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
Why is chess worldwide more popular than monopoly?
AOE2 is also more popular than 3 which was also newer.
It is also a lot more expensive than 2 DE. In my currency, basic AoE4 costs five times (INR 2500) as much as the base game of AoE2 DE (INR 500), six times if you consider the deluxe package (INR 3000).
Nope.
In fact, this game is more popular because it has way more SP content.
Majority of the playerbase (over 90%) has not touched even one MP match, nor ever will.
Contrary to popular belief, outside of starcraft, no RTS has ever become a MP juggernauth, and even Starcraft 2 had a similar proportion of people just playing campaign, and never touching MP, not even Commander Mode.
AoE4 would need at least another 10 campaign (and BETTER ones at that, with character and mechanics, like AoE2 campaigns, just check out the newest DLC ones on Youtube) and another 20 civs, before it could even compare to teh appeal of AoE2 DE.
Not to mention taht AoE4 is still lacking features AoE2 had at launch, 20 years ago!
It is not balance that ruined AoE4, it is that Relic cannot make a Medieval game to save their lives (AoE4 still is a Tank Battle simulator with Panzer under Bombard and Springald skins), and that it is a MP-centric mess, for a community in which more than 9 out of 10 players will never even play ONE MP match, much less play a MP-centric game.
Civs are also way better thought out in AoE2. Despite all having teh same shared Tech Tree, the cutout upgrades and civ bonii actually make a more varied gameplay experience per civ, than the "everyone gets everything" mess that happens in AoE4.
For example: Celts and Franks both have Paladins, but because Celts have no bonus, and lack 2 upgrades, they will play with Knights in a MUCH different way than Franks will, thus creating vastly more diverse gameplay than in AoE4, where one would just get a differently named Knight, with some tweaked stats, for differentiation, but both civs would just end up going Knights for the exact same scenarios.
Additionally, due to its older playerbase, the community is quite nice and not very toxic. Everyone gets angry when losing due to a stupid error but you will hardly see someone completely raging or so... I guess average player is >30 years old.
And it is also very complex so you can learn something new after 10 years. I know many ppl that also play chess next to AOE. Also fedex, a aoe2 player, is grandmaster in chess.
I guess there's no other RTS with such a depth. SC2 is more about execution and reaction
SC2 is a mechanical game, about micromanagement and reflexes.
AoE2 is a game of counters, and even micro cannot avail you after units get to a critical mass.
On an open field, you can micro 10 Archers to kill a Knight without losing any, but not against 2 Knights, for example.
This is on teh same foundation as chess, in which a mistake will always get punished, unless due to human error on behalf of your opponent, and you can never get fast enough to ignore the counter systems, unlike in SC2, where it just breaks with stutter-step, or other micro tricks.
Q. How often do you see streamers / youtubers play SP content (campaigns / skirmish vs AI)?
A. AFAIK, only Ornlu, Viper, TWest do that occasionally.
Q. How often do you see people discussing SP content on forums?
A. Rarely. In contrast there are a lot of balance suggestion/ rant posts about MP.
Streamers and Youtubers are not representative of the actual playerbase, or the common AoE player.
If this game was MP-centric, they would just balance it, and not constantly release DLC to finance it.
Constant civ + campaign DLC is aimed at the SP playerbase, which is the VAST MAJORITY, and always will be.
You are making the same mistake AoE4 devs made. MP players will be happy playing only 3 civs in Arbia, forever, but they are less than 10% of the actual RTS playerbase.
Games like Factorio and They Are Billions already proven this. SP playerbase will always dwarf the MP playerbase, and will keep on shelling up cash, if you keep on giving them content.
The age of MP-centric RTS died with Starcraft 2, which was abandoned by Blizz, because the MP RTS community is not only tiny, but also will not pay to continuously support the game, and expect balance patches for free, for a decade, which is unsustainable.
They would not even buy the Warchests or the skins. MP players just wamnt continuous balance changes, which are impossible to successfully monetize.
Most people you think are discussing MP, are not playing it, ever, and will not buy any MP-only items the company may want to sell, so a MP-centruic game is dead after the first few months bump, like AoE4.
Nope, it is definitely micro-centric, to the extreme, specially when compared to other RTS. It is not like yyou can build a 15 minute gameplan aned just back it up with counter units, in SC2. You always have to be reacting, and fast.
Sure sure
And I don't think there are many ppl with that mbl'ish mindset that want to play arabia every game with 3 civs. I like the variability and usually block arabia as it is more about execution than strategy there. Megarandom is best <3.
I think, being a strategy game, megarandom should become default game mode.
There are 246k ppl that played at least 10 MP ranked team games
To believe that newer game = better game is for the young and naive.
Lots of AoE2 guys are old and wise, though :D