This game makes me angry.

#1 Posted by Mikemcn (6954 posts) -

I love age of empires, I played the first age of empires when I was 5, it introduced me to gaming and sparked a great interest  in history. But this just seems like an excuse to tape a popular franchise name on a a micro transaction money scheme. Ive been playing COH online and im extremely scared of the micro transaction elements of that game. But I don't much like COH either so i wasn't too bothered, but now i see they are taking a great franchise i have a  long history with and instead of making a proper sequel to it that people want ,they are trying to use it as a scam to con gamers out of whatever money they can. 
 
Many of you may be say 'We don't even know what it will be like!"  and that its too early to judge, but from what we've seen it looks nothing like Age of Empires, and thats enough to turn me off.
 
I thought Microsoft backed off making games for the PC market because they saw no money in it. I really don't think they give a damn about this game, or the PC in general. As far as I know no one from Ensemble is doing it, that alone is worriesome and between the art style and the setup, it seems more like Farmville than an Actual RTS. I will say that the persistent world thing they mentioned could be good. But not if the game around is complete garbage. I also hope they simply let you buy the game for 50 bucks or whatever and give you full access to things like COH proposed. 
 
Anyone else not happy about the direction this game is going in?

#2 Posted by No0b0rAmA (1490 posts) -
@Mikemcn: I have to agree, this new design and more casual AOE kind of turns me away from this game.
#3 Posted by Malakhii (1443 posts) -
@Mikemcn: Actually alot of ensemble guys work at Robot, who is making the game. Both studios were even started by the same guy, Tony Goodman. 
#4 Posted by PaleEye (26 posts) -

You might be surprised by this game.  I wouldn't discount it too much.  
 
I might have seen this game in action
 
And it is certainly better than CoH online

#5 Posted by Mikemcn (6954 posts) -
@Malakhii said:
" @Mikemcn: Actually alot of ensemble guys work at Robot, who is making the game. Both studios were even started by the same guy, Tony Goodman.  "
Well thats at least good news
#6 Posted by Sjupp (1910 posts) -
@PaleEye:  Sounds suspiciously interesting.
#7 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

As long as the AI continues to be stupid enough to always go through the wall opening I leave, Im good.

#8 Posted by EvilConker (74 posts) -

I need to see more of this game then I'm shown right now.
I really can't see a persistent world in AOE because the game always ends in 2-4 hours, so unless they're completely overhauling the game's core ideas then I don't know how this is gonna work.
 
I was honestly expecting the series to follow the art packet that came with AOE III special edition, which showed a roman soldier with I under it, a knight with II, a colonial soldier with III, a vietnam soldier with IV, and a futuristic guy with V.
 
So the next game should've been in the modern era.
But at this situation, where all the games made right now ARE in the modern era or future era, then screw that, I'd rather have Roman era.
 
I think this game is going to be a spinoff, for the record, just like Mythologies, because it doesn't carry the title IV in it, just like Mythologies didn't carry a III.
 
For the record, I'd have rather had them go back to Medieval, the Saracens were cool :D

#9 Posted by KommanderCevin (236 posts) -

As odd a choice as it seems to make this rather than AOE IV, wouldn't it be great for AOE to be the game to nail the free to play model?

#10 Posted by EvilConker (74 posts) -

I absolutely do not want this to become a free to play title.

#11 Posted by Malakhii (1443 posts) -
#12 Posted by PaleEye (26 posts) -
@Sjupp:  Check out:  
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/08/19/age-of-empires-online-freemium-model-not-looking-to-nickel-and/
#13 Posted by Sjupp (1910 posts) -

I have to admit that this sounds more promising than I originally anticipated. I'd not be able to handle a full AoE and SC2 at the same time.

#14 Posted by Vager (1653 posts) -

I played it. It's plays like Age of Empires. 
Hell, the game had no name for a while and I guessed it correctly weeks ago by just playing it.
Can't say much more than that.

#15 Posted by CandleJakk (766 posts) -

I've registered to be in the beta, so I'll have to wait and see. If I get in though, I apparently can't talk about it.

#16 Posted by ISuperGamerI (1880 posts) -
@Vager said:
" I played it. It's plays like Age of Empires. Hell, the game had no name for a while and I guessed it correctly weeks ago by just playing it.Can't say much more than that. "
How did you play the game, are you in the beta? And these types of topics are starting to get annoying, if you don't like the game, then don't play it. I think the game looks nice and AoE is my favourite RTS franchise.
#17 Edited by Jimbo (9772 posts) -

It can't be worse than Age of Empires 3 can it?
 
I don't even understand what it's gonna be, so I'll withhold judgement.
 
@ISuperGamerI said:

" @Vager said:
" I played it. It's plays like Age of Empires. Hell, the game had no name for a while and I guessed it correctly weeks ago by just playing it.Can't say much more than that. "
How did you play the game, are you in the beta? And these types of topics are starting to get annoying, if you don't like the game, then don't play it. I think the game looks nice and AoE is my favourite RTS franchise. "

If you don't like the thread, then don't read it.
#18 Edited by Djeffers03 (2545 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:

" I love age of empires, I played the first age of empires when I was 5, it introduced me to gaming and sparked a great interest  in history."

Im pretty much the exact same, one of the first games I ever played, oh the nostalgia....
#19 Posted by TheHBK (5463 posts) -

Chill the fuck out.

#20 Posted by JoEDigiTECH (17 posts) -

The persistent world elements are only a graphical representation of your RTS awesomeness. The questing are essentially is based on you quelling skirmishes, occupying provinces and so on. Yes it's quite a bit stripped down and cartoony looking but that is the price to be paid to help bring this game to the masses.  
 
I played a lot of  the first to AOEs, and I played an early build of AOE Online. It's a solid title, go and get into the BETA. If you don't like it those AoE discs still spin.. I know mine still do. 
  
As for mini transactions.. they're nothing to be afraid of. We all want developers to keep their jobs, the only way that's going to happen is if publishers find ways to make money. If you want to support a product and a team, buy, if not, don't. It's not rocket surgery. 

#21 Posted by Mikemcn (6954 posts) -

To Follow up on this, I have played some of it, and its very much an Age Of Empires Game, a little shallow for my tastes but its certainly well put together and could potentially be alot of fun. Its a shame that it isn't a retail game though.

#22 Posted by Sammo21 (3211 posts) -

@JoEDigiTECH: Have you changed your mind now the actual pricing has come out?

#23 Posted by DonPixel (2585 posts) -

@Mikemcn: I share your fellings..I trhink most of the game is build arround the intention of selling you stuff. They took a decent strategy game and turn it into a grind, follow the carrot and buy crap fest.

LAME very.. mucho.

#24 Posted by Binaryfart (24 posts) -

I'm enjoying it so far, but I haven't played any of the other AOE games, so my opinion is that of a complete noob. I'm playing it as a single player game - not interested in the multiplayer aspects all that much.

It does get in your face right from the start trying to get you to spend money. Once I'd played it a bit for free I felt that $20 was pretty reasonable so I just bought a single premium pack for Greece -0 since then it has largely stopped bugging me to buy more. That might change as I get a bit further in, but we'll wait and see.

The graphics are nothing amazing but they do suit the game style, and it looks like it's run on anything.

As far as the actual game goes - once you get past the whole "central city" crap, and get to the missions, the actual gameplay is reasonably complex. While I haven't played any AOE before, I have played a lot of other single-player RTS's, and AOE Online is much like any other RTS that focuses on resource gathering. Can be a bit slow at times, and the unit control seems a bit ham-fisted. It can be tough to execute complex strategy - it tends to be "collect all your units and send them against a target, wait for ti to die, then move onto the next".

Having said that it's still pretty entertaining - the unit progression is satisfying and the missions are well constructed. The difficulty level is pretty low so far - hopefully it will ramp up a bit as I get further in.

My live username is "BinaryFart" - hit me up in game if you like :)

#25 Posted by mrangryface (774 posts) -

AoE III - Alpha and Omega

#26 Posted by Three0neFive (2286 posts) -

I might like it if it fucking worked. Too late now, though - I've already put in way more effort than should be necessary to play a free game.
 
I played for a short while (enough to do 2 quests) and quit, and when I went to start it back up it didn't work. I downloaded the hotfix they suggest, I've reinstalled multiple times, but to no avail.

#27 Posted by Tennmuerti (7997 posts) -

I wouldn't call it F2P at all. The free stuff is basically just an extended demo. You are crippled in terms of power and functionality without buying the civilizations.

Now I don't have a problem with paying for the game, that's fine. But at $20 a civ, what if I want to play other civs, with the already planned 4, that's $80 just if I want to properly play all the civs. And you know there will be even more $stuff down the line that you will need to shell out for in order to stay competitive.
 
The game is not of the quality where I would see myself spending more then the standard retail $50 on it.

#28 Posted by TwoLines (2788 posts) -

@Tennmuerti: Isn't that the case with most F2P? If you want to buy everything, these thing cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

At least once you buy a civ here, you've bought everything for that civ. 20 bucks ain't no "micro" transaction, but it's a better alternative to a shitload of small ones.

#29 Edited by Tennmuerti (7997 posts) -
@TwoLines
Well for one I'm not talking about everything I'm just talking the basic functionality. Just buying 4 civs is already more then retail price. Pay just $20 and you are stuck playing only one race forever.

The bigger issue here is that a lot of good F2P games don't completely cripple you in terms of gameplay functionality. They offer cosmetic enchancements or ways to make your progression faster etc. or they open up more options and alternatives to what you already have AoE:online does not. It straight up makes you better/faster/stronger. AoE:online without the moolah is a straigh up crippled product with a very large amount of missing functionality and gameplay.
 
Like Jeff mentioned this is more akin to a shareware model rather then F2P.
However unlike shareware of the days of yore it is very likely if not inevitable for the game price to far exceed standard retail price if you will want to stay competitive against other players in the near future.
#30 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -
@Mikemcn: You're not saying anything we, or at least i didn't already think. I watched the quicklook for 10 minutes and whatever small interest i had for playing an AoE multiplayer game died in those 10 minutes.
#31 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -
@TheDudeOfGaming said:
@Mikemcn: You're not saying anything we, or at least i didn't already think. I watched the quicklook for 10 minutes and whatever small interest i had for playing an AoE multiplayer game died in those 10 minutes.
Honestly, I wouldn't take those 10 minutes very seriously. First of all, Brad is just a slow, methodical player. In the time it took him to actually start moving out, I would have won the mission. I'm not hatin', I'm just saying he plays slower than required, which he even admits in the video. 
 
Furthermore, it's relatively early on, and the game actually has a decent amount of depth and complexity. It's worth actually playing before judging. It actually controls and plays well.
#32 Posted by TwoLines (2788 posts) -

@Tennmuerti: Okay, yeah, I agree with that.

#33 Posted by JoEDigiTECH (17 posts) -

@Sammo21: Sorry, I've been away from the site for a while. I don't have an issue with the pricing structure, although I think the premium content price point is kind of high. I can see them lowering the prices of some of the premium content the longer the game is out and possibly even bundling some of it. Regardless of the premium prices... you get to play for free. I don't see how you can complain about free.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.