Reply With QuoteMust. Resist. Urge, too strong.Originally Posted by Tom Chick
Right. I'm the one drama queening up the thread. I'm perfectly capable of having a conversation in which I disagree with someone without resorting to hyperbole or snark. You should try it some time.
I actually play and enjoy two games that go by the moniker, so you're going to have to be more specific.
-Tom
Must. Resist. Urge, too strong.
Those are awesome!
By the way, I really like the graphics. I think they've done a great job one-upping Blizzard's traditional cartoony approach. I even like the basic gameplay and how it's a throwback to Age II! Well, I would if I could access it without having to pay the time tax. I can imagine, several months down the road, when Age Online has four factions and hopefully some way around the grind, it might feel like a full-featured RTS.
-Tom
Go ahead, get in here. I meant it when I said it was the worst thing to happen to RTSs in a long time. Nothing I've said is hyperbole, and I don't think I'm being any more snarky than anyone else in here. I'm glad to hear from folks who are enjoying the game, and I'm grateful that Steve is participating in the discussion. But I don't see how having a strongly held opinion is necessarily a liability to having a conversation.
On the other hand, Wolff's comment about "[belittling] other people's opinion with cute analogies and righteous fury" is absurd. It's exactly the sort of thing that will make sure no discussion takes place. I fail to see where I've belittled anyone's opinion, I don't think my analogy is particularly cute, and "righteous fury" is one of those typical internet dismissals along the lines of "try decaf" or "it's just a game".
-Tom
Well the missions and leveling up are kind of fun, at least in terms of itching the mmo/rpg itch. The actual rts gameplay is quite lame if you look at it in isolation. The business case seems great to me -lots of people who wouldn't pay you for an rts will pay you for aoeo and never know they're not really playing a full rts. But if they have fun doing that, that's great.
I do think it is fun so far, though I still think the value for your money vs other FTP games is not very good. But consider that most recent FTP games started as pay so they already recuperated their initial investment whereas aoeo has to start with nothing and probably needs to charge more.
Your perfectly capable of having a polite conversation as long as everyone is lock step in with your opinion. Otherwise our enjoyment gets compared to playing chess with pawns...or that we are mindlessly "grinding" through nongame for no reason and by extension our opinons don't have merit.
I was referring to starcraft 2 - for the reason that you have been very forthcoming with your opinion of AoEO and haven't really heard your opinon on the core gameplay of SC2. With the hopes that it would help me understand where your RTS critique is coming form, since StarCraft 2 is a game I am very familiar with.
*edit
Sorry if righteous fury came on too strong - I fail at sarcasm - I imagine you aren't raging as you type
Like I said, I don't know how long it took, but I'd love to find out. And in a way, it's a bit of a moot point, since you can't deny the mandatory time sink is a huge part of the game's design. Whether it's ten hours, twenty hours, or thirty hours, it's a fundamental part of Age Online's design, and I think it damages the experience that a lot of us want in an RTS.
It doesn't have to be. For instance, I've spent a lot of time grinding loot boxes in Lost Planet 2 and I've loved every minute of it. But I still use the word "grind". But if you're comfortable with another word, I'd love to know what term you guys use internally.
-Tom
Come on, really? I'd argue that's a "you" problem. I wouldn't be here typing my own opinion back-and-forth with other people if I didn't think other opinions had merit. And I have always been keenly aware that my own personal criticisms might not bother others. You're being as unfairly dismissive of me and you accuse me of being to you.
I actually did know that, so you can chalk it up to snark. :) I was quite fond of Starcraft II and I've written a whole mess of stuff on it. You can start with the review I did for Gameshark if you're interested, and there's been plenty of stuff on the front page as well. However, I personally prefer the generosity, imagination, pacing, and accessibility of the other SC2 to Starcraft's terrible single-player campaign and e-sports approach to multiplayer.
-Tom
At least this is one mmo (2player mmo?) that doesn't hide the fact that the whole point of leveling up is PVP, something that annoys a good chunk of people in other games.
Agreed 100%. However, I'd argue that scratching the MMO/RPG itch with an actual MMO or RPG is generally a better way to do it. :)
-Tom
The fun factor is diminishing based on the grind. I'm now playing almost exclusively to open all the tech tree and units. With it's measly three points for each level upgrade. Since each additional level takes considerably longer due to the additional XP required for the next level, and the fact that I'm repeating most missions that I played before, it's now mostly boring and a grind.
I'd would have preferred it if the level-up points were rewarded thusly:
Level 0-10 you get the current 3 points.
Level 10-20 you get 5
Level 20-30 you get 7
Level 30-40 you get 9.
The highest experience I can get for finishing a mission that is available to me now, is, I think, around 39,000. That means to reach my next level (156,000XP needed) I would have to replay that mission four times. Except that mission is not replayable, and those that are, I think, require a 12 hour recharge. So I'd have to do several earlier missions that only give 10,000-25,000XP each. Even in rush mode at 40 minutes a level, that's 8-10 hours - for one level-up. The next level-up will require even more XP. I think I know when I'm grinding. If the game is not at least, partly, designed to grind what do you expect people to keep doing? I want to have all the technology items unlocked. I'm going to do it. It's gonna take time. Based on how much I already played to reach level 25, things will only take longer from here. Much longer, as each additional level will require substantially more XP. It is so by design.
Well, ya, true. I wish I knew more about CoHO to see how their approach compared, at least before they canned it.
So reaching out to millions of potential new RTS players is the worst thing to ever happen to RTSs?
There was talk, somewhat self reassuring, about how healthy the RTS genre is, but i don't believe it. RTS at this point equal Starcraft 2 +, maybe, League of Legends if you believe its supporters. The old halcyon days of RTS games are long over; and not because they stopped making them, but because we stopped buying them. Complaining about RTSs becoming a Facebook game is like a hardcore Pogs player complaining about Magic the Gathering (well, close enough, anyway ^^). RTS has to evolve to say relevant, unless you want a bunch of grumpy 50 year olds on some purple themed forum be the only people on the internet debating the opening build orders of some indie Age of Empires clone.
CoH:O fell into the trap of letting Paid players have a significant advantage over F2P players. Predictably, it failed.
Ouch. That's just painful to read that breakdown. I'd honestly love to know what data they have about how long it takes most players to do things.
Part of the problem with Age Online is that the gameplay doesn't pace very well. It's an economics-based RTS with a lot of finicky peon management/optimization. The early stages are repetitive and, after several matches in a row, uninteresting. Consider how Age III made the opening moves interesting with the explorer and the treasures, and the earliest cards from your home city. Or how quickly a Starcraft match unfolds into the decision to rush, boom, or turtle, with important decisions about scouting and building order. Or how you're soon you're making important decisions in Supreme Commander 2's tech tree.
There's no analog for these early-game interesting decisions in Age Online and it makes the grind more tedious.
-Tom
I'll answer this even though it's a disingenuous way to ask it.
My point is that subverting a fundamental part of what makes an RTS -- the choice of factions, the flexibility of strategies during a game, the varied content, the generous spread of toy soldiers on a cute little battlefield, the exciting sense of possibility before every match -- is the worst thing to happen to RTSs in a long time. That's my observation about Age of Empires Online.
Why do you look at it as reaching out to millions of potential new RTS players? Because I don't see that happening. If Age Online is supposed to attract people who don't play RTSs, it's got a whole other set of problems: the gameplay is tactically intricate, the economy is a throwback to the peon management that's fallen out of favor, the rewards are predicated on caring about tiny numbers, the sense of progression is slow and drawn-out, the comparative advantages for time spent will feel unfair to many players in PvP, the PvP community is probably going to be pretty insular after a while, and so on. I think those are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed before these potential millions of new fans start getting converted to the genre.
-Tom
So what exactly was the point of saying it took you 30 hours to reach Age 3, or saying, "But I guarantee you that if those things were in the game, you wouldn't have them until you've done about 50 hours of grinding?" One is hyperbole and the other is snark.
Steve, I'm guessing it took me 30 hours to reach age III. It's a guess, since I don't have any way to check in the game. And based on that figure, the endgame features Rachel asked for ASAP would easily take 50 hours. No hyperbole or snark intended. That's an important part of how the game is designed and an important part of why I don't like it.
-Tom
Oh, and look what just showed up.
-Tom
Does anyone have a sense of how this will play out in aoeo? My feeling as a free player so far is that you will be playing with a gimped deck even if you make it through the probably slower leveling game. Which is fine because people have to be rewarded for paying real money.
Or are you suggesting that a skilled rts player who didn't pay in coho wasn't competitive with an okay rts player who played?
Good reviews.
It's hyperbole, since the actual number is likely less than a third of that (or lower depending on player skill).
And nice snark on the "oh, and look at what showed up." Is there any precedent for you gleefully linking to a 1-star review while discussing the same game with one of its designers on your forum? You really are a classy guy.
I'm still having fun, about to hit 32. But I can see where Tom is coming from with the feeling of grinding, the first 10 minutes of almost every mission (with exception to the challenges) plays out the exact same way. Getting better equipment and leveling up has helped ease the repetitive nature of the game, but I can only play a few missions at a time before I have to play something else.
No snark or glee intended. I take no pleasure in not liking the game, particularly since I'm hugely fond of both developers. It really was a matter of odd timing. I submitted the review over a week ago and have been mostly holding my tongue waiting for it to post. Which happened just as I stopped holding my tongue.
Look, I apologize for any snark or hyberbole that may have offended you. I promise I didn't intend to offend you, or anyone who's enjoying the game. But if you want to actually discuss the game, like you say you do, there's plenty of stuff to discuss here beyond me guessing how long it took to unlock age III.
-Tom
I dunno, is competative multiplayer the main focus of this game or is the single player and cooperative play the focus of this game?
From playing it a bit, and from reading here about deeper in the game, it looks like they are focussing on single player, with a bit of a sop towards pvp at longer term players.
IMHO if you wanted to go for a more multiplayer focused approach, you would prolly:
- allow ranked matches for free
- allow players to use all the sides for free
- give xp for multiplayer performance
- have the player spend money or xp on upgrades to the side
-- ie, you only start out with minimal units, you have to buy more units, and improve the units you already have.
This is essentially the model that LoL uses, and it's working pretty well for them.
(oh and I should add that I am not necessarily saying that AOEO should do this, just that it would have been a different way to design it (or indeed any other f2p RTS))
Last edited by Factory; 08-24-2011 at 08:34 PM. Reason: blahblah blah..
From what I can gather AoE:Online is primarily a single player (or extremely limited co-op) experience against the AI, with multiplayer games hidden behind a ton of grind (lvl 25 iirc?).
CoH:Online was a multiplayer RTS from the get go but unfortunately if you were matched against a paying player as a F2P player it was pretty much a guaranteed loss, regardless of player skill. At least that was the impression I got from the people that played it.
Steve, are you actually for real? I mean I can kind of understand where you are coming from, you obviously care a lot about this game (and no-one can blame you for that) but you and Tom are both locking horns and not paying attention to what the other person is saying, but rather focusing on *how* they are saying it.
Nobody cares the exact specific number of hours an "average" player takes to unlock Age III (And I'd be very careful about swinging that phrase around, especially as a direct counter to specific people's experiences). What matters is the fact it is hidden behind "a grind" by game design. You nitpicking the amount doesn't really help anyone learn anything tbh. Tom is annoyed by the fact he is basically playing a gimped demo of what defines an AoE game until he has sunk whatever arbitrary amount of hours you have decided is enough to finally unlock your actual game. If that's your model (and it is), that's fine. But be proud of it and don't try to make excuses for what isn't there.
Tom, I think you need to relax a little bit. I know you were looking forward to this game a lot and had some expectations. It's obviously not for you, but I think even you can agree that it will most likely do very well in the casual market it is aimed at.
Last edited by McKnight; 08-24-2011 at 08:36 PM.
Well, I actually feel pretty relaxed, so relax yourself! :) This is a conversation I've been wanting to have for a while now, because I feel strongly about it. I'd love to hear more from the developers and the fans of the game.
I'm not sure how you figure this is a matter of my expectations, though. I wasn't looking forward to Age Online any more than I look forward to any RTS. And I had some misgivings about the business model. I was pretty guarded about the whole concept, and I ended up disliking it a lot more than I thought I would, but for entirely different reasons.
You say it's obviously not for me, but I don't know how you figure that. I love RTSs. Isn't this game for people who love RTSs?
As for being aimed at the casual market, as I said, I think that raises a whole other set of problems. Why do you think it will do well? The branding? The MMO model? I suck at predictions, but I would guess it won't do well among non-RTS (i.e. casual) players. Sure, it'll sustain itself, but I don't see it winning over any new converts.
-Tom
I don't know, it's primarily based around single player which a huge section of the RTS playerbase only ever play (doubly so for casual players). It folds things out gradually, nobody is going to be overwhelmed by choice and getting a new unit actually feels like a big achievement. Combined with everything else that MMOs do in order to retain players, such as loot, etc I certainly don't see any reason why it wouldn't do well. It certainly has less grind then conventional, non-RTS MMOs. Of course I have no idea as to what the end-game is going to look like or what their model is for retaining players once they have unlocked everything, I guess PvP? Kind of goes against the rest of the model though.
I don't think this game is aimed at people who are hardcore RTS fans, at least not in the sense that you or I might like it. A few people have said it, but it probably doesn't hurt to much to restate it. There's no point in trying to compete with the likes of SC2, etc in any kind of real sense. They are only right in looking to carve out a nook elsewhere in the market, away from serious and competitive RTS games. Unfortunately this has the side effect of creating a game that is quite offputting to a connoisseur of the genre like yourself. Still, I'd be much happier pointing my (non-rts/non-pc gaming) friends towards this then anything else that has recently been released in the genre.
Oh and I'm sorry I pegged you so wrong, I was basing my tidbit about you on the GDC panel that only recently got released to the public. You seemed pretty excited about it at that time, apologies if I read you wrong.
-edit- Also as a caveat, I have an extremely limited experience with the game. Most of what I am basing my posts on is anecdotal from various sources. I wasn't planning on getting so involved in the conversation (and so now feel pretty guilty if I don't share that fact), I blame the 2 glasses of wine :)
Last edited by McKnight; 08-24-2011 at 09:17 PM.
Yes, clearly the tale on your homepage of how it's now the "the worst real time strategy game ever made" wasn't intended to be snarky or gleeful.
The only reason I'm dwelling on the 30 hour thing is that it's such a profoundly beyond-the-norm number. You can say "it's just a guess" all you want, but when the actual numbers from hundreds of thousands of players is so much lower--like by 5 or 6 times--ugh. While knowing you spent 4, 15, or 30 hours may not invalidate any of your primary criticisms, your insistence on publicly, and repeatedly, making the game out to be an even bigger grind than it actually is makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful discussion on any aspect of the design.
I had a bit post, but ... nah.
What you need is to compare it with Farmville and ask Soren Johnson about Facebook game design. They are different markets with different design goals. Facebook games need to be casual enough, and slow enough, to work as "browser behind the work window" games, and not things that take up every moment of your attention. Otherwise, you wouldn't be gaming on Facebook.
Posting Permissions