Gameplay AoE 2 has a more complex gameplay that still remains grounded in reality. The timers are tighter, the units make more sense and generally speaking is a harder game to master that also works better because the AI isn't braindead and the collision doesn't sabotage you.
blackeyedboy wrote:
And Elden Ring looks VERY average in terms of technical possibilities for the year 2021.
It's a step up from Dark Souls 3, but it's a dated game nevertheless and I never said otherwise. In case you didn't notice, I ruffled some feathers in the game's thread because I commented on From Software being out of touch with modern technology and how people always find excuses for this despite the game's 60euro price tag.
My previous reply was about "non-innovative products". Elden Ring innovates within its formula by trying to expand its gameplay design to an open ended world. This is something that hasn't really been done before and it's a dangerous thing to do for a variety of reasons. There are many unique particularities that could break in this transition, but From Software wanted to make something more than just Dark Souls. The same thing cannot really be said about AoE4, which is a perfect example of stagnation. AoE4 is a streamlined carbon copy of a 20 years old game, with 2012 graphics yet priced for 2021. It doesn't do anything new, it doesn't change anything old and it doesn't even bother to stand out from a technical perspective. It's a safe game which ironically missed the marker in many regards.
I think from any perspective Microsoft released AoE 4 in the way it has to introduce a modern AoE RTS to a new generation. Sure it has issues and earlier AoE fans may have the view it's dumbed down but to other fans it's still an enjoyable game.
There is a much greater audience of new younger gamers compared to older players who originally played AoE 2 20 years ago.
"With Age of Empires 3 we tried all of these new ideas," said Bruce Shelley, founder of Age of Empires creators Ensemble Studios. "I think it was a huge mistake."
"We wanted to create something that was 30 percent the same, 30 percent borrowed and 30 percent innovative. I think we tried to do too much."
Aside from the odd exceptional AAA games, gaming value for money generally in the last few years has been poor with major title let downs.
These over hyped games offer greater simplicity, have weak and uninteresting characters or storylines, are proactive at shoving 'identify as gender' in our faces, checkpoints every 5 minutes, have linear and boring maps / levels and all whilst holding your hand the entire time to ensure you progress through a game with minimal thought and difficulty.
Forza 5 is latest example, cringe worthy XP rewards and sickening in-game praise for doing nothing requiring any skill. You could literally drive across map in a straight line causing damage to assets yet gain sufficient XP to gain skill points.
It's dire but like it or not that's the crap that gets put out these days.
Elden Ring innovates within its formula by trying to expand its gameplay design to an open ended world. This is something that hasn't really been done before and it's a dangerous thing to do for a variety of reasons.
There is no formula for Elder Ring. The game is still forming it's own 'formula'.
Also, a 'personal', 'inside' innovation is not a universal innovation, it's simply an evolutionary step in one's development path.
"Hey, guys, we innovated the Dark Souls franchise and moved to open world formula..."
Elden Ring is NOT Dark Souls and that's not called innovation, as it doesn't bring anything NEW / different to the industry's table. Yes, this change can be called risk, evolution, change, expansion, but NOT innovation.
Vikerness wrote:
Remember this ?
"With Age of Empires 3 we tried all of these new ideas," said Bruce Shelley, founder of Age of Empires creators Ensemble Studios. "I think it was a huge mistake."
"We wanted to create something that was 30 percent the same, 30 percent borrowed and 30 percent innovative. I think we tried to do too much."
No wonder aoe4 played it safe.
That only shows how incompetent they are.
Innovation means - by definition - a LOT of failure(s) before success. But those managers at Microsoft weren't very happy about spending more money and time on it and chose the easy, safe way. There's also a chance that they didn't also had the creative minds required to innovate.
Most (probably 99%) of companies will play the finite game, choosing the safe, known, closed solution. Very few dare to innovate. And it makes sense. Most AAA companies don't have the resources to innovate: unmotivated creatives + tight budgets + restrained timelines.
This is the reason why indies are the ones that bring more innovation to the game(s): they are not restrained / bound by anything.
Did they spiked up the difficulty?.. I've set it to Normal (from Easy) on my 1st play when prompted and damn, they sure wanna make things complicated
On the early mission from the 1st campaign where you:
Spoiler:
Have to create 3 vehicles to smash down the walls they don't tell you that you can use em without people inside to destroy em, also they point ya to destroy the top part of the wall but you can do it on the bottom left part of the map (After the bridge you cross)
It's funny how you can put people inside and if the vehicle gets destroyed THEY DIE IN IT
Is there a way to make past the wall without being raped by the soldiers that comes in later?
It's the funny thing. They give you buildings to make units that are NOT advantageous against Melee ground infantery etc...
Any solution?
ASUS X570 TUF GAMING PLUS, 32GB DDR4@2666 ,RYZEN 5800X3D (NO OC),GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Super GAMING OC, Western Digital Blue 4TB 5400RPM + SAMSUNG 860 EVO 500+1TB GB SSDs , OEM SATA DVD 22xNoctua NH-D15 Chromax Black, BenQ XL2420T Case: Be Quiet! DARK BASE PRO 901. PSU CORSAIR RM1200 SHIFT
Did they spiked up the difficulty?.. I've set it to Normal (from Easy) on my 1st play when prompted and damn, they sure wanna make things complicated
On the early mission from the 1st campaign where you:
Spoiler:
Have to create 3 vehicles to smash down the walls they don't tell you that you can use em without people inside to destroy em, also they point ya to destroy the top part of the wall but you can do it on the bottom left part of the map (After the bridge you cross)
It's funny how you can put people inside and if the vehicle gets destroyed THEY DIE IN IT
Is there a way to make past the wall without being raped by the soldiers that comes in later?
It's the funny thing. They give you buildings to make units that are NOT advantageous against Melee ground infantery etc...
Any solution?
Have more soldiers. Max out homes to field a big army and just go in and destroy everything and everyone.
Any specific kind of soldiers?.. (Melee, horses, etc.. Because again the game's pretty limited early start with these)
Can ya believe the mission before that one where ya must destroy a huge tower, they don't tell ya ya can use the same mentioned vehicle to speed things up?...
ASUS X570 TUF GAMING PLUS, 32GB DDR4@2666 ,RYZEN 5800X3D (NO OC),GIGABYTE RTX 4070 Super GAMING OC, Western Digital Blue 4TB 5400RPM + SAMSUNG 860 EVO 500+1TB GB SSDs , OEM SATA DVD 22xNoctua NH-D15 Chromax Black, BenQ XL2420T Case: Be Quiet! DARK BASE PRO 901. PSU CORSAIR RM1200 SHIFT
Mix a variety of troops because you'll fight a mixed variety of enemies. Game is a rock/paper/scissors formula where pikes are great against horse, horse against archers, etc... etc.
The more I play the multiplayer of this, the stupider it seems. They removed the friendly fire from siege units and now you can spam them and have just a few units to defend them. They streamlined this to the the point where it's just dumb.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
