Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Especially with how much content AOE2 offers nowadays, you'll have a very hard time competing with it at such a huge prize tag.
Company of Heroes, Company of Heroes 2, Men of War - Assault Squad, Hearts of Iron, one just got released last month but i don't remember the name right now ... They are far away from being garbage. And these games show very good how a ww2 rts would look like. A pure focus on that really doesn't fit to an AoE title in my opinion. Though i liked the approach of Empire Earth and Rise of nations more to cover a far bigger timeline, maybe it would have worked this way.
It would. Rise of Nations had two eras which covered WW1, WW2 and the Cold War and it worked great. Company of Heroes also. You wouldn't need peasants to build trenches, you could have engineers instead. They'd build resource gathering buildings like oil extractors and other buildings (aid stations, field kitchens, etc) and soldiers themselves would dig the trenches.
Company of Heroes showed just how good a WW2 RTS can be. They're stupid to try to make a game that will compete with Age of Empires 2. No other RTS has been able to compete with it. It's a phenomenon. And this upcoming AoE 4 definitely won't compete with it, it looks sterile and... I dunno, boring.
As for WWII game, if Microsoft decides to make it someday, it makes more sense to start a new franchise. Like if you want a sci-fi RTS just play Halo Wars 1-2. There's no reason to have push AoE formula to modern time periods. Neither Rise of Nation nor Empire Earth did it well. They just replaced cavalry with tanks, etc. It's stupid.
If you think they just replaced cavalry with tanks then you could make the same argument that Age of Empires just replaces infantry with cavalry. A cavalry unit in AoE is exactly the same as an infantry unit... it just has a different graphic and it moves faster, but still attacks in the exact same way and takes damage in the exact same way. It's not an argument.
I also think it was done well in Rise of Nations. Tanks and light vehicles got a flanking bonus against all units they were fighting, so there was some strategy to it.
Also I didn't demand they make Age of Empires 4 a WW2 game. I even said in another thread on this forum (or was it in this thread?) that RTS games work best when the soldiers use swords, spears and horses.
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/we-want-age-of-empire-4/26572/61
This was included in the artbook that came with aoe3 in 2005.
Going back to medieval was a good and logical move, most fans wanted that, while very few wanted a modern setting.
Having fun with Artwork? What logical sense does that make? The artwork was CLEARLY a plan for what was to come. There would be no reason for the game developers to put something like that included with every cd copy of aoe3 just for fun... But because I lack any evidence for that whatsoever I give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
Aoe 1 was bronze age, aoe2 dark ages, aoe3 victorian era, Obviously the games were following human civilization through the AGES hence the name of the title.
I agree with you going back to medieval was the logical move considering the age of empires fan base is pretty much solely dedicated to aoe2 now, rather than esembles original plan for the game.
Aoe2 was already a medieval era game, then they released aoe2 HD, then Aoe2 DE. Now they're releasing AOE2+2...
but the problem is with this, the game is not going to be offering anything better than what aoe2 already is. AOE2 stood the test of time for 20 years. There will be no replacing it, Nothing they make can possibly be better than AOE2, and the company is only competing against its own franchise. From my understanding from my experience with the Age series, the fans wanted to follow the evolution of war through history. Most of the people I know were rather disappointed to hear that they made aoe4 medieval. I know I am, because I'm gonna just play keep playing aoe2.
1. Sandy Petersen former AoE dev with direct quote dismissing that picture:
http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=1&tn=25506&st=181#post182
2. The fans did NOT want to "follow the evolution of war through history", on the contrary, most were against it, check statistics to question 15 to see what they wanted:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdersaGvDetgJ7TxCcaJiC0pa_vMZzanF1U72JFI_IZlUFDeQ/viewanalytics
3. AoE4 surely CAN compete with its own franchise as well, the same as Starcraft 2 competed with Starcraft 1 and also many many other games. There is always room for improvement to the better formula and AoE2 is an old game under the skin and it shows in many aspects, especially at a technical level, but in gameplay too. Not to say it's not the first time AoE goes back (AoEO - antiquity, AoECS - up to Renaissance), while going forward in time not only would seem like a forced unnatural move just for the sake of it, forcing the classic RTS style of AoE into something it wouldn't fit (3 principles of AoE are explore, build, conquer which only make sense until a specific age), but also cannot serve as a blueprint forever since history eventually ends.
Right, now we can end talking about this non-sense.