
These days you could instead put all that effort into trying to make an actual game.
>don't want to miss out on 'the next dota
There is a custom arcade in Dota 2 and it's never produced the next big thing except once with Dota Chess. You know what happened when Dota Chess got huge? Both the actual creators of it and Valve made their own standalone version of it but both got beaten to market by Riot with Teamfight Tactics.
Riot made the lionshares of the money. So what Blizzard did doesn't even matter. You either restrict it and lose content or you don't and it gets poached.
AoE2 and Starcraft have proven otherwise. If other devs had even a tiny bit of insight, they might not sink their own products.
There's no point in making that. That's not an RTS. I remember playing P A R A S I T E in SC2 lobbies. It's just Pre-Vtuber Among Us.
Proved what? That the genre is kept on life support by legacy games made around a quarter of a century ago? That veteran players are such sticks in the mud that they always come back to play those old games rather than work with anything new?
As long as the classics linger, devs and players won't have any reason to go forward. AoE4 was about as big of a success as it could have been, it has modest but steady player numbers, and I think it'll continue reeling in new people with bigger discounts in the future but that is all thanks to the marketing effort and sheer brand power. You think the few new RTSes ahead can hope to make even that kind of a splash, let alone compete with behemoths like map painters or city builders?
>Proved what? That the genre is kept on life support by legacy games made around a quarter of a century ago? That veteran players are such sticks in the mud that they always come back to play those old games rather than work with anything new?
...You mean to tell me we made a functioning formula, and you're actually too stupid to acknowledge the fact that the only game modes keeping this niche genre alive are the ones new games should be emulating?
AoE4 was just a much worse AoE2. It deserved to die.
>new rts comes out
>60 dollars in the era of f2p
>shitty campaigns
>missing ladder for 6 months
>no user generated content
>no co-op modes other than 3v3/2v2/4v4
>game is full of bugs
>engine feels worse than 10 year old games
>exploits that take forever to get patched
gee I wonder why people dont play rts games
Unsure what you mean by expansion, they are supposedly working on the first expansion now which is rumored to have a full campaign, IMO new civs. Most recent patch (today) added in new units to base civs and reworked landmarks hence why its on sale.
Broke even + on release day between steam sales and Microsoft sales.
This guy gets it, sales are nothing new. Most AAA products get a 20% within 2 months post release (which aoe did), it rare to see it earlier as was the case with Battlefield 2042 which did fail.
by expansion he mean the Malians and Ottomans
dumbass
i mean this completely non ironically - but almost every game I've seen that releases at $60 goes on sale for 40% or more by a year out or am I crazy
Entertainment is incredibly disposable these days. It’s not just games, although it’s probably most pronounced there. It’s the same reason why food is so disposable. Bread and circuses don’t work if we can’t afford them.
Well it was released in more or less early access, so it's more like it was only officially "released" this past fall.
>>40% discount only a year later
lol that is not uncommon for games.
They probably should have added more Black folk and strong independent women
I still play AoE2 occasionally and feel there's a shitton of content left to explore.
Meanwhile I really do not want to complete AoE4's campaigns while skirmishes against the AI are rather boring.
I really wanted them to take some stuff from AoE3 as well like scouts who collect shit from the world, batch training to reduce amount of production buildings necessary and something akin to decks for customization but they went FULL AoE2 for no good reason because AoE2 is great as it is. Self competition is a shit business practice.
>but they went FULL AoE2
If they had, we'd play the game.
>If they had, we'd play the game.
No you wouldn’t.
I even bought it because I really believed they had. They didn't. I regretted my purchase.
Then you’re moronic, because there is zero reason to buy a game that’s just AoE2 again when you can just play AoE2.
I wanted it to be AoE2 with improvements on AoE2's flaws, or AoE2-II, not whatever the frick AoE4 is.
There is literally nothing they could have made you would have been satisfied with.
>Archer collision & speed
>The trash unit model
>The implications of said model for the swordsman line
>Unit maintenance
>Lack of Conditional/temporary unit types
>Lack of "Small scale" conflict points
>Everything about castles, from their construction circumstances to their strength and counters
>The seeming uselessness of siege units, especially siege towers
>The poor water unit options
>Monk micro
>The obnoxious strength of the Paladin
>The versatility of the trebuchet
AoE4 wanted to completely reinvent the system while wearing AoE2's skin. Instead of answering these, they ruined the better parts of AoE2's design (farm transitions, dark age peace, early unit options/timing, limited designs, building collision boxes, generic techs, gold availability, base defense, art).
The game is inelegant.
>Lack of Conditional/temporary unit types
What
You know how the Cuman Mercs provide a set number of elite Kipchaks, even if you haven't researched the tech? I believe we're missing things like those, but with other types of units.
>Skill issue
How is a design issue a skill issue?
>Fixed in AoE4
No, they just broke gold.
>What?
Swordsmen are relegated to the lategame and have no place in the midgame.
>This is in AoE4 (assuming I’m interpreting your vague statement correctly)
They're not.
>This is in AoE4
No, those are physical locations for you to doomstack and fortify.
>Skill issue
How is a design decision a skill issue?
>Siege was the meta when the game came out and even after nerfs it’s still extremely powerful
I just faced a siege rush two days ago. It was pitiful. AoE4 did actually fix this.
>Skill issue
No, it's a script issue.
>Skill issue
Those are in numbers.
>Fixed in AoE4, trebs aren’t nearly as good against anything that isn’t a building
The issue is their strength when facing non-defensive buildings.
>Still in the game
Comes much later and it's infinite.
>Skill issue
Dark age bow-villager rushes are not a "skill issue".
>Still in the game
Ruined by feudal roster asymmetry.
>What the frick does that even mean
The power each tech has, stemming from its exclusivity.
>Factions have lots of unique techs, many of which give their unique units special abilities
This is poor design for an RTS.
>Skill issue
No, that was me complaining about AoE4 and the fact that AoE2 teams have infinite gold.
>If you’re saying it’s too weak it literally had to get nerfed because it was too strong lmao
I just mean the initial outposts facing enemy regenerating knights.
>Subjective
Yes, but I'm the customer.
"Skill Issue"/10. Gr8 b8
have lots of unique techs, many of which give their unique units special abilities
>This is poor design for an RTS.
Not exactly something that can be discussed as "objectively or wrong", just preference
But just about every good RTS in history has factions with unique units
In fact I'd struggle to think of an RTS in which all units and techs are the same for all sides
Fair. Instead, I'll say "If you're trying to make a successor to AoE2, this is a poor way to go about it".
True.
>You know how the Cuman Mercs provide a set number of elite Kipchaks, even if you haven't researched the tech? I believe we're missing things like those, but with other types of units.
That's not a fault or flaw, that's just a preference
>Fair. Instead, I'll say "If you're trying to make a successor to AoE2, this is a poor way to go about it".
>OLD GAME GOOD
>NEW GAME BAD
Anyone who actually thinks that factions being unique beyond what parts of the unit tree they aren't allowed to access is a bad thing isn't worth listening too. If you don't like the game that's fine but don't think that your autistic "complaints" (many of which are obviously skill issues) are actual design flaws.
I don't think you understand what a "skill issue" is. Further, there are only 10 factions in AoE4. Even a slight difference will make them unique.
>I don't think you understand what a "skill issue" is
seething about drushes and knights is a skill issue.
>Further, there are only 10 factions in AoE4. Even a slight difference will make them unique.
>wow the english have a 3% increase in the construction speed of mills
>well the french have 5% bonus to the build speed of villagers
>OMG SO INTERESTING
AoE2gays really are the Meleegays of RTS games
>seething about drushes and knights is a skill issue.
I don't agree, so I'll ignore that.
>AoE2gays really are the Meleegays of RTS games
If you had an argument, I'm sure you'd present it without exaggeration.
>If you had an argument, I'm sure you'd present it without exaggeration.
Your complaints aren't actual flaws, they're design decisions that make the game different. You don't like how its different because its not close enough to AoE2. I like how its different because I think those decisions make it better than AoE2. I don't think many AoE2gays would be willing to fork over money for what you wanted, which is AoE2-2, over some very minor tweaks and changes.
I will give you that AoE4 invited comparisons to 2 the moment it was revealed to be another medieval game, but I think you're too caught up in those comparisons. Saying things like "unique units and techs is bad because it doesn't make it enough of an AoE2 successor" doesn't actually explain why those things are bad beyond "its not like AoE2".
>Your complaints aren't actual flaws, they're design decisions that make the game different. You don't like how its different because its not close enough to AoE2.
You misunderstood. My list was (mostly) a list of flaws AoE2 had that I expected AoE4 to improve on. Yes, I dislike the direction AoE4 took, and I've given up on it as an RTS, because I'm looking for a successor for AoE2.
>I don't think many AoE2gays would be willing to fork over money for what you wanted, which is AoE2-2, over some very minor tweaks and changes.
We already did, back when we thought AoE4 was exactly that.
>Saying things like "unique units and techs is bad because it doesn't make it enough of an AoE2 successor" doesn't actually explain why those things are bad beyond "its not like AoE2".
Because the core of the argument was, whatever AoE4 is, it's not AoE2-2, and I'm disappointed because I wasted $60 on a game that didn't turn out to be what I wanted.
>You misunderstood. My list was (mostly) a list of flaws AoE2 had that I expected AoE4 to improve on. Yes, I dislike the direction AoE4 took, and I've given up on it as an RTS, because I'm looking for a successor for AoE2.
In that case I'm sorry for shitposting about it so obnoxiously. Unfortunately I doubt you're ever going to get what you're looking for, not as long as AoE2 still has a sizable playerbase and still receives meaningful updates to this day.
>We already did, back when we thought AoE4 was exactly that.
I distinctly remember many AoE2gays not even giving the game the time of day. Most of 4's audience has been some 2gays, 3gays, new people, and SC2 refugees from my estimation.
>Because the core of the argument was, whatever AoE4 is, it's not AoE2-2, and I'm disappointed because I wasted $60 on a game that didn't turn out to be what I wanted.
Fair, though at least you aren't in a position where AoE2 itself is a forgotten, dead game. It could be a lot worse.
autism
>Archer collision & speed
Skill issue
>The trash unit model
Fixed in AoE4
>The implications of said model for the swordsman line
What?
>Lack of Conditional/temporary unit types
This is in AoE4 (assuming I’m interpreting your vague statement correctly)
>Lack of "Small scale" conflict points
This is in AoE4
>Everything about castles, from their construction circumstances to their strength and counters
Skill issue
>The seeming uselessness of siege units, especially siege towers
Siege was the meta when the game came out and even after nerfs it’s still extremely powerful
>The poor water unit options
Not fixed, though water combat in general is a little better especially after the rework
>Monk micro
Skill issue
>The obnoxious strength of the Paladin
Skill issue
>The versatility of the trebuchet
Fixed in AoE4, trebs aren’t nearly as good against anything that isn’t a building
>farm transitions
Still in the game
>dark age peace
Skill issue
>early unit options/timing
Still in the game
>limited designs
What the frick does that even mean
>building collision boxes
Probably the biggest casualization of 4, I’ll give you that
>generic techs
Factions have lots of unique techs, many of which give their unique units special abilities
>gold availability
Skill issue
>base defense
If you’re saying it’s too weak it literally had to get nerfed because it was too strong lmao
>art
Subjective
0/10 see me after class
>Skill issue
This is not a good argument. New players should be able to play a balanced and fun game.
What flaws would those be?
Age4 is only good as a 1v1 game
Team games are absolute garbage and the AI is shit
I should also say the campaigns are so fricking incredibly scripted that the game warns you any time the enemy is going to send four spearmen at your base, regardless of the campaign difficulty
>zweihanders
>they don’t even have arcabuz units
Are you fricking kidding me?
And no hand cannons aren’t arcabuz
Why are people ITT acting like AoE4 flopped? Before the free weekend it was averaging 10k players peak daily which is second only to AoE2 which I’m convinced is the Smash Melee of RTS games.
surely this is the end for relic, no way the get out after the nu-coh flops
If DoW3 wasn’t enough to sink the company then nothing will
>nu-coh flops
It’s not going to flop
Tried too hard to stick to AoE2. AoE2homosexuals are never, ever going to leave, they'll piss and moan no matter what you do. Should've tried for a new audience.
They did eventually manage to find that audience.
Who? I would like to see it succeed because in all honesty these homosexuals deserve it. The most spoiled fanbase bar none. Fans of other series would murder to get a sequel as competent and well-made as AoE4 and yet you get people like this
queer complaining about, "Monk micro". Insufferable.
When AoE4 launched its playerbase after a month was the same or a little less than AoE3’s. Now even before the free weekend it’s averaged around a 10k peak daily, which is still a distant second to AoE2 but still pretty good (and definitely better than basically every RTS not called SC2 or AoE2).
So while it’s not changing the world or anything it’s carved out a pretty solid and consistent niche of its own.
>"Monk micro"
Oh no, how dare I not think *epic gamer horn* monk conversion hype moments are good for an RTS? Sassanid conversions are better.
Aoe3master race here
Aoe4 it's shit
Aoe3master race out.
i played during their free tech beta before launch and tried the game now for the free weekend. it looks better and cleaner now and i remember doing longbow rush back then but now there's man-at-arms during age 1 for English? that's quite funny.
>and i remember doing longbow rush back then but now there's man-at-arms during age 1 for English? that's quite funny.
English always had dark age man-at-arms, it just never got used because feudal longbow rush was so much better.
Its a viable strategy now English is all about a two TC boom now.
im just doing the Ottoman challenge right now. dont really want to pvp when i dont know what im doing. the game should have a lot more of these very challenging maps that require you to git gud
I agree. I hope that they add more singleplayer content to the game, DLC or otherwise.
i'm happy i managed to get a gold medal from that, but it was a bit weird and probably not indicative of pvp in any way.
it still teaches me a lot like spend resources, dont stop producing villagers and all that but what really got me over the hump was just some mangonels. ironically using janissaries isn't too good even though they showcased it. the enemy waves simply had too much infantry bunched up so mangonels were honestly the more amazing option to use.
Honestly as long as you spend your resources and build villagers that makes you better than a lot of other players.
After that it’s learning what kind of build order you want to do and the unit counters and then you can beat a lot of people online.
it's just kind of difficult not to watch things happen though, i had the same problem in homeworld pvp with a friend where oh nice space battles are going on and it's nice to watch but most of your gameplay should be spent in the spacebar screen where you literally can't see anything but dots on a big map if you want to do well
Tried it when it was free and liked it overall but it runs like ass on my laptop. If only they didn't go full moron with the hardware requirements, more people would be able to play it.
Tested it this weekend, I really like the faction assymetry can't wait to see Japan in this.
it's a decent game but why make another 2? why didn't they followed the play?
Because no one liked 3
Then just go the frick back and make a stone age - bronze age aoe, focusing on being even earlier than aoe1.
Only afterwards go medieval again.
AOE4 should have focussed on the Bronze Age and antiquity since AOE1 is so dated now. I would love to see it.
thats aoeo but everyone hated it bcuz
>muh muh graph so child i want the realims as my copy pasted fps.
also was closed by ms greed and its greedy microtransaction an lack of content on launck like aoe 4. you can still play the game an more expanded in celeste project.
lurk more esltard
learn more about aoeo tard
And now we get Return of Rome for AOE2, as if they realised their mistake.
Or maybe they realized they don't need to make a new game when they can just jury rig it as part of AoE2, like some modders already have.
I liked it.
best one in the series
3 is better just because of there not being the autistic boar luring which if you don't do perfectly instantly puts you behind
Addendum: I believe many that stuck with AoE II didn't like the way AoE III played, since it can very unpredictable compared to the fine-tuned timing and whatnot playstyle of II. If anything II has an similar 'itch' to Brood War, hence why people refuse to leave it. III does have it's audience, but they aren't nowhere near as vocal as II is.
Also speaking of III, the latest update seems to hint more strongly towards an new middle-east Civ (i.e. Savafid Persia), which is an relief since I thought they might had to drop full support in favour of doing that AoE I DLC for II.
The thing is, the comphomosexualry surrounding AoEII is a very recent thing, I don't know anyone who was playing AoEII for the multiplayer back in the day
Oh, believe me, it was an thing (at least around here). Many did play the campaigns, but those who could play MP stuck by it (mainly using LAN) as pretty much the only aspect of the game that mattered. Nowadays that is just amplified because ESPOOOOORTS.
I've only ever played AOE2 for LAN pvp when I was a kid/teenager. I never touched the campaigns.
>I never touched the campaigns
Well that's just a tragedy
>drop full support in favour of II
I don't see a correlation unless somehow the two are maintained by the same team. The two games are as different as it gets, I mean. I'd be more concerned about the competition between 3 and the upcoming AoM since they're much more similar.
Overall it seems to me that 3 is treated amazingly well. Content-wise at least, I'd say it's even getting more love than 2.
>I don't see a correlation unless somehow the two are maintained by the same team.
Forgotten Empires is helping out making Return to Rome, which is why content for III had been minimal lately.
>Overall it seems to me that 3 is treated amazingly well. Content-wise at least, I'd say it's even getting more love than 2.
Indeed, I was expecting III to have an barebones treatment and instead it had so, so much more than anyone could anticipated, especially being up to II and IV competing for attention. I think it might get some more love until AoM comes out, those australian trees in the editor must mean something after all.
Microsoft gets a lot of deserved shit but they deserve a lot of credit for supporting Age of Empires as well as they have.
same i was really surprised to see III DE actually put so much new content with even some surprises like Malta
>the latest update seems to hint more strongly towards an new middle-east Civ
What makes you think that?
AO3 was actually my favourite as a kid
Kids always have favourites regardless of whether or not a game was actually good or not
I liked its more cinematic campaigns and thought it was ultimately funner than Age 2, but somehow would always return to 2 after a short 3 session. The second game was always the better game.
Opposite for me
Cope
What the frick, no. 3 was great.
Because the 20th century is too much of a mess in terms of empires, technology, tactics, defences and so on to make a believable whole. Also the aspect of starting a new empire from scratch doesn't make sense in that setting.
AoE5, on the other hand, would be a piece of cake to make, I have several ideas on my mind.
company of heroes managed it really good and the empire thing would be more about expand/maintain
Managed what? It's just about WWII and just the late years at that. There's no real time progression in the game.
And once again, the idea of having the game start you off with a town center, some villagers and berry bushes, so that you could rush the other guy's vils with a handful of recruits or convert a machine gunner with a monk is just silly.
company of heroes in term of game play now in terms of progression something like rise of nations ages (industrial, modern and information age) would work
the convert unit could also be the spy with the bribery skill too
1) Relic likely wants to test the waters to see what the fanbase likes and if they can continue making games for the series
2) They don't want to compete against Company of Heroes, since it's their own game
true AoE 4/5 = Empire Earth (2)
>Game still has dogshit naval battles
I can't believe there were communitygays who insisted that the game have water maps.
mongols are hella fun damn instant mangonels after age 3 sign me up
so will people just not talk about this game? somehow i had a lot of fun just quick matching.
There aren’t as many streamers to jerk off over like in AoE2 so no one cares.
It's pretty good
I like that it's cheap enough to gift. RTS are not for everyone, and even people that claim to like RTS are kind of homosexuals, like half of (you) and don't even learn stuff.
*even people that claim to like [anything] are kind of homosexuals
You get deep enough into any community and it's homosexuals all the way down
>(you) don't even learn stuff
Learning RTSes is hard work, kinda like learning a musical instrument. You pick one up and it plays like shit until you commit much effort into getting gud. Then when you try another, you once again suck at it. Will you suffer being a noob a second time or will you go back to pwning noobs instead?
People often say they want innovation and variety but when it happens, they ignore it for being weird. Others say it's best not to reinvent the wheel but when a new game 'inspired by classics' shows up, they'd rather play the actual classics. No wonder that the most worthwhile thing for devs to do now is remastering dusty old games.
I really dont think im wired differently, nor my friends who are mid just as me, and yet never had any issue learning an RTS or anything. Truly makes me wonder if theres people with real learning disadvantages prominently in videogame communities, or videogames truly fry young people's brains.
Post all your ELOs, brainiac.
The point is, compgays devote a lot of time to be good at playing one faction, on one map, in one game. They'll find a reason to avoid switching games in the long run.
>Post all your ELOs, brainiac.
Chill Pinky, I said i'm not even that good. Maybe you're just bad, or a bit dummy dumbs.
The other guy is clearly talking about learning an RTS as in getting good, he doesn't literally mean "learn how to play"
>ELOs
If you can't type a last name properly just write MMR.
Dead game.
Why did they choose the same age as AoE 2 making the games directly compete with each other? I may give it a try next time I get gamepass but I'm not expecting much.
Because Relic already had made company of heroes for the 20th century gun rts, and they also had dawn of war for futuristic rts;
why would they make a competitor to their own ww2 game?
and the less said about their attempts at making a new dawn of war the better.
ultimately I feel it was a marketing decision and an attempt to cash in on aoe2's popularity, since aoe3 is fairly niche, and the moronic execs don't see how a proper, good rome rts will sell like hot cakes.
Because it wasn't Relic who came up with the idea, they were hired for AoE 2-2
I wouldn't be surprised if AoE 4 started as a 'reboot' of AoE2 since it's so extremely similar yet worse in every aspect.
>Why did they choose the same age as AoE 2 making the games directly compete with each other?
See
I suppose I should elaborate on this. AoE3 has managed to find its own audience, but that audience is tiny compared to 2's. It's not that AoE3 is really a bad game, but it is a niche one and one that was not embraced by the AoE2 community. It was not accepted as an Age of Empires game.
To try and reinvent the wheel *again*, with a setting even further removed from 2's, would require an immense amount of talent and a ton of luck to pull off, as you're trying to do something that Ensemble themselves failed to do. Playing it safe with 4 was the correct move, and I think that the game's success relative to 3's is evidence of that.
you would think that aoe2 and aoe4 compete with each other for players but there's actually not a lot of overlap between people who play aoe4 and people who have played aoe2de
>Why would two extremely similar mediaeval RTS games compete with each other
i lost to a chinese boomer. i didnt really know how to deal damage to him. mongols btw, so yes im kinda new
>spectate a few 1v1s
>they just beeline to age 3 and nothing happens till after 5 mins
i really don't know but i feel really anxious about booming and meeting someone head on later. somehow i think i can win more when we both have less and i fumble the later fights way more easily
I think the game was dead on arrival as it could never hope to compete with AoE2, especially as that game continued to receive expansions by the devs. It's incredible how AoE2 resurged so greatly in the past few years. I mostly attribute it to its content creators on youtube just pushing out content daily. With a vibrant online community, new expansions continuing to be added, great youtubers, and frequent tourneys happening all the time, why bother with the new game?
who is still playing AoE online?
How are they still playing it is a better question. I thought it needed "games for windows live" to function.
The community reverse engineered the servers, agreed with MS to not make a single cent off of it and is quietly expanding the game with more campaigns, seasonal events and cultures. Currently doing Indians.
AoE4 was greedy as frick, in the sense of not wanting to put effort and charging 60 fricking bucks, but I think with constant expansion and fixes it can reach an interesting place.
In a year same thing will happen with CoH3 because the game is such shit.
Doesn't it not have real projectiles or real 3D.
Step down technologically from AoM and AoE3 IMO
AoE4 is pretty good
no its trash
seething Palingslet
lmao enjoy you aoe goyslope that dont have sp content and its trash at best and the balance around mp is trash because civ design is trash. dilate aoe4gay
>have a fantastic match that was a super exciting victory that got my rate up the whole time
>now i feel worn out and don't want to play another match