System wars how bad do you want Age of Empires 4 ?

K , yesterday founder of Microsoft Bill Gates was answering people's question on Reddit and one of the questions was about Age of Empires ..

As any irascible granny will tell you, the best way to get results from a faceless corporation is to go straight to the top, or, in this case, right past the top to its former CEO and founder. Such was /u/le-click's policy when Gates took to Reddit for his fourth AMA. Amid a sea of questions concerning finance, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, le-click was determined to get answers on one thing: can we get another Age of Empires?

In fairness, it has been three years since the last true Age of Empires game, and that was an HD remake. It was a very well received remake, the absence of LAN support notwithstanding, so it's surprising that we haven't heard about an impending entry in the Microsoft-owned series. I imagine Bill Gates enjoys laying waste to enemy civilisations when he's not bringing clean water to Africa.

Believe it or not, Gates—billionaire, philanthropist, all-round computing wizard—replied: "I will look into this. How many empires do you need?"

Gates strikes me as a man with the connections to get stuff done, so there you are—Age of Empires 4 confirmed.

http://www.pcgamer.com/bill-gates-grilled-over-the-future-of-age-of-empires/

Frist AOE game back in 97 blew my mind, it was one of my first PC games ever, and it was incredible, I spent countless hours playing that game.

I would be happy with a 4th game if it was done well, 3 was such a letdown.

and please for the love of everything make sure it's designed on PC, not console.

Age of Empires II is one of the greatest games ever made. I would kill for a new one.

Closing Ensemble is something I still regard as one of the most stupid decisions MS ever made. It was a studio that made a very succesful series that sold millions of copies.

I still hate MS for that even if the ones who made that asinine decision have long left.

I don't want just any studio to make an AOE 4, I'd rather have Robot Entertainment do it, partenering with other studios.
If just about anyone is making it, I'd rather not have AOE4.

Same here. It literally blew my mind.

You started out with cavemen, collecting simple resources, then you expanded and became this super power like the Greek Empire. You made an army and conquered other, lesser evolved empires.

It's an experience that few games have given me and I'll always love the first AOE more than the others, even if AOE II, AOM and AOE III improved so much on the formula.
AOE I + The Rise of Rome expansion is still the best entry the series.

I also loved Empire Earth because it was kind of the same setup. Cavemen > first civilizations > middle ages > modern wars > future.

really doubt it , let's see how Halo Wars 2 will come out ... maybe creative assembly would take the wheel for AOE too after they're done with Halo , you know there's no studio better than CA when it comes to Medieval Warfare

MS was better when Gates was around. On thread, i don't care.

But CA still has to show they can make a decent RTS. Their strategy games are good, but they aren't RTS.

Also, the fact that Halo Wars 2 is a PC/console game has me worried it will live up to how great Ensemble's best RTS were.

Robot Entertainment and Gas Powered Games have shown they can make a decent follow up. It had a lot of shady business decisions, but when it came to pure AOE gameplay, Age of Empires Online aced it !

I don't think I'd care at this point.

I want it badly. But I don't want some lower budget or filler entry. I want it to take everything to the next level, or don't bother. Relic or Creative Assembly should be hired to make one, but give them all the time they need, to polish it to perfection.

I would care for this about as much as a new Crash Bandicoot. Aka not very much.

Unless they did it in VR, then I might.....

Give it to Firaxis. Can't think of anyone better to do it.

what about Relic ? MS can give them Age of Mythology too ...

@the_master_race: I used to love AoM.

AoE2 is still the best one though.

It's pretty sad to think of how many RTS developers have been shut down over the years. And I don't think it had anything to do with sales on the PC. The big publishers behind them just wanted games that could sell across multiple platforms.

Microsoft shuts down Ensemble, and a few years later they put out Age of Empires 2 HD on PC which sells so well in fact that Microsoft has released two new expansions for it since it released. I'm sure former Ensemble developers are happy seeing that.

I should buy AOE II HD..

I played Rise of Nations the other day again, that was a good game too.

As long as its like AOE2 and not AOE3, I would welcome it.

I think Relic would be one of the best bets. As they still make awesome RTS.

As well as GSC game world, who are now making Cossacks 3, which in gameplay is very similar to AOE. So if you want another AOE, Cossacks 3 is prolly your best bet.

But I'd rather Relic stick to their own IP to be honest. Another Dawn of War in the style of 1 (1 was an RTS, 2 was a RTT) would be great. Company of Heroes is another series I love. And would also like to see another COH.

Have you noticed how similar each cover is:

Gallery

This is the stuff that pisses me off about this industry most of all. Riding on trends.

They are decisions not based on facts, but on prospects. Prospects by stupid ****s (literally the kindest ways I could describe them) who don't even game, who don't have any feeling with games or gamers but they are supposedly "financial experts"

So a while ago PC was declared death and consoles the way of the future. We had ****s like MS closing down PC studios or switching them to console development. (now we see so many studios flock back to PC)

Than we had the switch to motion gaming. Rare became a big victim of that.

Now we see brilliant studios being closed or changed to work on mobile games, presumably because PC and consoles are dying and mobile is the future. Want an example ? Look at Konami.

What a bunch of retards this industry is at times.

It literally reminds me of that South Park episode where they place a headless chicken on a board and go: "It landed on mobile, let's go all in on that, guys. Let's close all our PC and console studios. DERP"

MS bought the Rise of Nations IP a while ago. Presumably to make a new game in that series. Let's hope so.

I certainly wouldnt mind another age of empires game, but what about the theme? Should aoe 4 move to the next era or should it be a remastered version of the old ones

I agree 100% , MS are fools and without old Bill at the helm are just clueless.

They have been going downhill for a while, yes.
They were a market leader once, now they follow trends (smartphones, tablets, etc...)

Their PC gaming devision was actually profitable. Than they got greedy, wanted console royalties so they abandoned their PC market.
Bad thing for PC gamers ? Well actually no, PC gaming never stopped prospering. Valve stepped in and took over right from under MS' nose.
Meanwhile the Xbox devision has still to turn a profit in the long run. People are surprised MS is back developing for PC. I'm not.

AOE 3 was terrible but AOE 2 is one of the best games of all time. I would settle for AOE 4 that is basically 2 but expands into the future in a Rise of Nations stylee. I suspect the ultimate, even more ultimater (new word alert) RTS game than AOE 2 was could now actually happen.

Like all good things, I don't expect it to happen, I just smile when they do.

Not sure.

AOE3 left me sour, and in this day and age, mandatory online will put me off.

I'd rather see a revival of the Close Combat series that MS published years back, originally created by Atomic Games before they went tits up with Breach and Six Days in Fallujah. Matrix Games publishes those now, with enhancements and additional campaign content, and updated to work with modern OS I think, and they renamed the series "Iron Cross".

Not gonna argue with you there lol and yup, the Xbomb was a bad idea. Maybe it's a good thing MS didn't bring that mentality to PC gaming sooner.

Yup... Another reason is that, some of the best RTS devs were bought by big ass publishers like Ubisoft, EA and so on. Some of them close, while others were forced to work on multiplat Action Adventure games like Ass Creed and stuff. Sierra Entertainment used to publish a lot of these tactical games before shutting down. Huge loss for gamers.

Well SEGA has already registered DOW3’s domain , plus Relic been suspiciously quiet these days … so be ready for a big announcement

The same could be said about third/first person shooters, open world games, rpgs, racing games, mmos and so on.

don't care for RTS games

Not really. Though it would be nice to see it. But RTS sales and general player count of Act of Aggression, Grey Goo and Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak are a little worrisome. Not really sure how well an Age of Empires 4 will do or what the game will be like.

People seem to want RTS to have a resurgence, I do too - the more the merrier. But I'm not sure these people actually want, or like what became of RTS games. RTS hit a decline not because of the developers and publishers, I actually believe it hit a decline because there was a miscommunication and disconnect of how people liked to play them, and how the genre evolved competitively; They just arent the games that people thought they were back during the genres hayday..

Back then, most played RTS games as base-building games. They'd build their bases and economy to their satisfaction during some truce period that even the developed AI would comform to. Then when everybody was ready, they'd have this big epic battle. Age of Empires 2 was the champions of this with how the ages and economy layer worked. Then when online came out, people were quickly taught just how badly people were playing RTS games when put in a 'play to win' environment. The real way to win an RTS game was by build order optimizations, APMs, being a nuisance and destroying the other dude complaining about 'no rush' before they could get their economy rolling. People just didnt find this all that fun.

RTS sure fought to stay and tried different things, but I think this issue was just well known by developers and publishers. There's a reason why Warcraft 3 aimed to promote the mentality of active/aggressive play. Why Relic went the way they did with CoH and Dawn of War 2. Why a simple, baseless World in Conflict happened and was a hit. Why Supreme Commander had hard options to stop APM in its tracks and was flexible with its building orders/economy. Why a snail of an RTS/4X hybrid that's Sins of a Solar Empire did well. Why Total War still exists. Why Anno 1404/2070/Settlers 7 are successful base builders with conquest boundaries to encourage growth despite being RTS games. And why there are so many turn based 4X games and grand strategy games that are out on the market right now, because they serve what most people enjoyed about RTS games back then.

good for you, now go and play some more call of duty

Phil Spencer explicitly said he wasn't interested in "core" PC gaming.

I just want to say how right you are.

There was nothing more furstrating than playing AOE III online with a mate and getting rushed in 10 minutes or less.

I'm like: WTF dude, I'm still building my house.

There were securities in place for that, like gathering all your villagers in the TC. But it basically meant your economy came to a halt. So it was GG anyway.

What I saw people in AOE liked doing most of all was go to the fourth or fifth age, only having a medium sized army in place; Then go all out when you reach the age most comfortable for attacking, preferably with artillery.

But on the other hand I also really like the gameplay in Company of Heroes, where you start engaging the enemy right away. Only to come back later with more powerful and better armed units. Matches are over quicker in that game too. But it was designed that way. I gotta say I really like the rock paper scissors gameplay in COH. An AT-gun for example is very strong vs tanks. But if you leave it undefended, it will get killed by infantry in no time.

Company of heroes barelay has any base building. In fact the UKF and USF base already is in place for the entire game. Only the Oberkommando West has some basebuilding.

While an RTS like AOE was a big part about base building. And the later part of the game was about attacking.

If you use your tanks properly, you can easily kill off an antitank-gun. Same goes for infantry and heavy machine guns. Its not just scissor, paper, rock, there is also a bit strategy involved, of course men of war easily shits on coh 1 and 2 when it comes to tactical gameplay. But overall I have more fun playing company of heroes than men of war.

I'm prepared to take the heat, but for me AoE2 stands as one of the most over rated PC games of all time. I put a fair few hours into that game don't get me wrong, but I don't see it as being a "classic".

(yes this is my own personal view, don't expect others to share it, calm your jets)

I used to play the **** out of games like Sudden Strike and Blitzkrieg back in the days. And Men of War is more like those games.

But I've grown really fond of Company of Heroes' gameplay. It's a lot about learning to use your units and learning to use the map to your advantage.

It's all about positioning. If a AT gun is placed and turned well it can start shooting at a tank from afar. Throw in some troops with AT weapons or a grenade that blows the engine and it's bye-bye tank (and you don't want to lose a tank as it can be quite expensive).

I love that placement system. I think the Line of Sight system in COH 2 is one of the best additions in the sequel, it's all about positioning and strategy.

But I also hate how controlling a certain house or building early game can pretty much make you win or lose a game.

Have you played any of the other age of empires ? Or Age of Mythology ?

I don't think AOE II is the best one either, and I also don't think AOE III is a crap game like so many. In fact all the games have their great aspects and downsides.

I personally don't like how so many units are shared in AOE II. Like western civilizations or eastern civilizations or even native tribes all have the same looking swordmen... yeah right. Only the castle units are truly unique for each civ...
But I can forgive it for its age (no pun intended).

AOE III and AOMs units (though having less civilizations) feel way more unique. And historically correct to me.

Once the engine slows down, you are pretty much fucked, but an antitank gun on its own doesnt have much of a chance against a fast incoming tank with a turret on top of it, you just have to circle around the antitank gun and kill the gunners.

Yeah, absolutely. I've done that numerous times.

It's easy to do with a fast tank like a luchs. And not easy to do with a slow tank like a Konigs Tiger. But on the other hand slower tanks have a lot of frontal armor so that's an aspect I love about them. I love when shots just bounce off.

And that is again where strategy and skill come into play. A good player will never leave a AT gun unprotected. Or will have some infantry close by. If you rush in that luchs, thinking the AT gun is alone. Only to find out he has some infantry there with AT grenades you made a wrong bet ! Haha.

Do you play a lot of COH2, mate ? If you do you should add me on steam :)

I also agree, and I always loved my RTS games single player, or co-op for these reasons.

But we're primed for a resurgence of RTS games today when you consider that MOBAs have really taken the spotlight for competitive strategy games. But I think an issue facing developers today is making an RTS game that's differentiated from other games in the genre without getting bogged down by ever-increasing complexity.

I never really liked it all that much, either. Maybe I just suck at it, but for me, the combat always just devolves into 2 giant blobs. I like games like Total War, where you can take your time and actually build an empire, while enjoying a far more competent battle system, so much more that I don't really want to go back to something like AOE.

Decisive Games is working on Age of Empires.

Totally agree with the last sentence.

That's why I'm really excited about Cossacks 3 to be honest. It's going to be a classic RTS again and it's basically a remake of Cossacks 1.

But I never quite understood how MOBAs took such a huge chunk out of the RTS player base. I played MOBA and it's more RPG than RTS to be honest. You don't control any groups or armies, you don't do any base building. You just control one character which you can upgrade and have an inventory for.

MOBAs are different on paper yeah... and in practice too... but I believe they satisfy the same, or at least very similar desire of an RTS player who loves PvP. The person who didn't care about base building, or army building.. It's just a super micro level RTS really. It still requires great positioning, total map awareness, control of certain targets (resources), and you build your character from weak to powerful like building a base from a town center to having 100 buildings.

MOBA's have variety, action from the get go, and the macro and micro to satisfy a lot of people. For me what makes MOBA's so great is the wide variety of heroes that can completely change the gameplay.

Never played one so can't say I care much

Nah, Halo Wars 2 will do just fine for me.

I dont think you want me on your team, I am quite the noob and I would just ruin everything for you XD. Besides I spent most of my time playing total war anyway.

Heh, why not. Perhaps you can learn me a thing or two about Total War ;)

Here is my steam profile: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197964679564

I should have recieved a steam invitation by now