Warcraft 4?

[Zaarin]

Bit upsetting from a guy who likes gunpowder and guns. AOE3 has a lot of gunpowder units and sad to see aoe4 will not have so many Gunpowder units. Not to mention we already have aoe2 so why buy aoe4 when we have aoe2?

I'm the opposite. I have zero interest in WW1 so if they'd made a WW1 game I wouldn't have bought it. As for why buy AoE4 if you have AoK, well, why buy Civ6 when you have Civ2? I don't think a WW1 era AoE game would even make sense; AoE3 was already stretching the model past its logical limits (and somehow made it work--if you turn off your common sense and just enjoy the game).

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I stared with Age of Empires 3 and like it, but people seem to detest it for some reason.
*shrug*
I prefer that New World discovery time period compared to the medieval stuff.

 

[Zaarin]

I stared with Age of Empires 3 and like it, but people seem to detest it for some reason.
*shrug*
I prefer that New World discovery time period compared to the medieval stuff.

Even though I prefer the Middle Ages to Age of Discovery, AoE3 is also my favorite because of the emphasis on economy.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

As for why buy AoE4 if you have AoK, well, why buy Civ6 when you have Civ2?

the thing is civ 6 is VASTLY different from things like civ 5 even not counting graphics- with things like districts, social policy/governments and civic trees ect.
How is AOE4 different from AOE2 EXCEPT for graphics? For me AOE4 seems like 3D version of AOE2... and nothing else.

 

[Zaarin]

How is AOE4 different from AOE2 EXCEPT for graphics?

In other words you heard it was in the Middle Ages and stopped following development, I take it? Just a few of the differences we know about: manned walls, building fires, hunting Scouts, ambushes from forests, hero units, unit abilities like cavalry charges and pike formations, asymmetric factions (peaking at the Mongols having mobile bases--please take notice, Firaxis), greater attention to historical accuracy (no more nonsensical "Britons")...So yes, from what we know while it's certainly recognizable as an Age of Empires game, it's not just a graphics update. Also I very pointedly used Civ2 as an analogy. AoK came out 22 years ago.

 

[Francel]

RTS is a dying/dead market anyway... Even Starcraft II died last year and only AOE franchise is still alive...

I saw this and had to comment, since Starcraft II is my “other” game that I have played obsessively. It is absolutely a shame Blizzard has abandoned SC. However, there is still lots of amazing Starcraft going on in the world. I watch GSL every season and honestly, this probably sounds crazy, but every time it reminds me of the Hagia Sophia (international treasure). For anyone who isn’t aware, it is a professional league in Korea, and 2021 season 1 is ongoing. The English casters made a civ reference on the most recent day of competition, which was quite amusing to me. ESL has a contract to host the world championships for at least the next two years, I believe.

Also, some of LOTV’s key personnel are now part of a new studio -Frost Giant - working on the “next great RTS game.” Hopefully unfettered from Activision/Blizz they will succeed.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

RTS Like Warcraft and Starcraft is... too bad 'dead'.
Remember somewhere in 90s when RTS Developers mocked upon Turn-Based Strategy as 'no future' ? Look! Panzer Generals style game did return as successor bought off old PG games to do a near exact remake under slightly different names with some improvements over the existing PG gameplay but still have the same feel. Total War series is exactly a combined TBS&RTS with limited 4x element (but still more extensive as generic RTS of the mid 90s - early 2000s). Sid Meier had proven that TBS genre suits 4x best as Civilization series are always TBS. The upcoming rival--Humankind--is also TBS with some elements ported from Heroes of Might and Magic series.

On the RTS Side. it has been evolved into multiplayer MOBA (Half Life: Counterstrike with Roleplay character developments) particularly after DotA (A simple Warcraft III: Frozen Throne scenario, actually there are similiar WC3 scenario but focused on either Naval or Aerial warfare, not so successful however) boom in the mid 2000s. too bad the original DotA makers did retire too early and rightnow competitors (particularly from Asia) had took its place in MOBA Arena.

 

[PiR]

In other words you heard it was in the Middle Ages and stopped following development, I take it? Just a few of the differences we know about: manned walls, building fires, hunting Scouts, ambushes from forests, hero units, unit abilities like cavalry charges and pike formations, asymmetric factions (peaking at the Mongols having mobile bases--please take notice, Firaxis), greater attention to historical accuracy (no more nonsensical "Britons")...So yes, from what we know while it's certainly recognizable as an Age of Empires game, it's not just a graphics update. Also I very pointedly used Civ2 as an analogy. AoK came out 22 years ago.

Thanks for giving me hope again

 

[Kupe Navigator]

In other words you heard it was in the Middle Ages and stopped following development, I take it? Just a few of the differences we know about: manned walls, building fires, hunting Scouts, ambushes from forests, hero units, unit abilities like cavalry charges and pike formations, asymmetric factions (peaking at the Mongols having mobile bases--please take notice, Firaxis), greater attention to historical accuracy (no more nonsensical "Britons")...So yes, from what we know while it's certainly recognizable as an Age of Empires game, it's not just a graphics update. Also I very pointedly used Civ2 as an analogy. AoK came out 22 years ago.

it needs more than that. EACH civ needs to be distint and unique like civs in AOE3. Look at Britain and China in AOE3. They are VERY different civ with unique units and playstyle. Now look at Britons and China in AOE2... they are basically same except a different skin for buildings. About 80% of units are same...
Unless each civs are different like in AOE3 I don't see the need to buy them when I have AOE2.

 

[Zaarin]

EACH civ needs to be distint and unique like civs in AOE3. Look at Britain and China in AOE3. They are VERY different civ with unique units and playstyle.

It is. They told us that each civ was entirely unique two years ago, and that was clearly visible in the footage yesterday.

 

[PiR]

That's a big challenge, because it makes the game harder to balance, and AOE doesn't have much experience on that versus Starcraft for example. But if it is well done, it will make the game a whole lot even better.

 

[Zaarin]

That's a big challenge, because it makes the game harder to balance, and AOE doesn't have much experience on that versus Starcraft for example. But if it is well done, it will make the game a whole lot even better.

AoE3 was already a step in that direction with European civs vs. Native civs vs. Asian civs. I think AoE4 will be a step even further in that direction, which is also why its starting roster of civs is smaller than AoK's was. So far we know about four civs: England is the most basic with heavy defensive bonuses; the Delhi Sultanate gets fast and free research but has to dedicate Scholar units to doing so; China gets to select dynastic bonuses that take the civilization in different directions; and Mongolia has mobile bases but can't advance past the third age.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

AoE3 was already a step in that direction with European civs vs. Native civs vs. Asian civs. I think AoE4 will be a step even further in that direction, which is also why its starting roster of civs is smaller than AoK's was. So far we know about four civs: England is the most basic with heavy defensive bonuses; the Delhi Sultanate gets fast and free research but has to dedicate Scholar units to doing so; China gets to select dynastic bonuses that take the civilization in different directions; and Mongolia has mobile bases but can't advance past the third age.

Well... I remain cautiously optimistic.