Worth buying for singleplayer only?

[Vantezzle]

Not really into multiplayer.

[JonDonWayne]

Singleplayer is pretty nice, its like a documentary with lots of extra videos beside the missions. I really enjoyed it. Random Battles versus AI are also pretty nice

[Nico]

The campaigns are really well done, though might not be the taste of everyone since it's quite a bit different to other games campaigns. If you decide to only play the campaigns idk if those 35 missions are worth the price for you. But if you decide to also play regular matches against the AI with different factions it probably should be kind of worth it.

[Vantezzle]

Right!Thank you both.

[Default]

As a huge fan of previous RTS single player campaigns the campaigns in this game are just not as good. They suffer from being buggy with a heaping side of boring. Even AoE 1 and AoE 2 are more interesting despite having more bare bones story telling and scenarios. The live action videos unlocked by playing are a saving grace.

The Vs. AI skirmish mode also leaves something to be desired. It is great that the AI, at this point in time, does not really cheat and plays like a player but on every difficulty level available the AI is too easy once you learn to just rush down their villagers. The AI seems to be arbitrarily capped on villager count and military population. Plus, one early game raid will devastate the AI economy in 1v1 particularly even on the Hardest difficulty. Definitely seems to be playing on a script.

Overall I have gotten my money out of this game and it is fun but you need to be dedicated to the RTS genre to justify the small discount on a $60 game.

[Demon of Razgriz]

Originally posted by Default:

As a huge fan of previous RTS single player campaigns the campaigns in this game are just not as good. They suffer from being buggy with a heaping side of boring. Even AoE 1 and AoE 2 are more interesting despite having more bare bones story telling and scenarios. The live action videos unlocked by playing are a saving grace.

The Vs. AI skirmish mode also leaves something to be desired. It is great that the AI, at this point in time, does not really cheat and plays like a player but on every difficulty level available the AI is too easy once you learn to just rush down their villagers. The AI seems to be arbitrarily capped on villager count and military population. Plus, one early game raid will devastate the AI economy in 1v1 particularly even on the Hardest difficulty. Definitely seems to be playing on a script.

Overall I have gotten my money out of this game and it is fun but you need to be dedicated to the RTS genre to justify the small discount on a $60 game.

Not really sure what bugs you are talking about, I only ever encountered one bug, which was the temples being unable to garrison relics in them after loading a save. I enjoyed the campaigns, they were fun.

As for OP, I think its worth it.

[TheDiaper]

Originally posted by Demon of Razgriz:

Not really sure what bugs you are talking about, I only ever encountered one bug, which was the temples being unable to garrison relics in them after loading a save. I enjoyed the campaigns, they were fun.

As for OP, I think its worth it.

There have been a fair amount of bugs, you dont see them because you dont know how the game works.

[Demon of Razgriz]

Originally posted by 76561198998690201:

Originally posted by Demon of Razgriz:

Not really sure what bugs you are talking about, I only ever encountered one bug, which was the temples being unable to garrison relics in them after loading a save. I enjoyed the campaigns, they were fun.

As for OP, I think its worth it.

There have been a fair amount of bugs, you dont see them because you dont know how the game works.

Probably, but at the same point, any game does, but if you don't notice them, then they really aren't a big deal unless it is causing some major problem and I didn't have any major problems in the campaign, except for the not garrisoning relics in monasteries after loading a saved game.

[Harris]

The game is really geared towards competetive multiplayer tbh.

[Demon of Razgriz]

Originally posted by Harris:

The game is really geared towards competetive multiplayer tbh.

I highly disagree with you. The AoE games have been staples of Singleplayer RTS ever since the first one and this one is no different. I mean, a large majority of the people who play this game never touch multiplayer.

[Harris]

Originally posted by Demon of Razgriz:

a large majority of the people who play this game never touch multiplayer.

Whether you agree or not, it matters not. A fact still stands - AoE4 is highly geared towards competetive multiplayer. Campaigns, Masteries, Art of War challenges - they all serve as introduction to multiplayer. I mean, you don't really need to learn how to age up in 5 minutes if you only intend to ever play against the AI.

[-SNiGS- JAM]

Originally posted by Harris:

Originally posted by Demon of Razgriz:

a large majority of the people who play this game never touch multiplayer.

Whether you agree or not, it matters not. A fact still stands - AoE4 is highly geared towards competetive multiplayer. Campaigns, Masteries, Art of War challenges - they all serve as introduction to multiplayer. I mean, you don't really need to learn how to age up in 5 minutes if you only intend to ever play against the AI.

Which is a shame really. I was able to stay between 1950 and 2150 during HD's early years from nothing more than playing with AI for years on end.

Hopefully they dont use built-for-multiplayer as a crutch excuse and actually use the added attention as a groundwork for more and better singleplayer/co-op features.

[Radipz]

Yes, worth it
If you feel campaign and masteries levels does not enough, you can create your own skirmish game. The good part is when you create your own skirmish game, the map will be generated randomly (or fixed if you specify the seed number)

[runtcash]

Much better balanced skirmish mode than AoE2 and the campaign is pretty good.