What makes this AoE game better than the fourth game?

[Uncle Jon]

Just curious because the only other major rts series that has a big multiplayer scene is Starcraft, but I think the second Starcraft game is a lot more popular than any other rts series when it comes to esports. Unless I am wrong and both are about just as popular? The second AoE game is much older than Starcraft 2 and is still considered the best in the series and is played more than the fourth game according to steam charts? I was curious what makes the second game so much better than the fourth and what makes the fourth game not in the same league or close to as popular in esports as Starcraft? There are like two major moba games that are popular in esports dota 2 and league, I was just thought it would be cool if there was a second major popular esports rts?

[Kampfschwein Fjonda]

Inferior product (released too early) for 4x the price - speaks for itself.
Many, many players bought it for nostalgia, but dropped it after 1h of play. (Was 60k players on peak day?)

To speak for myself: Will never try it, too complicated graphics, can't tell where houses end and which houses are on the field. Absolute zero interest.

AoE2 in contrast has a longstanding die-hard fanbase, migrated to Voobly platform before Steam was available.

[Zhen]

AoE2 is sort of part of South America's gaming culture and that's where the game's community is largely at. AoE4 by comparison doesn't have much following in SA. That's why the steam charts.

Starcraft 2 is sort of a waiting room right now. Some players already switched to AoE4, some are waiting for Stormgate, some are waiting for ZeroSpace. Some will continue playing it. But overall the RTS landscape may possibly look very different around 2025/26.

[Uncle Jon]

Originally posted by Zhen:

AoE2 is sort of part of South America's gaming culture and that's where the game's community is largely at. AoE4 by comparison doesn't have much following in SA. That's why the steam charts.

Starcraft 2 is sort of a waiting room right now. Some players already switched to AoE4, some are waiting for Stormgate, some are waiting for ZeroSpace. Some will continue playing it. But overall the RTS landscape may possibly look very different around 2025/26.

It sounds like age of empires is the king of fighters of rts games. The king of fighters series is very popular in latin countries hence why I said that lol.

[FloosWorld]

I wouldn't say neither are better as that one's up to personal taste, but personally, for me, I prefer AoE 2 over 4 for several reasons.

- AoE 4 was and is unfinished. When it launched in October 2021, it was 6 months away from getting a ranked mode as well as editor. It also was missing player color selection. These are all features that were in the past AoE games from the beginning. AoE 4 kind of gives me "release now, fix later" vibes as previously mentioned features were only added back gradually. Sadly, the editor in AoE 4 is anything but easy to use for the average user (compared to AoE 1, 2, 3 and Mythology) which makes creating custom scenarios a bit of a pain.

- Simplicity is key. AoE 2's civs are symmetric which by nature makes them feel more samesy which at first seems like a design flaw. However, you need to first understand how a civ in AoE 2 is designed to see that this isn't a flaw at all but rather creates interesting games.
An average civ in AoE 2 has two unique technologies, one unique unit and a couple of bonusses that buff common units. All units also share the same tech tree and the difference here is that certain parts of the tree are unavailable for a civ to research (e.g. the Native American civs can't research Cavalry Armor). So, the way this plays together, common units will become part of the civ's unique roster due to the bonusses you have.
To give an example: Bohemians have a bonus where they can research Chemistry an Age earlier. Chemistry is a technology that unlocks Hand Cannoneers (and Bombard Cannons), so as Bohemians, you can already play towards a HC army in Castle Age.
AoE 4 solved this by replacing regular units with Unique Units, so the English in AoE 4 won't have regular archers, but Longbows instead. AoE 2's Britons have both Longbows as well as Archers that will be upgraded into Crossbows.

- Projectiles feel unnatural. As almost all projectiles in AoE 4 are homing (except Mangonel and Archer Ship projectiles), they look quite unnatural while moving. Arrows will always reach the same height which looks weird at close targets. Rocks from Mangonels aren't homing, however, they move quite fast which also makes them look unnatural.
In AoE 2, projectiles aren't homing and you have a technology called "Ballistics" that makes your ranged units and buildings shoot where the enemy will go instead of where they are. Mangonel projectiles also move slower in AoE 2 so you can "feel" that the rocks have some weight while moving.

- It was a weird choice to revisit the Middle Ages. In my opinion, AoE 4 wasted so much potential by revisiting AoE 2's timeframe. It would've been better if it coninued after AoE 3 and covered WW1 and WW2 or if it went back to AoE 1 and depicted Antiquity again.

[意味のない人生]

Some reasons I prefer AoE2 over AoE4:

- I love the old school graphics in AoE2. They're so crisp and beautifully detailed, with so much vibrance and color that makes everything pop. AoE4 looks like crap in my opinion.

- More variety and more simplicity at the same time. It's easy enough to jump from one civ to another without it being a painful learning process, but the depth and unique qualities are also there for anyone that wants to master a specific style of play.

- Completion. AoE2 felt like a complete, full game over 20 years ago when I started playing it. Crazy enough, they're STILL adding to it all this time later! AoE4, however, always seemed like it was missing something.. maybe a bunch of things, I don't know. It just felt so barebones and unfinished any time I've played it. I can say for certain at least that there's a severe lack of civs, maps, and campaigns compared to AoE2. That's a major bummer.

- Good ol' nostalgia. I grew up with AoE2 in the early 2000's, and I know a bunch of others did too. Playing a game that's associated with fond memories affects the overall experience.

- Mods, possibly? I propose the question because I don't know what the modding scene is like for AoE4. On the other hand, AoE2 has lots of mods that add to an already great experience.

I realize these reasons might be less objective than you have hoped for. It's mostly just a matter of opinion, after all.

[Lotor13]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

To give an example: Bohemians have a bonus where they can research Chemistry an Age earlier. Chemistry is a technology that unlocks Hand Cannoneers (and Bombard Cannons), so as Bohemians, you can already play towards a HC army in Castle Age.
AoE 4 solved this by replacing regular units with Unique Units, so the English in AoE 4 won't have regular archers, but Longbows instead. AoE 2's Britons have both Longbows as well as Archers that will be upgraded into Crossbows.

I would compare the AoE2 Bohemian earlier HC bonus to AoE4 HRE early Man-at-Arms or Rus early Knights.

The replacing of regular units by unique in AoE4 (and AoE3) is superior than have 2 units - regular + unique units with same role in AoE2. Like AoE2 Mongols have access to 2 cavalry archers - regular one from archery range and Mangudai with siege bonus in castles, so in inperial age You must decide, which unit to upgrade.

[Lotor13]

I play both AoE2 and AoE4 (and AoE3)

I think, that the main reason is a content - AoE2 in Definitive Edition was released with 5 expansions (since its release in 1999) in practice, while AoE4 is just on the beggining of its way

Also comparision with Starcraft 2 (SC2) and original Starcraft (SC) - SC 2 clearly replaces obsolete SC,

AoE2 replaced AoE1, it is its improved version, and AoE2 does not need to replaced by newer game - between AoE2 and AoE4, there are 2 games, AoE3 and Age of Mythology, and both have not "replaced" AoE2

And I do not even think, that is the purpose for AoE 3, AoE4, AoM to "replace" AoE2, like with Starcraft 1&2, I think these AoE serries are mean to co-existent.
After the AoE4 release, both AoE2 and AoE3 received expansions

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Lotor13:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

To give an example: Bohemians have a bonus where they can research Chemistry an Age earlier. Chemistry is a technology that unlocks Hand Cannoneers (and Bombard Cannons), so as Bohemians, you can already play towards a HC army in Castle Age.
AoE 4 solved this by replacing regular units with Unique Units, so the English in AoE 4 won't have regular archers, but Longbows instead. AoE 2's Britons have both Longbows as well as Archers that will be upgraded into Crossbows.

I would compare the AoE2 Bohemian earlier HC bonus to AoE4 HRE early Man-at-Arms or Rus early Knights.

The replacing of regular units by unique in AoE4 (and AoE3) is superior than have 2 units - regular + unique units with same role in AoE2. Like AoE2 Mongols have access to 2 cavalry archers - regular one from archery range and Mangudai with siege bonus in castles, so in inperial age You must decide, which unit to upgrade.

As Mangudai get bonus attack on Siege on top and you also already researched Blacksmith upgrades, your choice as Mongols should be clear imo ^^

[Lotor13]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

As Mangudai get bonus attack on Siege on top and you also already researched Blacksmith upgrades, your choice as Mongols should be clear imo ^^

Yes, Mangudai is superior, and it makes regular cavalry archer irrelevant, aside that Mongudai can be trained in only in expensive castle, and regular cavalry archer in archery range, same case with Britons and longbowmen and generic archers..

I consider AoE3/AoE4 system far more superior.

----------------

Back to the AoE2 vs AoE4

IMO, What makes AoE2 exceptional is its counter system, it does not work only with hard counters, and strictly rock-papper-scissors

Originally posted by Fjonda:

AoE2 in contrast has a longstanding die-hard fanbase

and this

[Flakstruk]

I think the AoE4 deves started trying to make the next great Esport with all the compromises to anyone elses enjoyment who's not interested in that

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Lotor13:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

As Mangudai get bonus attack on Siege on top and you also already researched Blacksmith upgrades, your choice as Mongols should be clear imo ^^

Yes, Mangudai is superior, and it makes regular cavalry archer irrelevant, aside that Mongudai can be trained in only in expensive castle, and regular cavalry archer in archery range, same case with Britons and longbowmen and generic archers..

I consider AoE3/AoE4 system far more superior.

----------------

Back to the AoE2 vs AoE4

IMO, What makes AoE2 exceptional is its counter system, it does not work only with hard counters, and strictly rock-papper-scissors

Originally posted by Fjonda:

AoE2 in contrast has a longstanding die-hard fanbase

and this

I don't mind either system but somehow feel that AoE 3 and 4 tend to be more gimmicky with their designs which is why I ultimately prefer AoE 2 in that regard.