Official AoE 4 Thread

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Dolan »

@RefluxSemantic Aoe2's cult success is mostly based on timing. The game came out when RTS hit a peak in mainstream popularity. Starting from early 00s, RTSs lost popularity to the benefit of FPS shooters like CoD. The only genre somewhat more similar to RTS which survived was MOBA, because mythically/medievally themed bullshit became very popular in late 2000s (that's also why so many movies using medieval/mythical BS became so popular later, including GoT). It's all just zeitgeist. AOE2 simply managed to capture a big mainstream audience in the late 90s and that audience got fixated on that particular RTS style. They don't want anything but rehashes of the same shit. And that's what Microsoft will serve them, because what's wrong with making a quick and sure buck.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

AoE2 was just a really good game. People want to see more of that formula because it works. Why it works is irrelevant, though your continued insistence that it's due to timing and inability to admit that it's simply an excellent RTS is a solid meme at this point.

That's what MS will serve the community, because that's what it wants. You are part of a very small minority, wanting the series to move away from its first installments, and it would be commercially unviable for MS to cater to that minority.

If you don't want another age game, then go play something else and leave AoE4 to people who are actually fans of the franchise.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by lejend »

We want campaigns like this in AoE4.

https://youtu.be/wDFqlamw3bU?t=811
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by RefluxSemantic »

Dolan wrote:@RefluxSemantic Aoe2's cult success is mostly based on timing. The game came out when RTS hit a peak in mainstream popularity. Starting from early 00s, RTSs lost popularity to the benefit of FPS shooters like CoD. The only genre somewhat more similar to RTS which survived was MOBA, because mythically/medievally themed bullshit became very popular in late 2000s (that's also why so many movies using medieval/mythical BS became so popular later, including GoT). It's all just zeitgeist. AOE2 simply managed to capture a big mainstream audience in the late 90s and that audience got fixated on that particular RTS style. They don't want anything but rehashes of the same shit. And that's what Microsoft will serve them, because what's wrong with making a quick and sure buck.

Just curious, what do you then make of the succes of starcraft 2 then? How does that fit in with this narrative you presented? How do you explain that in the list of steams most sold games age of empires 2 is listed as bronze, just like the more recent call of duty ww2? A 20 year old game is performing on par with a recent call of duty, yet accorsing to you the rts genre is dead. How dies that work exactly? What is this "zeitgeist" exactly if apperantly medieval fantasy stuff has been popular for the last 20 years?
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Horsemen »

Even if it generates equivalent sales, a new AoE game will still not be as popular as Call of Duty, if only because most people do not have the spare time to learn how to play RTS games.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Dolan »

@RefluxSemantic SC2 has been successful only with a niche audience of people interested in high-performance, competitive games. AOE2 is still very popular because, as I previously explained, it gained a mainstream audience when RTS games in general were popular. AOE2 was a much more forgiving and "human" game compared to SC2 which was a harder and more futuristic-looking game, that appealed to "geeks".

The RTS genre is dead as a mainstream phenomenon, it no longer has mass appeal like in the 90s when Microsoft shipped RTS games like AOE with their previous versions of Windows. I think they shipped a free version of AOE 1 the Rise of Rome with one of the older versions of Windows. It basically spread an RTS game to a huge mass audience, without having to do much in the way of marketing. When AOE2 came out, people were already familiar with AOE 1, which helped spur a massive uptick in interest for the genre. At the end of the 90s, first person shooters like Half life, CS and Doom were starting to take off. That's when interest in RTS games started to decline. By the time AOM came out, the market was already dominated by FPS games.

When AOE3 came to the market, RTS games were already just a small niche that appealed to a very specific kind of gamers, who liked immersive games, that lasted longer and were not very attractive to the mainstream audience which liked simple games which rewarded you for achievements immediately (by shooting something). By contrast, AOE3 tried to be both a classical RTS game and a faster-paced game, which didn't hit the right spot with any audience. The AOE2 public was more interested in slower paced games, in which rushing was less viable. The mainstream audience was more captivated by simpler games that rewarded you immediately. AOE3 basically fell between two stools and was neither attractive for the bulk of the previous RTS audience created by AOE2, nor to the mainstream audience that was put off by the complicated HC system, card unlocking tech tree, difficulty in dealing with rushes, etc. AOE3 was a much more unforgiving game for both audiences: too fast for classical RTS players, too difficult for mainstream gamers.

I haven't really developed a full explanation for why the medieval/mythical genre started gaining so much ground in the 2000s, when MOBAs came out. It was the decade when the emo movement also became popular, a decade of doom and gloom, in which music and culture in general appealed more to emotion. That might have been an important factor in why mythical/medieval content became some popular in the later part of the decade. The fantasy genre thrived on doom, mysteries and myth. When MOBAs like LoL came out, that's exactly the style in which they designed their maps and champions. It appealed to this public that developed an attachment for emotional, fantastic content. It's also the period when anime became hugely popular in Western culture.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by duckzilla »

Even if RTS has become a niche market, one should not forget that vastly more people have access to computers today than 20 years ago. The potential customer base has grown faster than the interest in RTS declined.

Data from wikipedia suggests that for the sales of Age of Empires games the following holds:
AoE1 > AoC = AoE3 > AoM
Of course the data is not perfect, but it should be able to at least give a broad idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:@RefluxSemantic SC2 has been successful only with a niche audience of people interested in high-performance, competitive games. AOE2 is still very popular because, as I previously explained, it gained a mainstream audience when RTS games in general were popular. AOE2 was a much more forgiving and "human" game compared to SC2 which was a harder and more futuristic-looking game, that appealed to "geeks".
I wouldn't make that distinction. I think RTS games in general tend to appeal to that niche audience, and AoE2 is slower paced but that doesn't necessarily mean it's easier or more forgiving than SC2. It actually is a high-performance, competitive game. You need high APM and fast reflexes to compete, much like in SC.
You also mentioned the setting, which I think is closer to the truth, but it's also simply a matter of exposure I think. People who were exposed to Starcraft 1 in their youth were much more likely to stick with that franchise, and the same goes for people who were exposed to AoE and AoE2. I think a sign of the significance of this factor is how little overlap there is between current AoE players and SC players.
I'd say that relatively few people actually made a conscious choice, based on their preference as a gamer, for one or the other.

One of the things that make AoE2 so great is that it's not only difficult to master but also accessible, which means it caters to both audiences. Its campaigns were great (and historically relevant), and even in multiplayer there was a lot to like for people who didn't necessarily care about competing. Think diplomacy, KOTH, regicide, etc. All removed in AoE3, and SC2 paid even less attention to such things.
The AOE2 public was more interested in slower paced games, in which rushing was less viable. The mainstream audience was more captivated by simpler games that rewarded you immediately. AOE3 basically fell between two stools and was neither attractive for the bulk of the previous RTS audience created by AOE2, nor to the mainstream audience that was put off by the complicated HC system, card unlocking tech tree, difficulty in dealing with rushes, etc. AOE3 was a much more unforgiving game for both audiences: too fast for classical RTS players, too difficult for mainstream gamers.
I don't think pace was ever the issue. AoE3 games may be shorter, but there is much more down time, much less to do. For the bulk of the community, the issue was not that the game moved too quickly, rather that it was too different. The community loved the first installments, and they weren't looking for a complete overhaul. There were too many things to dislike, so players never gave the game enough of a chance to see that these things may not all be bad.
And partly because AoE3 was so ambitious it had serious balance issues from the beginning, many of which still haven't been solved. Poor balance is a problem for competitive players.

The same thing is true now. People don't want an overhaul, they want another age game with some innovations but not too many. And that's totally reasonable.
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Horsemen »

Tbh AoE2 is harder than SC2
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by n0el »

Horsemen wrote:Tbh AoE2 is harder than SC2

for sure
mad cuz bad
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by RefluxSemantic »

Horsemen wrote:Tbh AoE2 is harder than SC2

I think it's very close actually. Both are extremely hard games with a very fast pace. Starcraft 2 two has a bit more of the "you didn't look at your army for a second so everything exploded and you lost the game" while aoe2 has a worse UI, lacking controls like a proper shift click and is probably slightly harder macro wise. Of course there's also Starcraft broodwar, which is so hard that I haven't ever dared to touch it. But I think both games are really hard and apm intensive. Age of empires 3 is a walk in the park compared to those games.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Goodspeed »

I tried to play SC1 once. It was traumatic
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by n0el »

@VinyanyĂŠrĂŤ is a pro(toss scum)
mad cuz bad
No Flag RefluxSemantic
Gendarme
Posts: 5996
Joined: Jun 4, 2019

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by RefluxSemantic »

Dolan wrote:@RefluxSemantic SC2 has been successful only with a niche audience of people interested in high-performance, competitive games. AOE2 is still very popular because, as I previously explained, it gained a mainstream audience when RTS games in general were popular. AOE2 was a much more forgiving and "human" game compared to SC2 which was a harder and more futuristic-looking game, that appealed to "geeks".

The RTS genre is dead as a mainstream phenomenon, it no longer has mass appeal like in the 90s when Microsoft shipped RTS games like AOE with their previous versions of Windows. I think they shipped a free version of AOE 1 the Rise of Rome with one of the older versions of Windows. It basically spread an RTS game to a huge mass audience, without having to do much in the way of marketing. When AOE2 came out, people were already familiar with AOE 1, which helped spur a massive uptick in interest for the genre. At the end of the 90s, first person shooters like Half life, CS and Doom were starting to take off. That's when interest in RTS games started to decline. By the time AOM came out, the market was already dominated by FPS games.

When AOE3 came to the market, RTS games were already just a small niche that appealed to a very specific kind of gamers, who liked immersive games, that lasted longer and were not very attractive to the mainstream audience which liked simple games which rewarded you for achievements immediately (by shooting something). By contrast, AOE3 tried to be both a classical RTS game and a faster-paced game, which didn't hit the right spot with any audience. The AOE2 public was more interested in slower paced games, in which rushing was less viable. The mainstream audience was more captivated by simpler games that rewarded you immediately. AOE3 basically fell between two stools and was neither attractive for the bulk of the previous RTS audience created by AOE2, nor to the mainstream audience that was put off by the complicated HC system, card unlocking tech tree, difficulty in dealing with rushes, etc. AOE3 was a much more unforgiving game for both audiences: too fast for classical RTS players, too difficult for mainstream gamers.

I haven't really developed a full explanation for why the medieval/mythical genre started gaining so much ground in the 2000s, when MOBAs came out. It was the decade when the emo movement also became popular, a decade of doom and gloom, in which music and culture in general appealed more to emotion. That might have been an important factor in why mythical/medieval content became some popular in the later part of the decade. The fantasy genre thrived on doom, mysteries and myth. When MOBAs like LoL came out, that's exactly the style in which they designed their maps and champions. It appealed to this public that developed an attachment for emotional, fantastic content. It's also the period when anime became hugely popular in Western culture.

When starcraft 2 came out a lot of age of empires 3 players for example switched to it or at least bought the game. Many aoe3 players still play starcraft 2. I don't think it's appeal is limited to "geeks" only. It appeals to people that like competitive games, which is a pretty large niche. It was actually such a large niche that starcraft 2 can be seen as the father of modern day esports. You can't evaluate what for example League of Legends and Dota 2 are right now without mentioning what starcraft 2 has done for competitive gaming and streaming. Starcraft 2 was released in 2010 and was extremely successful and basically the beginning of the mainstream rise of esports. I think starcraft 2 is evidence that as late as 2010 the RTS genre was still alive.

I brought up earlier that aoe2 is still one of the games sold most on steam. In 2018 it is listed as a ´bronze´ selling game. That is the same category as extremely successful games like Skyrim, Dark souls 1 and 3 and call of duty WW2, games which are not nearly as old as aoe2. An ancient game like aoe2, with it’s weird interface, bugs and according to you dated RTS gameplay, is still one of the most selling games today. We’re not talking about active players or anything here either, we’re talking about purchases. The fact that it’s still selling so well nowadays can’t be just because of an old fan base that stuck around. It’s still selling because people are apparently still interested in RTS style games and age of empires 2 is one of the best RTS games currently around.

In the history of gaming RTS games were indeed the mainstream games of the 90's and early 00's. The success of age of empires, as well as the success of starcraft 1, warcraft, command and conqueror and other games can be partially ascribed to that. It is also true that in the last 15 years RTS games have definitively lost the number one market spot to other generally more casual genres. The problem is that I don't think this is a relevant argument with regards to age of empires 4. The fact that RTS games aren't the premiere mainstream games anymore doesn't mean that RTS games necessarily can't be successful. Again, starcraft 2 is a pretty modern RTS game that was very successful and age of empires 2 is still extremely popular.

I thus think it’s not realistic to claim that aoe3’s relative failure is purely a result of diminishing interest in the RTS genre. Warcraft 3 did really well and its latest expansion was released only 2 years before aoe3 was released. Starcraft 2 did really well and was released 5 years later. Age of empires 2 is still one of the best selling games 19 years after its release. When aoe3 was released there was plenty of opportunity for it to do better than it did. It was unlikely for it to replace the role that call of duty had taken of course because of the declining popularity of RTS games, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have done better.

Overall I don't agree with the narrative you presented. RTS games are relatively niche and aoe4 won't be the next fortnite or GTA V. That doesn't mean that it can't be a profitable and successful game. Success can also mean that it's a good game that sells well for a very long time. Starcraft 2 and the current sales of aoe2 give an indication that there is a lot of potential for a new triple A RTS title that is similar to aoe2.

That brings me to your main point: the new age of empires game needs to broaden its horizons according to you. I already brought up that in all of gaming remakes of basically the same game do extremely well. You countered this argument by saying that aoe2’s success was mostly based on timing and zeitgeist. The current sales of aoe2 show this to be at least partially false. The fact that aoe2 was one of the mainstream games back then was indeed due to timing and the popularity of the RTS genre, but as I have argued that doesn’t mean that an RTS game can’t be good right now. I thus don’t see any reason for age of empires 4 to broaden its horizons much. Games that are remakes of the same concept do very well and there is clearly still a reasonably sized market for RTS games. Like goodspeed said, age of empires 2 was a really good game. Notice how it, and starcraft broodwar, are the only RTS games during the golden era of RTS games that are still selling well right now. People want more of it because it was objectively a good RTS game. The little evidence available shows that your narrative is unlikely to be true and that there is little reason for aoe4 to broaden its horizons.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by gibson »

aoe4s only hope is skins and a battle pass
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

  • Quote

Post by Dolan »

RefluxSemantic wrote:I brought up earlier that aoe2 is still one of the games sold most on steam. In 2018 it is listed as a ´bronze´ selling game. [...] The fact that it’s still selling so well nowadays can’t be just because of an old fan base that stuck around.
[...]
You countered this argument by saying that aoe2’s success was mostly based on timing and zeitgeist. The current sales of aoe2 show this to be at least partially false.
[...]
Age of empires 2 is still one of the best selling games 19 years after its release.

Got any numbers to support these statements? How do AOE2 sales compare to other mainstream games right now?

You seem to agree that RTS games have been demoted from mainstream genre in the 90s-00s to a niche market, but insist that some of them still sell well. It would be interesting to see a poll among new buyers, that would break down the numbers based on whether they are older players repurchasing the game in a new form or completely new players that just discovered the game. My bet is that its player base is older compared to the player base of newer games, so we're going to see mostly millennials in their early 30s/late 20s among its buyers. Basically people who grew up playing it or seeing it played.
I thus think it’s not realistic to claim that aoe3’s relative failure is purely a result of diminishing interest in the RTS genre. ... Age of empires 2 is still one of the best selling games 19 years after its release. When aoe3 was released there was plenty of opportunity for it to do better than it did. It was unlikely for it to replace the role that call of duty had taken of course because of the declining popularity of RTS games, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have done better.

It's a myth that AOE3 "didn't do well in sales", it actually sold as much as AOE2 after it came out. Wiki quotes that both games sold about 2 million copies after they came out. What happened afterwards is also due to how these games were managed. The fact that they both sold pretty much the same after they came out shows that there was similar interest for both of them. But the times and timing (and management) were different.

Microsoft's own press release (http://www.agecommunity.com/press.aspx? ... easeID=161) makes it very clear AOE3 was selling very well after it came out:
"Age of Empires III," which launched in October 2005, is one of the fastest-selling titles in the franchise's history, placing gamers in the position of a European power struggling to explore, colonize and conquer North and South America, roughly during the time period of 1500 to 1850. The game has garnered numerous awards, including GameSpy's 2005 Top Ten PC Games of the Year and PC Gamer's Editors' Choice. It has sold more than 2 million copies to date and is currently among the top-selling titles for Games for Windows. In addition, the first expansion pack, titled "Age of Empires III: The WarChiefs," was released for the game last fall.

AOE3 was among the 10 best-selling games in 2007, according to GameDaily (https://web.archive.org/web/20080129051 ... 212/?biz=1):
Top 10 PC Games of 2007 (Corrected)

1. World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade* – Vivendi (Blizzard) – 2.25 million
2. World of Warcraft* – Vivendi (Blizzard) – 914K
3. The Sims 2* – Electronic Arts – 534K
4. The Sims 2 Seasons Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 433K
5. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare* – Activision – 383K
6. Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars* – Electronic Arts – 350K
7. MS Age of Empires III* – Microsoft – 313K
8. Sim City 4* - Electronic Arts – 294K
9. MS Flight Simulator X* - Microsoft - 280K
10. The Sims 2 Bon Voyage Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 272K

If Microsoft themselves admitted AOE3 was a well-selling game, why did they manage it so awfully like they did? Why didn't they listen to the community and fixed the issues everyone was complaining about? They listened to the AOE2 nostalgics on every occasion, but didn't pay much attention to what the AOE3 community complained about. It just shows that someone in that company, some top management brainlet didn't like this game, they just seemed to have hated managing this game, for some reason. It's unconscionable how much of a dog's breakfast they made of managing this game until now.

Wiki also quotes that AOE3 received lots of awards from gaming outlets like PC Gamer and GameSpy:
Age of Empires III won PC Gamer US's "Best Real-Time Strategy Game 2005" award. The magazine's Brett Todd wrote, "It was astounding how Ensemble managed to stick to the historical RTS formula yet keep the gameplay feeling fresh." The game was presented with two awards by GameSpy in 2005: "Real-time strategy game of the year" and "Best Graphics". GameSpy highly praised the game overall, giving it 5 stars in its review, which particularly noted the graphics and multiplayer experience. The game was named fifth-best game of 2005 by GameSpy.

If you try to understand why AOE3 gets so much bad rap, you typically find arguments like this one:
AoE2's campaigns were fantastic, enjoyable, and historically accurate. AoE3's campaign was a joke.

AoE3's online system was plagued by bugs and a poor ranking/matchmaking setup. The Zone was AWESOME when it was still up.

AoE2 had more civs than you could shake a stick at and the units were fun and interesting and varied. AoE3's units were all basically rock-paper-scissors in terms of variety.

Which is surprising, because all these things could have been fixed easily by Ensemble and Microsoft, without much expense. Campaigns are just a bunch of scenarios. The community of content creators made some pretty awesome scenarios over the years. Microsoft could have just taken some inspiration from what creators made with the game or simply allowed for new buyers to discover this custom content much more easily. Same for the matchmaking system. It could have been fixed and improved. Same for bugs.

But instead of doing that, Microsoft acted as if AOE3 was some kind of a bastard child, they shut down Ensemble pretty fast, pissing everyone in that studio off. All the talented devs from that studio took refuge on other ships, including Robot Entertainment that was later contracted by Microsoft to provide service to the ongoing AOE3 PvP system. But since the devs working on that service were disgruntled ex-Ensemble devs that still held a grudge to Microsoft's management for the way they were summarily laid off in 2009, they didn't put much soul in fixing what still plagued the game. So, the sorry state, fate and legacy of AOE3 is mostly due not to any faults AOE3 may have had, which were minor (mediocre campaigns, badly thought HC cards unlocking system, bugs, matchmaking system issues) and could have been fixed without huge expenses, but due to Microsoft's absolutely terrible management of this game.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13597
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by gibson »

How did aoe3 sell over 300k copies in 2007 and yet the max online players was like 8 thousand?
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Horsemen »

gibson wrote:How did aoe3 sell over 300k copies in 2007 and yet the max online players was like 8 thousand?

Most people never go past single player
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by duckzilla »

Horsemen wrote:
gibson wrote:How did aoe3 sell over 300k copies in 2007 and yet the max online players was like 8 thousand?

Most people never go past single player

Supporting the fact that a good campaign (aoe2 style) ist imperative!
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Dolan »

Yeah, the huuuuuge majority of AOE3 buyers only played campaign and single player. And since those weren't the best AOE3 game modes, they just gave up, lol.

They put the game aside.

Ty, Bill Gates.
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Horsemen »

Tbh Microsoft cares more about Halo than AoE
Switzerland BadReputation
Crossbow
Posts: 1
Joined: Jun 13, 2019
ESO: BadReputation

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by BadReputation »

Great! Let's wait then :)
No Flag Ting
Crossbow
Posts: 32
Joined: Feb 2, 2018

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Ting »

Dolan, you are not making any sense with your AoE2 hate and excuses. Even today Aoe2 has more newcomers than Aoe3, people who try the game for the first time and also continue to stick with the game. These are people who have no idea how RTS was back then or how "it's supposed to be" right now. They just try both games and actually enjoy Aoe2 more. Even now Aoe2 generally sells way more and attracts way more new players. Like it or not, II had better reception from critics, ES devs admitted the mistakes they made with III, and all this revival of the series is actually a result of II's continuing success, no matter how much we are going to play the flat-earthers.

Yes, we all prefer Aoe3 here, but let's not be ridiculous, Aoe2 is not the more successful game by chance. This is probably one of the reasons MS probably often overlook Aoe3's community, we look too biased and immature, so few yet so loud. We always looked like a bunch of haters.

I hope the so called community council from Aoe3 is level-headed and offering MS thoughtful insight worthy of actual consideration.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

Post by Dolan »

Are you denying that AOE3 has been managed way worse than AOE2 was? Do you think that Microsoft's mismanagement of AOE3 had no effect on the fate of the game?

>Even today Aoe2 has more newcomers than Aoe3, people who try the game for the first time and also continue to stick with the game. These are people who have no idea how RTS was back then or how "it's supposed to be" right now
Can you prove this statement with some numbers or a survey?
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Official AoE 4 Thread

  • Quote

Post by deleted_user »

Dolan' defense of AoE3 is incredible.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV