6 votes

Age of Empires IV - The IGN Review

7 comments

  1. [2]
    Venko
    Link
    I'm really impressed by their min-spec mode. They designed the game to be playable on old integrated graphics such as Intel HD 520 (sixth generation Intel CPUs). I built my gaming PC six years ago...

    I'm really impressed by their min-spec mode. They designed the game to be playable on old integrated graphics such as Intel HD 520 (sixth generation Intel CPUs).

    I built my gaming PC six years ago and, because of the chips shortage, I've not been able to replace it yet. That my computer almost meets the recommended specs is great.

    6 votes
    1. PapaNachos
      Link Parent
      Yeah, I'm in a similar situation. My computer is getting up in years and I haven't been able to upgrade it, but aside from long load time AoE 4 runs super smooth.

      Yeah, I'm in a similar situation. My computer is getting up in years and I haven't been able to upgrade it, but aside from long load time AoE 4 runs super smooth.

      2 votes
  2. [2]
    NaraVara
    Link
    Another, much more detailed review. This one is much more focused on the campaign.

    Another, much more detailed review. This one is much more focused on the campaign.

    4 votes
    1. PapaNachos
      Link Parent
      I've only played the first campaign, but I've been playing some skirmishes and comp stomping with a friend. I would say this review is very on point in terms of both strengths and weaknesses. As...

      I've only played the first campaign, but I've been playing some skirmishes and comp stomping with a friend. I would say this review is very on point in terms of both strengths and weaknesses.

      As far as I can tell (without being able to watch a replay) the AI does actually care about resources and workers in real matches. The reviewer was correct that the AI doesn't really have an economy in the campaign missions, but I think that's mostly just a kludge for the fact that having a full economy for campaign missions wouldn't really make sense and would cause a lot of new problems IMO.

      But yeah, the AI definitely needs some patches. And oh god the villager thing is real. I've been playing a fair amount and couldn't tell which was which.

      2 votes
  3. [3]
    NaraVara
    Link
    So it's not out on Macs so I can't play until Parallels starts running natively on Apple Silicon. But initial review seems good despite some features (map editor) still in the works. I am eagerly...

    So it's not out on Macs so I can't play until Parallels starts running natively on Apple Silicon. But initial review seems good despite some features (map editor) still in the works.

    I am eagerly anticipating a resurgence of the strategy/RTS genre honestly. It's been stagnating too long under the shadow of Starcraft 2 and Brood War.

    2 votes
    1. [2]
      nacho
      Link Parent
      I just hope new strategy games realize the complexity and effort required for modern player-v-player balancing. Secondly, I really hope the new strategy games don't rely as heavily on high APM to...

      I just hope new strategy games realize the complexity and effort required for modern player-v-player balancing.

      Secondly, I really hope the new strategy games don't rely as heavily on high APM to succeed. Rather that players have to have good strategy, without long forced build orders to start games.

      RTS games are way harder to make and maintain than, say, shooters or MOBA-style games.

      2 votes
      1. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        High APM is actually not a huge differentiator of skill in a game like Starcraft. What people perceive as an APM difference is actually a "know what to do in this situation" difference. This...

        High APM is actually not a huge differentiator of skill in a game like Starcraft. What people perceive as an APM difference is actually a "know what to do in this situation" difference. This manifests as an APM difference because you execute commands faster and more comfortably if you know what you're doing than if you're trying to figure it out in the moment.

        The pro-gamer level, where you're doing stuff in 4 different places around the map, definitely requires high APM to hang but most players are simply never going to be at a level of play where it matters. Needing to know what to do, when, is the real differentiator.

        Where the next generation of RTS games will seek to differ is in trying to ensure that all of your actions are tied to meaningful choices with strategic implications, even if they're small. Getting rid of "busy-work" actions reduces barriers to entry and will generally just make the game more fun. There's also a lot of little stuff in Starcraft 2 that are blamed on APM but are actually more like a problem of high "lethality." Like Banelings will melt a ball of Terran bio in an instant. Huge parts of PvT or PvZ matchups in the late game can revolve around who has a faster trigger finger in casting a critical ability that sets the direction of an entire engagement. This isn't an APM thing specifically because the difference is really just of one action, it's more of a reflex/execution thing. But it's not fun and it makes the game kind of stressful to play and boring to watch. Reducing lethality and unit speed so there is more scope for player skill to come out would help a great deal. A lot of Starcraft 2 at the highest levels can boil down to a single mistake costing a player an entire game because it's either a high stakes game, a build order loss, or it just snowballs in a way that's impossible to come back from at high levels. Making space for people to make more mistakes without those mistakes being game ending will allow matches to feel like they have more ebb and flow, with the initiative changing hands between players, rather than simply being a lot of dancing around each other until someone slips and loses.

        8 votes