Garja wrote:AOE3 survived till there were ES support and sponsors fueling tourneys. SC2 is not growing. It's fading since WOL but can't go past the bottom line because it has SC and Blizzard brand backing it up. Also of course it's not a terrble title at all, but still a flop compared to people expectations. AOE2 is growing because there were always a larger player base (see previous points) and because some aficionados started throwing money at it for tourneys. I guess AOC zone was also a good platform for the community and it helped.
aoe3 was a flop from the start, relatively speaking and started its decline right from the start (as almost all games do). SC2 recently has been growing again, and has been growing a lot since f2p. Within all your crappy arguments, there's no way to explain why aoe2, sc:bw and sc2 have always been more popular than aoe3. There's also no way to explain why aoe2 has done better than similair games released at a similair time and has continued to do that much better. It's simply a fantastic game and it takes a very subjective approach to think otherwise.
AOE3 was also not up to people expectations but it's not true it was a flop from the start. And I also think it peaked with TAD but I may be wrong on that. Of course SC2 is more popular than AOE3, but so is compared to AOE2. And I think Warcraft was too back then. It's just that blizzard games are on a different league in terms of popularity (just stronger brand management and marketing in general). My arguments (which are not mine but generally accepted arguments) clearly explain things. The fact that you don't agree with them (or rather you want to attack me as always) doesn't make them crappy. AOE2 can be a fantastic game to you and to many other people. I don't think I ever said it was bad. I in fact like many things about the game. Simply you can't say "it is better" because that's also a matter of taste. I don't know what do you mean with "AOE2 has done better than similar games", when it did outperform some but got outperformed by others. As I said AOK got MS partnership that's in large part why it became so popular.
AoE2 did and does very well because of a multitude of reasons: -Atmosphere -Historical setting and well done (somewhat immersive) campaigns -Affectionate fanbase -Gameplay (easy to learn, hard to master, everybody can have fun with it) -Microsoft starting throwing money at it since 2013 -Low pc requirements -Forgotten Empires team creating good content for the game, at least good enough to revive it.
AoE3 on the other hand had several issues which hindered its success. It is a great game, but: -Historical era isn't as appealing as the middle ages -At launch most people couldn't run it properly because of its graphics -AoE2 created some expectations that AoE3 didn't quite meet, there was "too much innovation". This is where every difference from AoE2 is seen as a flaw from AoE2 fans who can't really take the game for what it objectively is -Microsoft stopped throwing money at it -Card system is grindy -Fictional campaigns -Less base building-oriented, more fight-oriented. Kinda fast paced for the average casual player -Stigma of the worst game of the series (if you go on a random online forum and ask about AoE, chances are people will tell you that AoE2 is great and AoE3 sucks)
I think overall this leads us where we are right now. There could be more that i am forgetting, dunno. I think many people have been a bit unfair to AoE3, but there isn't much that can be done about it.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Garja wrote:AOE3 was also not up to people expectations but it's not true it was a flop from the start. And I also think it peaked with TAD but I may be wrong on that. Of course SC2 is more popular than AOE3, but so is compared to AOE2. And I think Warcraft was too back then. It's just that blizzard games are on a different league in terms of popularity (just stronger brand management and marketing in general). My arguments (which are not mine but generally accepted arguments) clearly explain things. The fact that you don't agree with them (or rather you want to attack me as always) doesn't make them crappy. AOE2 can be a fantastic game to you and to many other people. I don't think I ever said it was bad. I in fact like many things about the game. Simply you can't say "it is better" because that's also a matter of taste. I don't know what do you mean with "AOE2 has done better than similar games", when it did outperform some but got outperformed by others. As I said AOK got MS partnership that's in large part why it became so popular.
I don't get you. Your arguments are vague and not well accepted. There have been many big and many smaller RTS games, and aoe2 was a big one that was very succesful in every regard. It did well at the start but also turned out to have an extreme longevity and in that regard it literally outperformed most other RTS games (although maybe SC:BW did better). C&C isn't as active, neither is Company of Heroes, Age of Mythology, aoe3 and many other RTS games. Aoe2 actually competes succesfully with even modern RTS games, it's quite a feat. Surely this isn't the aftershock of promotion somewhere in the early 2000s and a nostalgia effect. I'd say these numbers strongly imply that aoe2 is widely considered to have very good gameplay. I fail to see anything you provided give a reasonable explanation for these numbers. It's still a succesful game actually, showing good numbers and no actual big decline.
The promotion back then started the AOE legacy. This doesn't mean it wasn't a good title but it still explains the popularity in large part. AOE2 is now successful because they started fueling tourneys again like 6 years ago or so. During active AOE3 era I think AOE2 faded significantly a bit like SC:bw. Then with HD remake and the DE hype it got a revamp in popularity (even tho the competitive community doesn't play on the HD version I think).
@gamevideo113 hit the nail on the head with that summary.
I also believe that if AoE3 had received a renewed support instead of AoE2:HD back then, it could be a bigger game right now. Consider that AoE3 has received no official updates in the past decade and is in a barely purchasable, barely playable state for pretty much as long. AoE3 costs double the price of base AoE2 on Steam, while offering a nonfunctional game experience for, I'd dare to say, most players. Since at least Win 8, there are several issues which can make the game outright not launch (Windows dropping DirectPlay, MSXML4, privileges..), and even if you can launch it, you'll probably just get FTJ with everyone else. That's not to mention finding the launch button itself is a great conundrum due to how the game is handled on Steam (you get only one shortcut, which is labeled "complete collection" despite launching the further outdated base vanilla game without expansions).
Even with all of this, where the game is left with no active support and severe issues that make it unplayable for arguably every other potential player, the game has rising sales and player numbers on Steam. Now, think about it, imagine where we'd be if those issues were fixed in 2013 and new content was released for AoE3 instead of AoE2.
The difference between SC and AoE is that Blizzard is good at mantaining and promoting its franchises, MS on the other hand is great at murdering its own games. If MS actually tried to support the series instead of just releasing unfinished products over and over again just to milk the cow, pissing everyone off in the process, the numbers would be definitely better.
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
momuuu wrote:What tournaments were actually fueled?
A couple of big ones since the release of the last expansion. One of them was named "Battle for Angkor" iirc
[Some people aspire to be pr30+, some people aspire to have fun, and some people aspire to play 3v3 Deccan.] - vividlyplain - 2019Who (nationality) rape ?
stupid logic. noob players can say op?
toxic, Insult, Racism ?
Im a bit weary to accept aoe3's what if conclusion. Its a great game but ultimately has extreme flaws that'd have posed serious problems even if the game was well supported. First we need to note that aoe3 didnt do too well even when it still received support. But secondly, I feel like aoe3's gameplay is too stale and repetitive to be suitable for a massively succesful competitive RTS. People would start solving the game too quickly I feel and beyond a solved game aoe3 offers extremely little. The 'saving grace' is that our community is small and shitty at improving. The top players hardly even get a few games in that are actually at a competitive level and they almost never cooperate to try to improve. And thus aoe3 is a solvable riddle that has not yet been solved - quite intruiging. But if you take that away, theres very little left.
Garja wrote:AOE3 survived till there were ES support and sponsors fueling tourneys. SC2 is not growing. It's fading since WOL but can't go past the bottom line because it has SC and Blizzard brand backing it up. Also of course it's not a terrble title at all, but still a flop compared to people expectations. AOE2 is growing because there were always a larger player base (see previous points) and because some aficionados started throwing money at it for tourneys. I guess AOC zone was also a good platform for the community and it helped.
I am sorry, but that just isn't true. SC2 has 40k more games a day then it did 2 years ago. That's like a 25% increase. They made radical game changes and changed the accessibility.
momuuu wrote:Im a bit weary to accept aoe3's what if conclusion. Its a great game but ultimately has extreme flaws that'd have posed serious problems even if the game was well supported. First we need to note that aoe3 didnt do too well even when it still received support. But secondly, I feel like aoe3's gameplay is too stale and repetitive to be suitable for a massively succesful competitive RTS. People would start solving the game too quickly I feel and beyond a solved game aoe3 offers extremely little. The 'saving grace' is that our community is small and shitty at improving. The top players hardly even get a few games in that are actually at a competitive level and they almost never cooperate to try to improve. And thus aoe3 is a solvable riddle that has not yet been solved - quite intruiging. But if you take that away, theres very little left.
This is so true. Conceptually and graphics wise its a really nice game. However, it lacks seriously in strategic depth to keep anyone entertained for long periods of time. Changes can be made to redraw interested, but as was stated above it solves too quickly. This doesn't happen in games like BW or SC2 because there's infinitely more strategic choices available solely based on the design.
Garja wrote:AOE3 survived till there were ES support and sponsors fueling tourneys. SC2 is not growing. It's fading since WOL but can't go past the bottom line because it has SC and Blizzard brand backing it up. Also of course it's not a terrble title at all, but still a flop compared to people expectations. AOE2 is growing because there were always a larger player base (see previous points) and because some aficionados started throwing money at it for tourneys. I guess AOC zone was also a good platform for the community and it helped.
I am sorry, but that just isn't true. SC2 has 40k more games a day then it did 2 years ago. That's like a 25% increase. They made radical game changes and changed the accessibility.
Yes, that's cause of F2P. By radical game changes I assume you mean last expansion changes? That barely helped keeping it interesting I'd say. If you look at tourney prize pools tho they are like 10x times lower than those of first 2-3 years of the game. Also, if you remember, SC2 was heavily criticized at one point because it was a 200/200 fest with units dying in a blink of any eye. LotV surely fixed those problems a bit but the reason why the game keeps going is because players try hard to innovate. And that's something we could also have in AOE3 if only there were more activity.
It was on the uptick prior to F2P. What are you talking about prize pools? The last 2 years have had the highest prize pools in the 8 years of the game. Seems like you are just making shit up to bash SC2 because you (like many people) have a skewed opinion about it because it wasn't good when it launched (which is true).
Err no. Prize pools in 2010-2012 were on the order of the hundreds thousand dollars for premier events and dozen thousands for major ones. Now only WCS has hundred thousands and others are 20-30k at most
Really? Let's see. WCS prize pools are up nearly double, not directly by Blizzard, as a large chunk was funded through the community. IEM XI - 250k, IEM XII - 400K, GSL seasons - 160k, WESG-400k. You are just wrong.
WESG is the most significant recent addition but it is throwing lot of money on every game, not just SC2. WCS circuit may has raised prizes but it incoporated other major tourneys. You had NASL and MGL, IGN, etc. When they reformed the major tourney format and then added the region lock (I honestly dont remember exactly when and all the changes) I remember it was just less money compared to previous years. And it was simply reflecting the demand for the game and the less sponsors investing into it (LoL etc. were stealing players and money). Also I just remember numbers being 10x bigger in 2010-2013. Like major event streams had 100k + viewers now it's like 15k+.
momuuu wrote:Im a bit weary to accept aoe3's what if conclusion. Its a great game but ultimately has extreme flaws that'd have posed serious problems even if the game was well supported. First we need to note that aoe3 didnt do too well even when it still received support. But secondly, I feel like aoe3's gameplay is too stale and repetitive to be suitable for a massively succesful competitive RTS. People would start solving the game too quickly I feel and beyond a solved game aoe3 offers extremely little. The 'saving grace' is that our community is small and shitty at improving. The top players hardly even get a few games in that are actually at a competitive level and they almost never cooperate to try to improve. And thus aoe3 is a solvable riddle that has not yet been solved - quite intruiging. But if you take that away, theres very little left.
This is so true. Conceptually and graphics wise its a really nice game. However, it lacks seriously in strategic depth to keep anyone entertained for long periods of time. Changes can be made to redraw interested, but as was stated above it solves too quickly. This doesn't happen in games like BW or SC2 because there's infinitely more strategic choices available solely based on the design.
I wouldn't quite bash aoe3 for its strategic depth. I'd bash it for having 'only' strategic depth. Beyond the strategies it's just not really an interesting game. Aoe2, SC:BW and SC2 are interesting far beyond the strategy, because the gameplay in itself is just far more fun than aoe3's. Aoe3 is not a terrible game though, by no means. It's definitely a bit niche and I think hasn't ever truly had to potential to become a top game.
Garja wrote:WESG is the most significant recent addition but it is throwing lot of money on every game, not just SC2. WCS circuit may has raised prizes but it incoporated other major tourneys. You had NASL and MGL, IGN, etc. When they reformed the major tourneys format and then added the region lock (I honestly dont remember exactly when and all the changes) I remember it was just less money compared to previous years. Also I just remember numbers being 10x bigger in 2010-2013. Like major event streams had 100k + viewers now it's like 15k+.
You can argue about activity, but prize pools are just bigger today. If you're not convinced, just check the most paid sc2 pros, mvp is 5th or 6th now, because there was less money at the start.
I was checking the tourney history for data, forgot to check players' earnings. I guess WCS finals and stuff like that just amount for more. If you look at number of events tho, the game had way more back then. Especially I noticed in the minor events there were far more events and with higher prizes (3-5k usually). What about pro league in korea btw?
Garja wrote:I was checking the tourney history for data, forgot to check players' earnings. I guess WCS finals and stuff like that just amount for more. If you look at number of events tho, the game had way more back then. Especially I noticed in the minor events there were far more events and with higher prizes (3-5k usually). What about pro league in korea btw?
Pro league doesn't exist anymore. As for minor events, I think it's about the same. They have 3-5k events every month I'd say.
