1. #1

    Age of Empires Online - Desecration or Salvation?

    I'm surprised I've never even heard of this until now, and that noone has discussed it.
    Last night I was feeling nostalgiac and decided to reminisce on good times--Age of Empires 2. As I searched around through videos, I came across this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7bDRsIK7U

    Now, let's quickly discuss the first thing you will all notice.
    The graphics. The very first thing many of us say when you view it is:
    "No...Just.....NO...."

    Allow me to venture a bit on this. I'm not sure what their aim is with these. I guess the only real reason would be letting people with Windows 98 be able to play it, but do they really need the graphics to be cartoonish? You can have it be realistic, and still keep it from requiring nextgen computer specs. Low textures and polygons are fine. This is....NO.

    But I don't think the graphics compensation alone would make it look as it is. It would still possess a semblance of realism. The character portraits are simply cartoons. I don't think it would make sense to attempt to appeal to younger audiences. How many children actually favor playing an RTS game, which requires a devotion of time, deep logic, and strategy? I don't know when all of you die-hard AoE fans like myself got into the game. I got into it when I was young, but it was well past the time where I clapped excitedly at unrealistically stylized caricatures.

    This new design is completely alien to the Age of Empires franchise. It's unwelcoming because the design is simply too light-hearted and joy-filled. It feels like a toy. I don't feel like I'm building an empire, or sending legions of soldiers to conquer in my name. It feels like a game(In a bad sense).
    You can say that graphics don't make or break a game. But in a sense that is wrong. Graphics with such an unwelcoming style and theme is what will separate this game from loving it and hating it.

    I just ask why they feel they needed to make this an MMO. Being able to implement it into a persistent game would require changing and removing a lot of what paced the original games. The end piece would feel like half of the game that you think you should be playing. So why do it? I'll tell you why. Have any of you noticed the huge influx of online RTS browser games lately? That's because these games are cheap, easy to make, and almost guarantee drawing in a crowd of people new to the genre or hardcore RTS players looking for a game to conquer. There's your reason. Microsoft is trying to cash in on the MMO aspect of RTS games. It is with this reason that I can't help but feel this game is simply trying to cash in, and not TRY to be a great game. Time will tell for that, I suppose.

    Now, this is where the people in the youtube comments rip on the game because the visuals are horrible. But I see no actual discussion on the gameplay itself. I want to delve a bit into that.
    I am trying to get into beta, and there isn't a lot I know. But what I've been able to gather from the few videos on this is that this is basically a combination of campaign play and multiplayer, and they are blending RPG aspects into it.
    The game isn't in a sandbox world, and your city isn't what you may think of it.
    You have a "Capital City." This is basically your Avatar. For one, it's a hub for which you build units and structures, research, etc. etc. However, it will never come in danger of attack. It will exist as long as you do.
    It also exists for cosmetics. From completing quests or researches, you're able to place "vanity items" to add to the design of your city to make it look better.
    Also, your city levels up. Yep. Not like going from Feudal Age to Castle Age. I assume leveling grants you access to more researches, units, and quests as you progress. So when you just start out your city is going to be crap and you'll just have some militia to fight for you, but as you level up and quest you will gain access to more structures, researches, get units like archers and hoplites. I personally think this is a warm addition to the game, and feels a lot like the previous games. Your opinion may be different, though. I want to know what you think of this.
    Another thing about units: Here is something I'm a bit worried about. You can give items like advanced shields and weapons that you "loot" from quests, and give it to your soldier type to make them better. That means gear will be an important part of the game, and that spells doom if you ask me.
    Gear for core units has no place in an RTS. Especially one based on Age of Empires. The battle should come down to who has the better strategic placements of units, and who is using what. If I'm just starting out, and I'm fighting my level twenty-something friend, the battle should not come down to my archers getting beaten because his spearman had a "Shield of Leonidas" that completely protected him from my low level archers.

    I realize technology differentiation between weak and strong kingdoms isn't an aspect that should be shied away from. An ill-equipped knight should not necessarily demolish a pack of well-trained, well-equipped archers. But by the looks of it its going by WoW's example of making it a huge factor in whether you will win or lose a fight, and thus low level players will be FODDER compared to the high level players until they're able to work their way to the top.
    Now, these quests of which I speak are basically the campaign part of the game. You take part in fighting throughout Greece's history completing objectives, and your city and loot progresses as you do that. One thing I'm worried about is how easy things will be from the beginning to midway. You will obviously not have a large selection of troops for which you can use, and combine that with their attempt at being more friendly to people who don't know anything about RTS games, and chances are that they will try not to make things hard for you. I hope this isn't the case, but I blame the art style and convincing me otherwise.

    And now we get to the cold hard truth: The multiplayer part of the game will be side-content. You can either PvP a match, or co-op a quest. The entirety of PvP seems to be confined to individual matches. Now, I've no problem with this since it's like any other multiplayer Empires game(SAVE FOR THE CUSTOM MAPS), but that's not the issue here.
    This is not what I imagine when I think of an RTS MMO. A PERSISTANT WORLD hardly matters when the MULTIPLAYER aspect of the game does NOT factor into it.
    You aren't building an empire for which you have rivals to fight for land, glory, and power. You're just going to an arena and playing a game without consequence of benefit. I may as well just dust off my AoK disc and play the multiplayer part. Because at least there I have more options on how I can play the game. I would hope there is more to PvP i nthis, but the fact that they've not even talked about this in their gameplay videos leads me to believe they've nothing to show.

    Now, let's get into the actual fights. I saw a short video on it, and all in all it looks good. It appears to be faithful to the AoE franchise with how they've gathered mechanics from each game(Like Age of Mythology's being able to use abilities on the field.). Everything seems to be there. The monks, the soldiers, the layout, all behind the mask of godawful graphics. But it isn't bad.

    Like I said. There hasn't been a lot of information released on AoE:O, and I'm not currently in Beta. So if there is anything I've misinterpreted or wish to add for yourself, please let me know. Overall I think if the game succeeds in its new content, the game itself may actually be good. Will it be the Age of Empires we've all grown up to know and love? I doubt it.

  2. #2
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,399
    Looks terrible. Terrible. More like Age of Settlers. Horrendous.

    Also, I think your signature is too big.

  3. #3
    Age of Empires 2... I have yet to find a better base building strategy game.. so many fun times playing it.
    Will be looking forward to trying out Age of Empires Online, even with its "Settlery" graphics.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    Looks terrible. Terrible. More like Age of Settlers. Horrendous.

    Also, I think your signature is too big.
    You're probably right. It's just a placeholder until I find something to fill the void anyway.

    Age of Empires 2... I have yet to find a better base building strategy game.. so many fun times playing it.
    Will be looking forward to trying out Age of Empires Online, even with its "Settlery" graphics.
    Here here. I'm more than willing to look past the graphics if the content delivers.

    I'm also a little dissapointed, however, in hearing that the only faction at launch is a Greek faction. No apparent diversity amongst the city-state peoples, either. I'm hoping that its not just speculation that they will be releasing more in future patches
    What faction would they release next?

  5. #5
    The Patient
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bolivar
    Posts
    227
    i have to agree having brought it out this week, while re-down-loading wow
    (i play conquerors expansion)

    the new one looks so much worse. way too cartoonish and childish

    i would just keep the conquerors graphics etc

  6. #6
    Well, I have to say the art style does make it stand out. It's not to my tastes but at least you could put it next to a screen shot of any of a dozen other rts games and you'll be able to tell the difference.

  7. #7
    The Patient neoscorpio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Posts
    272
    I believe other Age of Empires games never had cartoonish graphics, am I right? It just didn't feel like I was looking at Age of Empires when I watched the video. Last year there was some F2P MMO released by Sony which was also cartoonish. Maybe these guys think WoW is a success bcoz the casuals, who are attracted to the cartoonish graphics. They're probably trying to cash in on the cartoonish graphics which are common in family games which are the major domains of casual gamers.

    "King Varian, you wish to make war on my people!? You shall have your war, human. You will see the fury of the Horde rage through your cities. You will see your throne split in two! This I swear!" -Thrall, patch 4.2.0

  8. #8
    Brewmaster Cairm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Montréal, Canada
    Posts
    1,423
    It looked bad, isnt the same company doing it?

  9. #9
    unless it's Free to play... no thanks

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ostehaps View Post
    unless it's Free to play... no thanks
    It is free to play, so I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt when it releases. But this isn't Ensemble Studios, and I'm pretty sure Microsoft didn't work very hard in tying together a team of great developers to make the game. They're making this game with only one purpose, and thats exploiting the current phenomenon in game marketing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •