I am very conflicted about this.
Age of Empires II is one of my favourite games of all-time, easy top ten if not top five. It's one of the most formative and important games of my life, as it was a big part in my becoming more interested in history. Original AoE was also great. AoE was...not good, but hey, it had some interesting ideas. In theory, I am super excited about a new AoE game, not just for nostalgia but also because it's been so long since I've played a proper RTS; my interest in the genre waned significantly when I starting playing turn-based games, because I always liked the strategic macro-management more than micro-management. Plus, I don't care for MP, which is obviously a huge part of what draws people to RTS games; all of my time with AoE2, hundreds of hours, was singleplayer. I bought AoE2 "HD" edition on Steam on day one, but ended up playing very little of it. I don't know if I'm capable of loving an RTS in 2017, but if I am, then this will be the one.
But I have so many questions. First off, the trailer seems to suggest that the game will cover multiple historical eras, rather than focusing on specific time periods like the previous game (AoE1 was ancient, AoE2 was medieval, AoE3 was Age of Exploration/Early Modern). So are we just going full-on Civ style anachronism stew? Are they really going to try and cover hundreds, if not thousands, of years of technological advancement? One of the things I really liked about AoE is that the time frame was more focused, and I think that applies to a lot of strategy games - one of the things I love about Shogun 2: Total War is how narrow the scope is, allowing for greater detail and more immersion.
Second, Relic is obviously a well-regarded studio with a track record of making good RTS games, but the impression I always got is that the early Relic RTS games were popular because they were a response to the traditional RTS. They shrunk the scale down and focused on smaller units, rather than the wider scope of empire-building, and were more micro than macro with a focus on "hero" units. In essence, the Relic games were antithetical to the old-school RTS, including AoE. So if they are the people who make RTS games that are sort of the opposite of the traditional RTS, how are they going to go about making the new game in a very traditional RTS franchise? Plus, Relic's recent track record hasn't been that great; I've not played them, but I've heard a lot of negativity around Company of Heroes 2 and Dawn of War 3 (partly to do with business practices rather than gameplay, but still).
Third, and perhaps my biggest concern, is the development balance between singleplayer and multiplayer. As mentioned, I'm far less interested in MP as a rule - I don't play MOBAs, online shooters, online strategy games etc. - but I seem to be in a minority, and the popularity of eSports and Twitch has skewed the media more towards MP than perhaps ever before. I would really want Relic to focus more on robust A.I. and compelling campaign content than making sure their game can be an eSport, or supports Twitch integration, or whatever, but my hunch is that their approach will be completely the opposite of what I'd want. Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit - I always got the impression that people have enjoyed Relic's RTS games both for SP and for MP - but on this point I'm not sure I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Log in to comment