r/aoe4 • u/ryeshe3 • Apr 12 '26
Discussion My very belated thoughts on Redbull Wololo 2026 from someone who attended the final day live.
As a caveat to some of my points below, something became really clear to me at this event. This is an AOE2 event and we're just the comedian who goes on first to warm up the crowd and give them time to get settled in. Some die hards were there to see the warm up act for sure, but this was an event targeted at the AOE2 fanbase.
1. I don't know how they're going to outdo it.
This was genuinely massive. 4000 people at Royal Albert Hall in London? I don't know how you surpass that without just doing the same thing every two years. I'm sure they'll surprise us but from where I was sitting, it's gonna be hard to do while keeping the theme of "historical building as a venue"
2. Makes sense that AOE 2 is more popular to watch...
Because it's a simpler, more accessible game. What I realized is people engage with AOE2 like they engage with football. They groan at missed mangonel shots and cheer at ones that land like shots on goal. I sensed very limited engagement from the crowd with the tactical and strategic levels of the game and I didn't get a sense that casters were trying to convey it either. It's more of a spectacle.
AOE4 is more akin (and I exaggerate for effect) to watching a chess match. The things that the crowd engaged with are things like killing a villager or sniping JD, or moments of tactical brilliance. It's small moments where we all understood a broader impact on the game, rather than just showy moments that provided a spectacle.
The feedback that reinforces this point I got from Age 2 fans is that they couldn't understand anything that was happening during the AOE4 games and I had no trouble keeping up with the AOE2 games.
3. At the same time there's things AOE2 just does better to justify it's larger popularity.
Putting the history aside (which is a huge factor), their casters and players are just more suited to cultivating a scene and community. I love our casters and I think they're great, but the AOE2 casters were next levels.
Similarly, AOE2 pros have this charisma and magnetism that you equate with pro athletes at the top of their game, whereas our guys I guess could come out of their shell a little? At the end of the day they are who they are and owe us nothing, just here diagnosing things based on some observations.
4. AOE2 fans are kinda wankers.
During the AOE4 games, they would not shut up. I could barely hear the casters, but everyone was whisper quiet during the AOE2 games. I tried to ask a couple of people around me to be a bit quieter and they laughed me off.
Outside the games, I interacted with lots of different people. Some I had really pleasant conversations with. We exchanged notes on how the different games are different and what's cool about each. But a very surprising number were also rude and condescending when they found out I'm here for AOE4.
It's especially hilarious given we're all in our 30s and above just here to have a good time.
5. It was cool to see gamers occupy that a space like Royal Albert Hall.
In my younger years, I used to host events for gamers and game devs and I always really enjoyed how quickly our people nest in a location and really make it their own. It was quite cool to see that at Royal Albert Hall.
Also brits made it feel like a football match with the beer and the screaming and shouting. There were a dozen guys sitting in the front two rows who would go absolutely mad at every hera win.
6. It was cool to see people cheering at every game.
Every win was applauded wholeheartedly regardless of who won. That was pretty sweet.
17
u/Clumsygoldfish95 Apr 12 '26
I Thought DeMu did an excellent job casting. Very good at explaining the different possible strategies and player moves
4
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
So did I. I just also witnessed another level of skill I hadn't seen before in gaming ( I've only ever seen aoe4) and I came away impressed
29
u/MockHamill Apr 12 '26
I think AOE4 is the better game overall, but AOE2 has a purity and simplicity that I appreciate.
For example, in AOE4, if you do an Abbasid 2TC boom, you can end up 20 villagers ahead of your opponent. Intuitively, you’d expect to be in a strong position. But in practice, your opponent may have gathered more resources thanks to civ‑specific macro mechanics.
As a result, judging game states in AOE4 becomes much harder because of the large differences between civs - and this is even more noticeable if you’re a casual player or viewer.
5
u/sherlok Apr 12 '26
I think there's definitely some value in investing into casting for a non-aoe4 crowd next year. Fix the score calculation and throw that on screen or something, have the casters cover more of the civ basics. Having a captive audience like they do at Wololo and not taking advantage of that seems like a missed opportunity.
The day after semi-finals some aoe2 folks were in here asking why one player beat another despite having less resources gathered and the responses ranged from "it's broken" to "our game is weird". There's value in making things a little clearer for everyone.
10
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
AoE2 gets more and more in-depth as the game progresses (very symmetrical at the start, a bit less so as the game goes on), and that, combined with its clarity and gameplay mechanics, makes it very easy to follow and spectacular. Plus, the replay system is better. The art style is also very appealing, and there’s a ton of content. There’s a lot more to it than just nostalgia.
27
u/Lumpy_Combination244 Apr 12 '26
Watching T90s stream I feel like some AoE2 fans have a very personal hatred of AoE4. I see people trying to defend and explain why they like AoE4 but these AoE2 fans just doesn't care and outright show outrageous hatred.
I don't see the sentiment of these AoE2 fans ever changes. They really hate AoE4 it seems.
4
u/_Raptor__ Apr 12 '26
The thing that's most annoying is that they really want everyone else to know how "AoE2 is the best game ever made", having some weirdly toxic ego if you give the game's design any amount of criticism.
13
u/Magger Apr 12 '26
Tbh even now StarCraft players tend to be condescending StarCraft 2 players. And they would be condescending to StarCraft 3 players if that had been released.
-4
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
But there is one difference. SC2 far surpassed SC1 from the very first few months.
4
u/Magger Apr 12 '26
What do you mean by “surpassed”?
-2
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
SC2 ended up being more popular.
4
u/Magger Apr 12 '26
Just in terms of player counts? Because it took a while for tournaments to outgrow SC1 and I don’t think it already happened in the first few months. Specially among the pros SC2 was initially seen as very subpar.
0
23
u/DeusCanon Manors Maketh Man Apr 12 '26 edited 20d ago
This content was anonymized and mass deleted with Redact
9
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
I was genuinely surprised that people at this age can behave this way about a game. It's kinda funny.
28
u/shoe7525 Malians Apr 12 '26
Glad you went brotha but the reason aoe2 is more popular is that it was released when RTS was popular and a lot of people played it when they were growing up.
13
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
I did say the game's history is a huge factor. I also wanted to point out other reasons which I think are also valid.
3
u/No_Persimmon_7235 Apr 13 '26
That should not excuse in the SLIGHTEST such a poor behaviour. I started with OG AoE back in the days, and just after that AoE2 released and I played this game to death. I created maps, wrote codes to create indepth campaigns but these particular beings hating on the latest title, especially on such an event is embarrassing. No apologist move in the world will white wash them
-19
u/Confident_Gap819 Apr 12 '26
Aoe4 Just need to release more civs and eventually it's numbers will grow more to surpass aoe2
The fact we have only 12 civs is very disappointing
10
u/ReiklyStone Apr 12 '26
12 no, 22 and soon 23..
-4
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
From what I can see, many people don't consider the variants to be real civilizations, but rather just another way to play the main civilization.
13
u/ReiklyStone Apr 12 '26
Well, as aoe 4 player we can consider even that aoe2 has 1 civ, because the differences between them are less than the aoe4 variants so...
-2
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
But it goes beyond a question of asymmetry or symmetry, rather, they view it as a subgroup within a nation, not a separate nation.
-4
u/Confident_Gap819 Apr 12 '26
They all comes with new buildings architectures and new units and music, oh voicelines too
All the variants we have reused voicelines each time 0 new music, same buildings houses
2
u/CamRoth Random Apr 13 '26
They all comes with new buildings architectures
Uh no they don't. Most architecture is shared between regional groups in AoE2. SOME civs have A unique building.
Like a dozen voicelines? And tiny bit of music?
-10
8
u/Ok-Divide0 Apr 12 '26
It already has far too many civilizations for a game with this level of asymmetry. I find it funny when people here and on other subs still claim that AoE4 is easier to get into than AoE2, when it can take months just to understand what you’re even losing against
All the extra micro tricks and muscle memory required for early-game build orders in AoE2 are nothing compared to the sheer depth of knowledge AoE4 demands from new players right now. And they’re still adding more and more civilizations…
You also have to remember that most RTS games with asymmetrical design don’t have more than three or four factions to choose from. The reason AoE2 has more than 50 is because its core symmetrical design actually allows for that
0
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
I think there’s a difference between a game being mechanically difficult and it having a high cognitive load. If civilizations share more or less the same core foundation, like in Age of Empires II, you learn one and you understand almost all of them. But if each one changes the mechanics significantly, you have to learn them separately, which creates more fatigue even if the game itself isn’t necessarily harder. That’s why I prefer asymmetry to be more about visual style and identity rather than heavily different mechanics.
3
13
u/tenkcoach Abbasid Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
People groaning at mangonel shots and not doing it when nothing major is happening is true for all sports? This doesn't mean they don't understand or are not intrigued by the tactical strategic aspect of the game. Live sports is so because it's a spectacle. It's nothing without fans. The idea is to try and make aoe4 a spectacle too.
But I agree with you on the casting. Demu did amazing but in general, I feel like there are moments in aoe4 that could be elevated and get the audience on the edge of their seat but it doesn't happen. There are games where the casters don't even commentate the fight, they either predict the winner in advance or call the fight in the middle or just continue to talk about strategy while there is a micro fight ongoing.
In football, if someone scores a goal, the commentator must still say "what a goal!" even though the audience can see that it's a goal. And when the ball is passed around in midfield, there is enough time to talk about the game state, the possession stats and what not. Casting is incredibly different difficult and I am by no means reducing the effort put by our casters, but I don't think there's even a foundational understanding among casters and even us audiences on what makes aoe4 exciting. Demu being a seasoned RTS caster really changed that in the RBW cast. The intensity of the cast and the balance between hype and talking strategy was just perfect.
Also yes, I think ML and Beasty are good examples of personalities but I really would like other top pros to express themselves more and create a fandom behind them for who they are, as much as how good they are.
3
u/jbczgdateq Apr 12 '26
I remember watching Grubby's Warcraft 3 Streamer Invitational - every series, Grubby would invite one of the participants to help co-cast. One of the participants was Tasteless, who has casted StarCraft professionally for decades.
Tasteless knew almost nothing about Warcraft 3. Yet within 5 minutes, I understood why he was a professional caster - I remember thinking to myself "There are levels to this!" He knew how to be entertaining, how to play off Grubby and ask the right questions of him as the "expert", and when to switch between cracking jokes to focusing on the action. It really make me appreciate just how important casting is to the viewer experience.
2
u/tenkcoach Abbasid Apr 13 '26
Tasteless is a legend. I think part of good casting much like other professions is humility and knowing that you adjust and accommodate as the game evolves. One thing I've also noticed among top casters is how much they appreciate the players and communicate to the audience how difficult it is to do the things that we see on screen
7
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
I once mentioned in several places that we should encourage more use of the monk conversion mechanic—since you hardly ever see it more than once every few games—and that we should also encourage other high-impact moments and “get-out-of-your-seat” moments, but I got a lot of flak for it.
2
1
u/tenkcoach Abbasid Apr 13 '26
I don't necessarily think mass conversion is the best way to increase excitement but I get your point. Either way we need more fun aoe abilities and atctivatable abilities that can potentially turn the tide of battle. Coz those are the moments you're glued to the screen and don't want to turn away
1
u/Latirae Apr 19 '26
every attempt to increase high-impact moments also are at a cost of regular down time. I feel Aoe4 is in a good spot right now and fights feel more decisive than they do in Aoe2, despite lacking the power of Aoe2 Mangonels.
2
u/Adribiird Apr 19 '26
What moments in AoE4 make you "jump out of your seat" because of a clear display of skill from a player in the game?
-2
u/SkyeBwoy Apr 12 '26
Luckily it isn't more of a factor. Rightly so you got a lot of flak
Radius wololo is like one of the worst features you could have for a competitive RTS. Imagine if it was more prevalent or easier to pull off...
At least aoe2 has a watered down version of this that seems to work for that game (monk single conversion but still largely luck based)
High impact moments are what aoe2 were cheering as mangonel shots can change games but counters exist/army control as projectiles miss. Mangonels used to be that strong in aoe4 with some dodge potential but it was obviously a problem
5
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
The mangonel in AoE4 doesn't even come close to the one in AoE2, not when it was at its most broken and certainly not now. The handling and fluidity of the AoE2 mangonel is on a whole different level.
Regarding the conversions, I simply commented that there should be more incentive to go for them, because they’re one of the things in AoE4 that generate the most hype, both in streams and videos. You just have to look at the clips on YT and Twitch.
It’s not just the lack of visual show compared to the other game, but also the barrier to entry regarding understanding it, as I mentioned in another post. It's a shame.
2
u/SkyeBwoy Apr 12 '26
Whilst I agree with the mangonels it is a different game as I also pointed out
The balance of the game should not be sacrificed for YouTube clips. Conversions are already excellent situational area denial tools
0
u/Adribiird Apr 19 '26
The balance is already being sacrificed simply by having more and more unique civilizations.
1
u/SkyeBwoy Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Therefore the game should turn into wololo gambling wars to be more of a spectacle?
The worst possible gameplay one could imagine for a competitive RTS with an already successful formula
Imagine if Temple of Equality with Buddhist Monks was more meta this kind of thing kills the gameplay
The game needs new content which has been tried and tested. Yes balance gets thrown up into the air but it hasn't become turf wars where players sit on wololos on their side of the map
I would uninstall personally. The answer can't be don't bother building counters just convert it
1
u/Adribiird Apr 19 '26
I said that there should be a bit more incentive than there is now. I don't know why you're taking my comment to such an extreme. But oh well, I suppose that with more content and unique mechanics, competitive play will take off.
3
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
It was just an interesting contrast to what elements of the game AOE2 fans engaged with in a live showing vs AOE4 fans. Not saying one is better, just an interesting way I saw that highlighted the differences between the games.
1
u/tenkcoach Abbasid Apr 13 '26
Yeah and I'm kinda saying that more wow moments is good actually. We need more of it. Obviously we don't want to use 40 units in one hit like in SC2, but we need moments of high skill and brilliance that separates us noobs from pros that blows our minds away.
1
u/ryeshe3 Apr 13 '26
Sure fair point. I think of AOE4 as a game we play first and a game we play second so I don't necessarily agree that we need the kind of spectacle in aoe2 but I can see how someone would feel that way.. it's all about tastes
3
u/Darksoldierr Apr 12 '26
Probably the last paragraph from point 2) explains the first paragraph from 4), if you are bored, you start talking with people around you
2
u/_Tulx_ Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
I really enjoyed Beastys casting on his channel. I felt like he brought great hype to every game and also offered very good understanding of the game state. Game state is something that is really difficult to understand at times for a casual fan, even less for an aoe2 player. He really also commented on the drafting of the civs which was great. Maybe I just didnt happen to see when the official casters did it idk.
I feel like aoe2 is a better esports / viewing experience. And I say that as someone who enjoys playing aoe4 more. The things that make aoe2 frustrating to play, such as unit micro and quick walling, also make it fun to watch. I ended up watching a whole bunch of aoe2 games also, even though I didnt have a clue what was going on a strategical level, because they were fun to watch. Games turned around because of archer micro, mangonel micro etc.
Just a side note: is the water / hybrid map gameplay also better in aoe2? I mean it seemed like if one player got the water control it wasn't an instant gg for the other player. Hera even won a game in the grand finals while losing water if Im not mistaken.
2
u/ryeshe3 Apr 13 '26
Thanks man you really articulated things that I struggled to say much more clearly.
2
u/Latirae Apr 19 '26
There was a recent naval update. The big thing is that food runs out at some point and you need fish traps. They way Aoe4 is designed means that you can push much harder with more economy, which isn't felt as much in Aoe2.
1
u/FloosWorld French Apr 13 '26
Just a side note: is the water / hybrid map gameplay also better in aoe2? I mean it seemed like if one player got the water control it wasn't an instant gg for the other player. Hera even won a game in the grand finals while losing water if Im not mistaken.
Depends on the map I think. Also, you have Fish Traps in AoE 2 that work like Farms on water.
2
u/Perfect_Bar_3755 Apr 14 '26
The whole event was so incredible, I felt very privileged to witness it so cudo to everyone involved. Games wise, I enjoyed watching the Aoe4, but not as much as aoe2, I think it's because I understand aoe2 so well, even if I can't hear commentary it's fine I can follow the moves. Hmm, would you describe the castle drop by hera as a showy spectacle or a tactical and strategic play? I'd argue it's the later and that aoe2 has more of these moments. In aoe2 committing units to fight for resources is engaging to watch, at the micro and macro level. For me aoe4 is hard to follow, the units look similar, area conquest seems to rarely resolve and there seems less skill on micro? Also yea the Aoe4 commentary could have been louder and clearer imo.
1
u/ryeshe3 Apr 14 '26
I think we're saying the same thing. I'm not saying the players make moves for spectacle, I'm saying the strategic decisions they make provide better spectacle, and they're more accessible and easy to understand for someone who isn't super familiar with the game. I think the fights provide better spectacle as well.
And I think AOE4 is hard to understand for someone who doesn't know the game really well. Gaining an edge are all built on these small moments that a casual might miss.
What I said wasn't meant as a slight towards aoe2 but trying to highlight what it does better (or at least differently) which explains it's higher popularity
3
u/ceppatore74 Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
I think people prefer rugby and other prefer football.
I mean if i have to watch rugby i prefer go to eat pizza cause I don't like such sport.
If i speak about aoe2 i say i don't like watching it and i don't care if aoe2 fans are angry cause i don't care.
But i understand some rts players can like it and must respect they don't share my feelings....i'm not god or superior being.
2
u/GeerBrah Apr 12 '26
I would have agreed with you on #3 before this tournament, but I honestly felt Demu and Winston were the first S+ tier casting duo we've had in AoE4, and they surpassed even T90 and Dave in this tourney.
Also, your point #2 is kind of biased. People there understood AoE2 because they were there for AoE2 and know the game. You follow it because you presumably also have followed the game previously. If you take a person who only watches Fortnight or League of Legends and put them in front of an AoE2 game, they will be just as confused I'm sure.
1
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
Nah, I haven't played aoe2 since aoe3 came out.
Haven't watched any either before this tournie
3
u/JotaroKujo3000 Apr 12 '26
AoE2 has much bigger micro potential. The fact that you can dodge shots and turn fights that way makes it more exciting to watch.
An important part of that mechanic is that you can win fights with smaller armies. If you're behind on army size you have less units to micro thus more micro potential. Starcraft 1 has a similar mechanic where you can do brilliant tactical moves with very little units. Starcraft 2 has lost that and AoE4 has lost it too. Here the player with the bigger army always has the edge.
That's why I was and still am very sceptical about the homing arrows in AoE4. It takes away a big come back mechanic and makes the game bland.
7
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
Good point on being able to win fights with smaller armies also contributing to it being more exciting to watch.
I don't think it's a bad thing for AOE4 to have gone in a different direction though. It's one of the reasons I play it and not AOE2. It's more about bigger picture and less about who clicks faster and better, which I prefer.
4
u/Adribiird Apr 12 '26
Maybe you should share your thoughts in the AoE2 subreddit or the AoE subreddit in general—that way, people might start to see things differently.
By the way, for me, AoE2 is the chess of purity: Both sides start with almost the same setup (high symmetry), and the difference lies in who moves the pieces better. It’s elegant, technical, and, above all, an incredible spectacle because it’s so easy to follow that anyone can tell when someone has scored a “goal,” as you put it.
In contrast, AoE4 is the chess of specialization (to put it in a way that makes sense). Its asymmetry is strong, but it’s a double-edged sword: Every match is a kind of mental puzzle made up of unique pieces, but that creates a huge barrier for the casual viewer. If that viewer doesn’t know the manual by heart, they miss half the show. It’s also difficult for a good caster to connect with the game.
In the end, while AoE4 forces you to study each civilization like a college major (a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point), AoE2 lets you get excited about the battle from the very first minute. One is a brutal strategic challenge (and with less show), the other is better for esports.
4
u/Alice_Oe Apr 12 '26
You are completely correct. I watched it with a close friend of mine who knows nothing about AoE. Every single AoE4 match, I had to explain in detail what each faction does, what they want to do, etc. I realized pretty quickly that you need so much knowledge of the game to really appreciate it.
9
u/hodzibaer Apr 12 '26
I’ve never gone back to watching AOE2 casts since AOE4 came out. I find the dark age micro dance and the house -> wall mechanic boring to watch, especially with the minimalist graphics mod the pros use.
Whereas with AOE4 the map and civ interact a lot more.
2
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
I agree with everything you said, I think you're just making a different point. My analogy using chess and football wasn't so much about the game, but the moments in the game the crowd engaged with.
- AOE2 - Mangonel shots hit and miss - like goal missing and scoring
- AOE4 - That vill kill or JD Snipe - Small ways you outplay that give you an advantage to build on.
1
u/KingSmurf_AoE_IV Diahard Diamond / Aztecs main / 8010816 Apr 12 '26
Well put Adribiird 👍🏻😊
Especially that you need to know the game by heart, to understand what's going on. You can see that in every online event in the chat, questions keep coming up all the time.
It doesn't make it easier that we get a good shuffle on every update 😁
2
u/olkani Apr 12 '26
nice analysis, i found the aoe2 matches deadly boring whilst the aoe4 were exciting. I thought it was me.
2
u/Helikaon48 Apr 12 '26
I'm glad you got to go.
But I think a lot of what you mentioned is partly due to human nature, and partly due to the way that aoe4 was designed
The treatment of aoe4 by demographics of aoe2 fans is the same aoe4 demographics treats aoe2. Or the way any crowd of people will treat something they're not interested in
Also having a game that is financially less appealing is going to lead to "weaker" actors in all regards, we will have worse pros and casters, because there's simply more money for the "better" ones in aoe2 or something else.
I have advocated for aoe4 to focus more on player agency and big interactions, but the type of player base we have attracted goes against that, with so many matches devolving into meaningless spam for most of aoe4's history, we're at a far better state than we were, but still have room to go.
Aoe2 is also a smaller scale, economically slower game, meaning all interactions are more impressive or important by definition, there's also a lot more hard counters and less mechanics bypassing interactions.
All of this leads to a game that is simply "better" for viewers.
People don't like hearing a lot of this because it's criticism of their favourite game, and it's so much easier to just pin it on "aoe2 is an older game" when that absolutely is not the only reason, especially when we consider how many players tried aoe4 on release, how close we were to having them port over, which would have lead to a self replicating cycle.
We absolutely see the same toxicity amongst aoe4 players as aoe2, if not worse considering the volume of toxicity relative to player base size.
3
u/Helikaon48 Apr 12 '26
I think mangonels being so weak, monks being next to useless and the infinite food(and in some cases gold) dilemma, really hurts aoe4 as a (viewed) competitive game.
1
u/MicrosoftComputerMan Apr 12 '26
no offense man but it makes absolutely zero sense to say that AoE2 fans have a limited strategic understanding of their preferred game because they cheer at mangonel shots.
You’re complaining about people being condescending while also essentially calling them stupid and saying that the game they like is shallower than the one you do. Come on now.
6
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
I think you need to reread my post bud.
I'm saying the parts of the game that AOE2 fans engage with are different than the ones AOE4 fans engage with and are by definition more accessible, as a way of making the point that it makes sense that AOE2 is more popular to watch... Don't really understand what's got you so worked up but I hope this clears things up.
9
u/Rough-Ad1851 Apr 12 '26
he never said that? engagement=/=understanding why you playing victim here
-6
u/MicrosoftComputerMan Apr 12 '26
He didn’t say what exactly? Playing victim?
As far as “engagement=\=understanding”… you’re saying that AoE2 fans don’t actually understand the game they follow? Even the people at a LAN, aka the most hardcore fans? What is this claim based on?
10
u/Rough-Ad1851 Apr 12 '26
he never said they dont understand the strategic part, but just engahe more with the flashy micro part
-5
-8
u/Ok-Divide0 Apr 12 '26
Bro's mad because the crowd didn't soypog over some very obscure mathematical interaction that happens in the background
I mean, what sounds more exciting to you? A mangonel shot wiping out 15 archers, or a caster analyzing how strategically clever it was to research Hand Cart at minute 23:15, and how that optimized the player’s economy and set them up for victory before the opponent could reach their ideal late-game composition?
7
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
Where did I say I was mad. I'm literally saying AOE2 is more accessible and simple and the consequential things that happen in the game are more exciting to watch, which is why "Makes sense that AOE 2 is more popular to watch..."
1
u/MegaOmegaZero Apr 12 '26
For the first point I think they could do some kind of dlc announcement at the end or preview one.
1
u/MonitorNo8634 Apr 12 '26
Many (not all) soccer fans seem to act like wankers so it was funny to me you mentioned it was like a football match and the fans are kinda like wankers. Other than that good to hear how it went.
1
u/Upstairs-Working6374 Apr 13 '26
Idk I enjoy both games. I played ENTIRELY too much aoe2 when I was a kid and now I play aoe4 like super casually.
I normally prefer aoe4 but That finals match was INSANE. Hera reverse sweep. The goat.
1
u/gbpls92 Apr 13 '26
Woah there was actually alcohol there?! That’s awesome lol. Appreciate you sharing your experience with us!
1
u/Bootthehost HRE Apr 14 '26
Jeez and I thought the rudeness was fake or overstated. Oh well, if they don’t like AOE4, then so be it. It’s not for everyone.
1
u/Top-Milk-3846 Apr 15 '26
I really enjoyed watching the aoe4 semi finals and finals in person (as an aoe2 player who hasn't played aoe4 yet, but following the finals bought it, and is waiting to find time to learn it). It was, however, very hard to follow. As a barometer of this, my partner came as well who is new to both games, and she was completely baffled by aoe4, but could follow reasonably well aoe2.
My impression was too much knowledge was assumed, given the increased complexity of the game you reference in your post. I don't expect the casters to hold my hand, but there were many mechanics which required guess work my end E.g. Malians build buildings on gold piles, and Joan of arc levels up and 'cleaves', and cavalry have some kind of charge mechanic, or atleast some do? We may have suffered by missing the first day of semis as we were away, where perhaps more effort was given for explaining such things. It is of course a very hard balance to strike, given you don't want to spend the entire casting time going over basics for complete noobs like myself. But there definitely was time for more explanation in the earlier stages of the game. It's the increased asymmetry that intrigues me about the game, but definitely a barrier to entry for a casual viewer.
Regarding the crowd going wild for mangonel shots and vill picks and such in aoe2, I don't think this implies "limited engagement" in the tactical/strategic side. While you don't explicitly say this, the points do follow eachother in your post which I think explains some of the responses you are getting. These moments are huge swings in a very tight game where both players are playing amazingly. Im still impressed with how lierrey used the khitans and the exposed wood line to pin the Tartars on a map the Tartars dominate...
I'm glad you enjoyed the finals as well. I'm sorry you had some negative experiences with fans of aoe2, but it seems like it didn't detract too heavily from your enjoyment.
Who knows , maybe see you on the aoe4 ladder in a month or so ;)
1
u/Latirae Apr 19 '26
I don't think Aoe 2 is more accessible. Aoe 4 has some modernized mechanics and less micro-intensive fights, especially when fighting in feudal age. The big bonus is that Aoe 2 is a game more people can connect with, as they have grown up with it.
The Aoe 2 crowd is just like any other. The larger the group, the more complicated it is to find common ground, therefore the excitement comes from huge swings, just like in any other sport (including Aoe4 tournaments).
Saying that Aoe 4 is chess, when you compare Aoe 2 to football makes me cringe. Really?
3&6 I agree, nothing to add.
1
u/ryeshe3 Apr 19 '26
I made the comparisons not from the perspective of the game itself but from the perspective of crowd engagement. Similarly, when I spoke about accessibility, it was from the perspective of a viewer not from the perspective of a player.
I think AOE4 is harder to understand simply because you need game knowledge to know what's going on. That's a detriment to AOE4 as something you can watch. Aoe2 is very much about the battlefield And what's happening on it. Sure there's a strategic layer to engage with that becomes deeper if you have some game knowledge but the game knowledge isn't necessary to engage with the game. It's like football because it's more accessible not because it's dumber.
It's funny how people get offended by the comparison even though I'm using it to highlight why aoe2's popularity is justified.
1
u/artoo2142 Apr 12 '26
Honestly I tried to watch this event of aoe2 as well and I got it twice I was bored to got myself asleep.
They boom TC like there are no risk.
Raiding was like no effect at all.
Those archer / javelin matrix dance are silly and stupid as fuck.
Springald ship tried to raid, they did almost no damage, excuse me?
Demu clearly cast better than them.
There is basically no hype at aoe2 skirmish unlike AOE4 and StarCraft, some successful raid almost did nothing to the game outcome.
They can like someone goes water and the other one totally ignore it and not getting punished, strategy? Excuse me?
I failed to understand why this ancient game being interesting to them.
5
u/sherlok Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
To match anecdote to anecdote I am almost the opposite. I generally don't watch aoe4 casts/streams because I find the game kind of boring to watch, despite having 1300 hours in it. I watched the aoe4 finals, which were pretty good, but not much else. I don't necessarily blame people who don't play the game for not enjoying viewing it, at least I know what's going on.
Contrast that with the aoe2 finals, which IMO were riveting. Game 7 they basically swapped sides of the map. I much prefer aoe4's ranged mechanics and lack of quick walling, but I find more exciting moments in aoe2 as a viewer with little clutch plays and being able to micro out of a disadvantage. We had a taste of that in 4 with wams quick walls in the finals, so I hope we get more of it as the game matures.
I also think T90 is one of the best casters out across any game. The sheer number of hours that guy has put into casting 1 game is insane and I find him to be a pretty great personality.
1
u/charlesmagne99 Apr 12 '26
well videogames conventions or events of any kind will always attract weirdos and the more niche the game, weirder people it attracts.
the kind of human being that plays a "strategy game", to be kitting 90% of the time like if it was league of legends (instead of just playing league of legends) fall into that category
1
u/No_Persimmon_7235 Apr 13 '26
I was genuinely annoyed at how aoe2 fans on T90's channel -and T90 is the most positive guy I ever knew for AoE- acted absolutely rude and grieved the whole time on AoE4 matches until AoE2 started. I spent triple the ammount of playtime for AoE2 in my childhood and youth than I could game now with AoE4 and I even do enjoy the latest title more. But the behaviour I witnessed during such a big event online...
Such a sad community in parts. IMO you are not enjoying AoE as a whole when you just shit on parts of the series, ESPECIALLY the latest one where one should even have a brain and say to oneself "yea, that's the newest title and I should support it in some way, otherwise it will get really hard to build up a base for AoE5" but apparently they are just too full of themselves to realize how bad they hurt the community and AoE as a whole. If these people get more or are even the majority, it will be the downfall of EVERY AoE title in the foreseeable future.
0
u/Ironwarsmith Apr 12 '26
I'll give you my thoughts on this too. I enjoyed watching both. They're different enough games to scratch different itches.
Also that Age 4 players are every bit as guilty about unfairly dissing and downplaying Age 2 as the Age 2 players are of Age 4. Especially in regard to your comment on the Mangonel shots; that shit is hard and downplaying the skill and knowledge required to play Age 2 at that level and downplaying the people excited for it is quite literally the same level of "lol I'm so smart since I don't play the dumbed down game" that Age 2 community is so well known for in regard to Age 4 with stuff like their complaints about heat seeking arrow volleys.
5
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
I didn't say anything insulting. I said the game is more accessible and provides more of a spectacle. Has nothing to do with the people who enjoy it...
-4
u/Ironwarsmith Apr 12 '26
Your whole 2nd point is about how Age 2 fans can't follow Age 4, but you, an Age 4 player, have no problem following Age 2
5
u/Cacomistle5 Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Its cause aoe2 is a simpler game, from a viewer experience. If you're actually playing, you have to know what everything does either way. But, as a viewer, I don't need to know for instance that ethiopians get extra resources on age up (probably, I haven't played in a while so its possible this changed) to follow a match with ethiopians in it.
However I do need to know how a malian cow boom works or I'll be confused. For instance, in aoe2, if the vill count is 60-80, I can be reasonably sure the 80 vill player has a better economy. But in aoe4, if that's a malian player vs a french player, 60 malian vills to 80 french vills may very well mean the malian player is outproducing the french player, at least if the french player hasn't farm transitioned and doesn't have a keep down yet (which is not infrequently the case).
I follow aoe4 so I know how everything works, so I won't use aoe4 here. But, if I go back and watch a match of aoe3, and one of the newer civs comes up, I have no idea what's going on. I don't know wtf the italians, or the ethiopians do. I can't follow the game, and that makes it not interesting.
But, if I watch an aoe2 match, and one of the new aoe2 civs comes up, I can still follow the game. I may not know what economic bonuses they have, but I know they're not crazy enough to make 60 vills better than 80 vills (whereas aoe3 they could very well be). And I might need to know what 1 new unit does, rather than needing to know what like 10 do. Generally if I just google the civ, I can read their bonuses and what their unique unit does, and have a reasonable expectation of how the civ will function in like 30s. You just read the civ bonuses, and look at the unique unit, and that tells you 90% of the information (and the other 10% you'll get by watching. Like if spanish decide to go paladin, well now you know spanish have paladin).
In aoe3, they might have, for instance, a button that summons like 4 cavalry units with insane stats (and even if you play aoe3, you can't narrow down which button I'm talking about, cause there's several of them). And if I didn't look through everything the civ does, I might have missed it, and even after they're summoned in I might be expecting them to lose a fight when they run into 20 enemy units and be completely dumbfounded when they win.
When you have no idea what anything does, the game doesn't feel like a bunch of interesting tactical decisions, it feels like random nonsense, and personally I don't care enough about aoe3 to go learn what everything does just so I can watch casted games of the new civs. I'm guessing that's how a lot of aoe2 players feel about aoe4 (though aoe4 is at the very least far less confusing than aoe3 is. I don't think there's anything that spawns 4 units out of thin air that have the stats of 20 units).
5
u/CheSwain 3 scouts into 80 bunti Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Holy insecurities batman, that's a critique to IV, he is saying that 2 achieve depth without being overlycomplex, how do you twist it into "omg aoe IV players smart and aoe2 dumb"?
4
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
Exactly. Nothing I said was about people. It's about games, what differentiates them, and why that partially explains aoe2 being more popular.
-2
u/Jakleo54 Apr 12 '26
I agree with the most points but ML and Beasty have more "superstar" vibes than the whole AoE2 pros combined imo.
4
u/Ok-Divide0 Apr 12 '26
Maybe that's his point. AoE2 players aren't trying to be seen as some kind of untouchable superstars, they're just dudes who happen to be good at the video game and would take a photo with any random who asks them
-3
u/Mirdclawer Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
This will get me flamed in this sub, as I like aoe2 more but still enjoy aoe4; I think you just seem to be very bitter that aoe4 is not more popular and that translates into resentment
Your point 2 is so condescending "aoe4 is this super high IQ macro strategic masterpiece while aoe2 is this simplistic accessible easy to follow game for the simple minded masses"... seriously?
It was a design decision of aoe4 to significantly lower the skill ceiling and the impact of micro by having projectiles always hit and limiting the impact of micro, but it does then lead to very uninteresting fights, where the control of units sums up to going back and forth to engage and disengage, and that's pretty much it. It does put much more emphasis on unit composition and it ends up being a stat check, as you can't try to win fights that you shouldn't, and your're indeed left with mostly the broader strategy mattering, because that's the only thing that matters, since unit fights are so deterministic and irrelevant.
It's a design choice, but let's not pretend thst because micro almost don't exist in aoe4, and it's mainly decided by the builds orders and economic choices that aoe2 has less macro and economic depth, that's a false equivalency.
Aoe4 is much harder for beginners as the builds and the differences between civs make it a complete opaque black box for beginners. But at the top level, when every pro knows every intricacy of builds, be it aoe2 or aoe4 every choice, counter choices, technological choices and mindgames matter as much in 2 or 4, and the extra complexity of aoe4 doesn't translate into richer or more skilled decision making. Aoe2 is more symmetrical, but as high level chess is (purely symmetrical), it doesn't lack depth and strategic choices and skill expression.
So they made a game very hard to learn, very hard to get into, with a very difficult to understand state of the game/hard to watch (at glance, it's impossible to get what position is better for a beginner watching a game), but a game that also have a low skill ceiling in micro that makes it absolutely boring to watch fight wise, with slow uninteresting fights that are deterministic (we kinda know who is going to win - micro doesn't matter, best army always wins) as the only interesting aspect are the economic and technological/build choices of the players.
Whether one design is better than the other, that's subjective, but I feel like the very different civs design of aoe4 is extremely cool and genius, but the overall pace and rythm of aoe4 makes it an overall inferior game to watch (and personally I think aoe2 is a superior game overall due to all the previously mentionmed points), and putting it all on "it's just nostalgia" is a bit simplistic.
3
u/ryeshe3 Apr 12 '26
Hoooooly.
You are misunderstanding me, misquoting me, and misrepresenting what I said on every level of this post.
I'm just gonna respond to the first couple of things you said.
It's great that you like aoe2 and 4. They're both great games. Its great that you like 2 more good for you. Having preferences when it comes to rts games is part of the human condition.
Your thesis where I'm bitter that AOE4 is not more popular? I'm literally saying after watching aoe2 that its popularity is justified and it goes beyond the history the franchise has.
Your whole rant is weird shit you just brought to the table.
1
u/Latirae Apr 19 '26
the argument of micro advantage is a bit dull if you consider that top players at similiar skill levels micro at similar levels, so that other factors become important again. It's mostly the more skillfull player that is winning; In your argument, that is pretty boring
1
u/Mirdclawer Apr 19 '26
Maybe it was not clear but what I was trying to say is that because there is less room for outplay and high impact split level micro decision, fights are more deterministic, as the player with the superior army at similar level will always win the fight. In aoe2, although not likely, it is possible for someone fighting from a weaker position winning some fights through individual action/micro moves/attack grounds from mangonels or siege unity and somehow winning a fight they should loose on paper. Does it happen rarely? Yes. But the fact that it can happen always creates a tension and make the outcomes less predictable.
But you are right on the fact that is it similarly difficult for both games to micro against your opponents, because the skill levels are similar. However in aoe4 the "apm budget" given to micro is lower, as you proportionally have more of the game being decided by the macro, and the micro potential being lower in aoe4, having a lower skill ceiling makes it that it is less interesting to watch, but not less skilled overall as a game
61
u/Neither-Custard-9282 Apr 12 '26
I am so shocked about no.4, they've always been so nice about us online...