Hmm, I thought it looked okay but then they showed the AoE III stuff it was hard to tell the difference, the turning animations haven't changed since they were using sprites; i wonder if that's for gameplay reasons or something.
I think it looks good, i am used to the total war models looking extremely dodgy when you zoom into the unit level and typically that isn't the default view so not that bothered. as long as the performance is reasonable when the battle scales, i wonder what the min spec's look like; would like the option to run it on a thin laptop (think it's still will be beyond my surface laptop 3)
I don't know what Total War games you mean, but all the latest releases look a LOT better than this, no matter how you look at it.
Why are we comparing Alpha version of this game with the final version of another game?
Stop comparing AoE to Total War visually. You're only playing AoE from the top down view and there's ton of stuff going on at the same time. Total War features empty terrain with large armies and these battles are largely optional anyway. They can afford more detail.
also the scale is all wrong. If you look at the size of the people compared to the buildings you'd think they're all 7 feet tallI don't know what Total War games you mean, but all the latest releases look a LOT better than this, no matter how you look at it.
On a general technical level, and being generous in regards of the art style they chose, this looks about on par with Rome 2. Which was released 8 years ago.
If you zoom in and start checking individual models, even Rome 2 looks MUCH, MUCH better.
Compared to TW Warhammer or Three Kingdoms, it's not even remotely a contest.
AoE4 probably doesn't need this level of visual detail at all, since you are not meant to zoom all the way in.
What bothers me the most is the disconnect between the semi-realistic environments and the pastel people. The unit colors are too flat, saturated and unshaded, they don't fit in the scene at all. Animations are also very basic, and there is clearly no real physics/momentum (when they turn, soldiers "snap" from looking one way to looking the other, same for being stationary -> moving and the other way around).
Someone that got my point.
This was my point. Not that the models was as good as the ones created from creative assembly. I think there is a slight shading issue on the units but it's not too bad or jarring enough.AoE4 probably doesn't need this level of visual detail at all, since you are not meant to zoom all the way in.
My only issue is really low resolution shadows. Kinda weird they didn't fix it for the video.This was my point. Not that the models was as good as the ones created from creative assembly. I think there is a slight shading issue on the units but it's not too bad or jarring enough.
It is age of empires, what we have seen is exactly that - age of empires, they obviously didn’t want to reinvent it and kept it true to their legacy. I am actually hyped for this. Even more after seeing the trailer. My pc is ready.
C&C Red Alert released on PSX and that controller didn't even have analogue sticks. Halo Wars 1 had a very competent and usable control scheme.Honestly I think it would cause more issues for general consumers if the only good way to play the game on Xbox was to use a M+K so I think they would still need to figure out a way to support the controller.
C&C Red Alert released on PSX and that controller didn't even have analogue sticks. Halo Wars 1 had a very competent and usable control scheme.
Console RTS' just need a time slider, where the default is 0.5x speed when playing on console, with the option to speed up on the fly for when you've done your building/resource management. This would compensate for the 'slower' moving cursor on controller vs M+KB. Avon Colony was great with the 1x, 2x, 4x, and 8x, speed increases.
C and C worked fine on console, did it have limitations? Sure but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun to play with. I played RTS games on PC and know the advantages of M+KB but to outright say RTS shouldn't be on console is plain stupid.Command&Conquer was released on consoles back then, Warcraft as well because they gave 0 fucks if it works or not. Its hilarious watching a console session on youtube where the player just strugles to frame a single peon by moving the entire fucking screenspace to center it on what he wants to select. That type of dumpster fire would never make 10 minutes through QA today. Youre watching those 90s console ports of PC strategy games and you're almost waiting for ashton kutcher to jump out of the closset and say you're punked.
The reeera poeople also keep babling on about them releasing console ports for this, with less than zero understanding of how an RTS works. Oh, its easy, you just do this and that, so easy. Oh, its just gatekeeping. Reeeera guys and also some from here, you only believe you get how an RTS works. You dont. RTS games dont work in a way that makes sense on a controller. Period. If you want to play an RTS, do it on PC. If not, never play them. That simple.
C and C worked fine on console, did it have limitations? Sure but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun to play with. I played RTS games on PC and know the advantages of M+KB but to outright say RTS shouldn't be on console is plain stupid.
BFME2 on xbox 360 worked very well, as did Halo Wars and Red Alert 3. Why not release it on consoles, on GP and let the players decide how they want to play?
I thought they were ridiculous fun. I wasn't a grown man at the time, i was a kid/teen/adolescent who enjoyed RA on PSX, BFME2 on Xbox 360 and Halo wars on whatever console that came out on (360?).They didnt work and werent fun. They were ridiculous. It boggles the mind that grown men thought those sorry excuses of games made any sense to exist and be released on consoles. I dont even know why this is a discussion. Did RTS games traditionally came out on consoles ? Does it make any sense to ask for it now ? Do you think there would be more than 5 people playing it there ? XCom back in 2012 failed so hard on consoles that they released the sequel on pc only for a fucking year. Age of Empires 4 will not come out on consoles. EVER. As it should be. Whats going on here ?
I thought they were ridiculous fun. I wasn't a grown man at the time, i was a kid/teen/adolescent who enjoyed RA on PSX, BFME2 on Xbox 360 and Halo wars on whatever console that came out on (360?).
In a world where people want to play fortnite on a smartphone, it's not out of the realm of possibility that people want to play RTS games on console
As for what's going on, PC gaming sucks and has done for a long time. Apart from the odd games, like AoE4, most PC games are ports of console games and a billion indie sprite-shites. Long gone are the days of being up to your eyeballs in decent RTS and RPG's.
Thanks for telling me what I enjoyed. I put a lot of hours in to C&C RA2, Yuri's revenge and Generals. Tiberium wars was aight. I played all of them and still enjoyed Halo Wars and BFME2 for what it was.You enjoyed them because you didnt know any better. Since you now do, theres no need to want this game to ever come on consoles. No, its console gaming that was always complete and utter shit. Thats why we're having this conversation, in the hopes they dont fuck up the game by neutering it per the norm for a console game
You are nuts, Relic makes 343 look like kids. Sure Company 2 was similar but it was still great. DOW 2 was a blunder but their record is legendary. There was still shades of Relic in their prime in DOW 3, they just tried to reinvent the wheel and it failed, but I get the sense they have learned from the last decade, and if this has the physics and feel of their previous RTS's, geez, it's gonna be the best RTS since Starcraft II.