AOE4 All We Know From April 10th

[RefluxSemantic]

Knowing how Microsoft sees gaming, AOE4 won't be focused on competitive play, so I think there won't be as much focus on complex unit control, like in those classic competitive RTS games.
That's why the animations seem off in the preview, because probably the main focus is the visuals and just having that AOE2 classic experience of building castles and fortified bases and attacking them with big groups of archers and heavy cav.
I'm thinking that's the case because Microsoft never published a competitive game or supported competitive gaming.
Their vision for gaming is more like a pastime for corporate millennials who come home from work and want to play a few casual games before going to sleep.
They're not Blizzard or Riot, so don't expect them to develop an RTS like companies whose exclusive line of business is gaming.

Their decision makes sense from a risk management POV, but I genuinely believe the AoE formula has the potential to be the biggest in the genre, and it's just disappointing to see that they're still thinking small.

You should indicate that you're presenting an opinion which is not based on any concrete evidence. You always talk like your thoughts represent absolute truth and its rather confusing.

[RefluxSemantic]

Knowing how Microsoft sees gaming, AOE4 won't be focused on competitive play, so I think there won't be as much focus on complex unit control, like in those classic competitive RTS games.
That's why the animations seem off in the preview, because probably the main focus is the visuals and just having that AOE2 classic experience of building castles and fortified bases and attacking them with big groups of archers and heavy cav.
I'm thinking that's the case because Microsoft never published a competitive game or supported competitive gaming.
Their vision for gaming is more like a pastime for corporate millennials who come home from work and want to play a few casual games before going to sleep.
They're not Blizzard or Riot, so don't expect them to develop an RTS like companies whose exclusive line of business is gaming.

Their decision makes sense from a risk management POV, but I genuinely believe the AoE formula has the potential to be the biggest in the genre, and it's just disappointing to see that they're still thinking small.

I hope I'm wrong, but this is the vibe I'm getting from how Microsoft sees gaming. I don't think I've ever seen them organise a big global tourney like Riot with tens of millions audience, big prizes, stuff like that.
On the other hand, they know they have this classic franchise in their portfolio and they don't want to let it rot, they'd rather use it to populate their XBOX offering with their own proprietary titles. It ties in with this tendency of big corporations to build their own closed ecosystems with everything in it (devices, OS, browser, games, chat service, app store, etc).
So I bet AOE4 is going to be a decent experience for AOE2 fans but maybe more for casual players than for competitive ones. If the focus is on selling merch and unlocking civs, casual gaming brings more money.

If they really didnt care about the competitive side of things, then why did they bring in a bunch of competitive players from all games more than a year before the release and take their feedback into account (ie buildings scaled down from 2019 trailer compared to what they look like now, bigger weapons for improved readability). You're getting a vibe based on nothing tangible.

[Goodspeed]

Knowing how Microsoft sees gaming, AOE4 won't be focused on competitive play, so I think there won't be as much focus on complex unit control, like in those classic competitive RTS games.
That's why the animations seem off in the preview, because probably the main focus is the visuals and just having that AOE2 classic experience of building castles and fortified bases and attacking them with big groups of archers and heavy cav.
I'm thinking that's the case because Microsoft never published a competitive game or supported competitive gaming.
Their vision for gaming is more like a pastime for corporate millennials who come home from work and want to play a few casual games before going to sleep.
They're not Blizzard or Riot, so don't expect them to develop an RTS like companies whose exclusive line of business is gaming.

Their decision makes sense from a risk management POV, but I genuinely believe the AoE formula has the potential to be the biggest in the genre, and it's just disappointing to see that they're still thinking small.

You should indicate that you're presenting an opinion which is not based on any concrete evidence. You always talk like your thoughts represent absolute truth and its rather confusing.

Wait what, where am I presenting objective truth?

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

Knowing how Microsoft sees gaming, AOE4 won't be focused on competitive play, so I think there won't be as much focus on complex unit control, like in those classic competitive RTS games.
That's why the animations seem off in the preview, because probably the main focus is the visuals and just having that AOE2 classic experience of building castles and fortified bases and attacking them with big groups of archers and heavy cav.
I'm thinking that's the case because Microsoft never published a competitive game or supported competitive gaming.
Their vision for gaming is more like a pastime for corporate millennials who come home from work and want to play a few casual games before going to sleep.
They're not Blizzard or Riot, so don't expect them to develop an RTS like companies whose exclusive line of business is gaming.

Their decision makes sense from a risk management POV, but I genuinely believe the AoE formula has the potential to be the biggest in the genre, and it's just disappointing to see that they're still thinking small.

You should indicate that you're presenting an opinion which is not based on any concrete evidence. You always talk like your thoughts represent absolute truth and its rather confusing.

Wait what, where am I presenting objective truth?

Eg in your claim that they're 'thinking small'. That seems like a weird hunch based on no concrete evidence.

[Goodspeed]

I don't agree that it seems like it's based on no evidence, and think it's very weird that you're stating that as objective truth.
Do you think they plan to compete with Starcraft?

[Goodspeed]

Overall I think it's silly to assume that everything that doesn't end in "imo" is somehow presented to be objective truth. We're on a forum...

[RefluxSemantic]

I don't agree that it seems like it's based on no evidence, and think it's very weird that you're stating that as objective truth.
Do you think they plan to compete with Starcraft?

I think they do plan to compete with starcraft.

Wait, let me rephrase that.

They are planning to compete with starcraft. They're thinking big.

[Goodspeed]

Dumb take tbh

[RefluxSemantic]

Thanks for showcasing how speculative statements presented as facts dont lead to meaningful discussion.

[Goodspeed]

The way you presented your opinion has nothing to do with it; I just don't feel like getting into this particular subject because I think it should be obvious to anyone that their focus is not on competitive play and you're probably just playing devil's advocate.

[RefluxSemantic]

It should be obvious from the part where they included a ton of competitive players early on in the development and made specific changes that hurt casuals to improve competitive gameplay (larger weapons, smaller buildings, arguably building grid) that they want to make a competitive esport RTS. Its a fact because I think it is!!

[Astaroth]

I still think that at least the screenshots look stunning. Its a state of the art game. Its just that for birdseye view, state of the art is significantly less detailed especially when you zoom in, so people think these are budget graphics.

Can you explain that? I don't quite get it.

Generally, the models seem less detailed than e.g. in AoE2 DE IMO (I know its 3D vs 2D).

Models look more detailed imo. You just dont often zoom in so far in RTS games, so you dont notice how low detail things are. Aoe4 looks state of the art to me, its just that our perception of whatever good graphics are is skewed by stuff like third person RPGs, which just arent as demanding for your hardware. I dont know any game from this perspective that I think looks noticably more beautiful.

Really?

Just compare these random screenshots. AoE2 has lots of clear borders between units/buildings etc., lots of little details, lots of clear lines. In contrast, AoE4 looks like a complete blob. In the AoE2 buildings, you can see individual tiles, wall pieces, stones etc. AoE4 just seems almost blurry in comparison.

Spoiler: large images

Spoiler

[RefluxSemantic]

aoe4 just looks much better to me? It looks so great in those screenshots really, thanks for making me more excited.

As far as blurry goes, from this perspective things tend to actually be 'blurry'. At least when I look outside I see quite a distinct lack of detail for objects a few 100 meters away, and I had a 3 hour long eye check up a year ago where they deemed my eyes to be perfect. It's kinda what 'realistic' looks like from this perspective. I can only see the bricks on the building on the other side of my street if I look really hard, and that'd still be me looking at a smaller distance than the birds-eye perspective is.

[lemmings121]

Just compare these random screenshots. AoE2 has lots of clear borders between units/buildings etc., lots of little details, lots of clear lines. In contrast, AoE4 looks like a complete blob. In the AoE2 buildings, you can see individual tiles, wall pieces, stones etc. AoE4 just seems almost blurry in comparison.

but you have the same with aoe3 de.

If you have anti aliasing, bloom, and all the post processing on, the game gets a lot more beautiful to take a promo screenshot, but you cant see shit to actually play. I suppose aoe4 will be the same: those shots are done with everything on max settings + probably some Photoshop, but competitive players will for sure disable AA/bloom/etc.

[RefluxSemantic]

Just compare these random screenshots. AoE2 has lots of clear borders between units/buildings etc., lots of little details, lots of clear lines. In contrast, AoE4 looks like a complete blob. In the AoE2 buildings, you can see individual tiles, wall pieces, stones etc. AoE4 just seems almost blurry in comparison.

but you have the same with aoe3 de.

If you have anti aliasing, bloom, and all the post processing on, the game gets a lot more beautiful to take a promo screenshot, but you cant see shit to actually play. I suppose aoe4 will be the same: those shots are done with everything on max settings + probably some Photoshop, but competitive players will for sure disable AA/bloom/etc.

He's saying those screenshots are actually uglier than in aoe2. I take it from your post that you dont agree.

[lemmings121]

Just compare these random screenshots. AoE2 has lots of clear borders between units/buildings etc., lots of little details, lots of clear lines. In contrast, AoE4 looks like a complete blob. In the AoE2 buildings, you can see individual tiles, wall pieces, stones etc. AoE4 just seems almost blurry in comparison.

but you have the same with aoe3 de.

If you have anti aliasing, bloom, and all the post processing on, the game gets a lot more beautiful to take a promo screenshot, but you cant see shit to actually play. I suppose aoe4 will be the same: those shots are done with everything on max settings + probably some Photoshop, but competitive players will for sure disable AA/bloom/etc.

He's saying those screenshots are actually uglier than in aoe2. I take it from your post that you dont agree.

ocf. aoe4 looks pretty good. I'm sure will some adjustment in the settings we can get things more distinguishable for competitive play

[Jets]

Idk why they keep going for the 4K textures and resolution, if an RTS has too much detail on them, it'll eventually mess up the players readability of what's happening on the screen.

I'm surprised there aren't any mods that revert aoe3DE textures with the legacy ones.

[Dolan]

If they really didnt care about the competitive side of things, then why did they bring in a bunch of competitive players from all games more than a year before the release and take their feedback into account (ie buildings scaled down from 2019 trailer compared to what they look like now, bigger weapons for improved readability). You're getting a vibe based on nothing tangible.

It's based on precedent. Microsoft never built anything for the esports scene. Because that's not where their focus is. Their focus is the millenial consumer gamer market.
Gamedev companies involved in esports have shown interest in organising big events with public, bringing esports teams, looking for sponsors for those events, turning it into a big show on stream. Microsoft doesn't do this kind of thing, because they're not a gamedev company, they pay some mercenary studio to do the development for them and provide the basic support for the game and that's it. Then they sell the product on XBOX or wherever they do sales.

They asked for feedback from anyone, not just competitive players, it's part of their cost-cutting strategy. Just like Windows is no longer tested internally much, most of the testing is done directly on the consumers who are even eager to become "early preview" beta testers. Same with AOE content. They involve whoever is willing to show them that the company "listens to the community" and also to cut costs with the testing, by outsourcing it on your own computer, your own time, your own responsibility if something breaks. Btw, did anyone get paid by MIcrosoft for any data loss due to installing the first versions of DE? I don't think so, because the company has no legal liability if you willingly become a beta tester.

[RefluxSemantic]

If they really didnt care about the competitive side of things, then why did they bring in a bunch of competitive players from all games more than a year before the release and take their feedback into account (ie buildings scaled down from 2019 trailer compared to what they look like now, bigger weapons for improved readability). You're getting a vibe based on nothing tangible.

It's based on precedent. Microsoft never built anything for the esports scene. Because that's not where their focus is. Their focus is the millenial consumer gamer market.
Gamedev companies involved in esports have shown interest in organising big events with public, bringing esports teams, looking for sponsors for those events, turning it into a big show on stream. Microsoft doesn't do this kind of thing, because they're not a gamedev company, they pay some mercenary studio to do the development for them and provide the basic support for the game and that's it. Then they sell the product on XBOX or wherever they do sales.

They asked for feedback from anyone, not just competitive players, it's part of their cost-cutting strategy. Just like Windows is no longer tested internally much, most of the testing is done directly on the consumers who are even eager to become "early preview" beta testers. Same with AOE content. They involve whoever is willing to show them that the company "listens to the community" and also to cut costs with the testing, by outsourcing it on your own computer, your own time, your own responsibility if something breaks. Btw, did anyone get paid by MIcrosoft for any data loss due to installing the first versions of DE? I don't think so, because the company has no legal liability if you willingly become a beta tester.

Dude, they literally created a community council which includes many reputable players including theviper and some ESOC guys. What are you even talking about with the windows comparison when that is quite literally exactly not what happened.

[Dolan]

And how is that reflected in how the US civ was designed. Every high-level player seems baffled by the choice of features, from what I've seen. It's like they had no input in how the civ was actually designed.
So not sure what you're implying, what does that council actually do. Is it like some elite beta testers club?
Again, it's part of Microsoft's strategy of giving the consumers the feeling the company is involved with the community.
What they do with that feeback is another story.

[RefluxSemantic]

And how is that reflected in how the US civ was designed. Every high-level player seems baffled by the choice of features, from what I've seen. It's like they had no input in how the civ was actually designed.
So not sure what you're implying, what does that council actually do? Is it like some elite beta testers club?

Aoe4 invited a bunch of players, as far as I can tell many of very high caliber and most seem to at least be involved with the competitive scenes of aoe2/aoe3, about a year ago to test the game with them. They said somewhere that they increased the size of the weapons of units and reduced the size of buildings due to the feedback from this community council. It's an elite alpha testers club that they take seriously and base some decisions on.

So to conclude that they don't give a shit and will just do whatever and get some cash is.. you shouldn't make such strong conclusions without doing any research.

[Dolan]

Well but it's what I explained, dude. It's outsourced beta testing. How could they have discovered that bug which made people lose data when DE came out if there weren't beta testers?
I didn't say they don't give a shit, I said AOE4 is likely to not be tailored primarily for the competitive scene, but probably more for the casual players, also based on that preview which showed nice visuals but awkward unit mechanics.

[RefluxSemantic]

No, you based it on the fact that its not the sort of game that microsoft makes. If you're basing it on 'awkward unit mechanics', then the counterargument is that they're actively working with esports players to improve the gameplay for the competitive scene so there's a strong indication that they actually really want to make the game a good competitive game.

Obviously it won't be just for the competitive players, but I'd argue that's a good thing. The reason why MOBAs ended up becoming the popular esports and eclipsed sc2 is because of how fun and rewarding they are to play. I honestly don't see much about Dota/LoL that makes them a clearly superior esport game compared to sc2 and I doubt these games were specifically designed to be esports (they are the result of some fun mod for warcraft 3 remember). Wherever I look, I feel like a competitive scene is the result of the existance of a market of players that want to watch tournaments and good gameplay. And that market will only exist if your game is so fun that a lot of people are playing it. Take for example hearthstone or overwatch, both clearly not designed to be a hyper competitive game: hearthstone is a complete RNG fiesta and has essentially zero competitive mechanics (they don't even have stuff like sideboarding) and overwatch feels like a fun and rewarding shooter (and actually was supposed to be an MMO initially) but not one where competitive play was the ultimate goal. But these games have a big competitive scene and it's in part because there is a demand for it; people want to watch the games and tournaments. Overwatch in particular is just not a good viewer experience for me, but it gets so many viewers. I personally think it's so much worse to watch than sc2 or mobas, but I'm sure most people tuning in do so because they are interested in the game overwatch and just want overwatch content.

That's also where I think those statements by Goodspeed earlier in the thread were silly. I just don't think those statements properly understand what I believe to be the process through which a competitive game is made. I feel like you get a serious competitive scene because a lot of people are playing your game (and enjoying it) and those people want to see more of the game (maybe they also wonder how you're supposed to play the game) and so they create the demand that eventually leads to a tournament scene. I think the HotS project also confirms that you don't simply 'create' a competitive game that will instantly spawn a competitive scene (shortly before Blizzard bailed and aftermath after Blizzard bailed are interesting reads). The tl;dr is that Blizzard was investing a ton of money into a game that seemed to be designed to compete with the super popular MOBAs, but the lack of players ultimately meant that the viewership was low and thus there was no incentive to support a big competitive scene. It's an interesting case study and I'm sure that there are more nuanced things to consider, but it's the one example I can think of where a dev tries to make a competitive game and maybe even succeeds, but it never really becomes big anyways because it's apperantly not enjoyable enough. I feel like this confirms what I've been talking about in this post.

[gibson]

And how is that reflected in how the US civ was designed. Every high-level player seems baffled by the choice of features, from what I've seen. It's like they had no input in how the civ was actually designed.
So not sure what you're implying, what does that council actually do? Is it like some elite beta testers club?

It's an elite alpha testers club that they take seriously and base some decisions on.

Lol

[InsectPoison]

Personal preference but I don't like the graphics design being utilised for AoE 4. It looks too gimicky and cartoonish, much prefer the current AoE 3 DE graphics. To be quite honest it looks like they are going to be primarily catering to the Aoe 2 fan base , nothing wrong with that as its the largest community by far, but I personally don't think I will be playing much AoE 4 other than trying it out.