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
AoE 2 is the dated version of AoE and has no chance vs AoE 4 in whole game design, graphics, own graphic set for each civ in units and buildings, sound, the way the civs are worked out much deeper and more historically. Wtf are you talking about?
You are spreading pure misinformation about the copy+paste civs in AoE 2 vs real different civs in AoE 4. Running around with early medieval skirmishers looking all the same on every civ in imperial age is game design from 2000, we have 2023 now.
And you're spreading the same old and wrong "copy+paste civs" argument that doesn't suddenly become true by repeating it.
That being said - all Age games are good. Screw people hating on AoE 4 and at the same time screw people coming up with whack takes against AoE 2.
No, you are spreading the same bollocks again and again, when it factually is as I said, you have just to look in a tech tree of AoE 2. AoE 2 is copy + paste the civ, take some techs away, put 1 unique unit or seldom 2 unique units a 1 unique tech and some bonus to it and thats it. You know there is a tech tree in AoE 2 and it is the same every time just with some different techs locked? How can you write the same wrong claim, when it is in AoE 2 embedded, you just have to click on it to see?
Also a decent player in AoE 2 knows, that it is not much difference if a civ has + x % on wood or + x % on food, the difference is just to put more or less villagers on the different resources. And that´s the reason why AoE 2 gets boring after the basic strategies are mastered, because it is basically one civ with the same looking units with the same strategies with a little back or forth in the ressource placement and some units having more or less armor here and there.
Meanwhile AoE 4 offers whole different playstyles like Malians or Ottomans or Japanese or Byzantines have. How can someone not see the difference, do you even play this games?
Nah, not really. In theory, you may be right, but in actual gameplay that's far from being true. I mean I could say at the same way that AoE 4 is just every civ having access to all eco upgrades and getting unique stuff slapped on top which is also true on paper but in reality plays out different - just like in AoE 2.
I am again asking - what am I doing right/wrong if I don't get bored by AoE 2? I guess it really has to be me looking beyond what UT and UU which civ has and getting creative with the civ bonusses and in general putting gameplay over fancy visuals for units. (No disrespect to AoE 4 at this part, I like the design, I just prefer how "pure" AoE 2 in that regard is). 2's civs also feature different playstyles, it just needs some more effort to get behind it.
If I played AoE 4? Yep, prerelease. I contributed in its Companion Book and played it 200+ hrs on top of doing misc stuff.
My figure on this account is just "low" because I guess I spoiled myself by having to play Age 4 extensively for a couple of months to a point where I didn't really had fun with the game apart from some casual rounds 1-2 times per month. But I guess I'll check back with the DLC.