here's the link for if anyone wants to check it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVx3dPflEsE&ab_channel=Xbox
One of the worst IGN videos ever made, they picked the wrong dude for the job on this one.
He was comparing aoe to total war and complaining why aoe doesn't have total war mechanics...
Ah yea IGN Reviewing a car but saying its a 3/10 bike.
Well u cant feel the air quiet as good as in the bike, makes sense ahem ahem.
As a Total War fan, I remember that Warhammer review where they lamented it was not like AoE. I guess, welcome to the club.
lol. Is this really true? That's hilarious.
Yeah. We know understand the pattern that IGN uses, and it's related to genre. RTS games: AoE and Total War. There are several IGN reviews of RTS that are LITERALLY copy paste
They think any RTS is the same so they review all of them as the same thing, its like comparing Cats to Lions: They all belong to the Felidae family but one will kill you.
This is all so dumb. Total war isn't even an RTS since the strategy part isn't in real-time. Total War a real-time tactics game (RTT), a genre that is just as old as RTS and that Total War has been a key part of evolving over the years.
They don’t like to have serious fans review games because of the possibility of nostalgia clouding judgment. They want to get reviews from tangential fan bases and gauge new player reactions.
How the turn tables!
IGN is good for one thing, getting news on games, movies and tv shows. But their reviews are questionable at best. In fact I personally haven't used them as a news source for a while anymore, because even what they are best at, there are others that do it better.
It's not even due to any particular skill in news, it's just using their business power to get access. They're big because they're big.
Why is everybody calling this a review. Games not even out yet.
Not sure why you got downvoted, you speak the truth.
everybody isn't, IGN wrote in their title "final review"!
Everything I'm seeing says "final preview". YouTube thumbnail and title. Maybe they changed it.
Preview
Before you make a post, please read what you post
L. It literally says "PREVIEW" in the thumbnail of your own post. Plus media these days aren't allowed to publish reviews until launch.
t was a good game but had a lot of issues which made it kinda a forgetable game
for the same reason the dude above you says this "t was a good game but had a lot of issues which made it kinda a forgetable game" =))))))))))) for the stress test lol
The stress test of death loop? :P
10/10 for Death loop for representing a Black people.
What a shame...this honestly annoyed me... i can't understand how a professional news outlet that works in a creative industry doesn't respect or even know what kind of product it is reviewing (and i am not talking about AoE 4 here to avoid misunderstanding, i am talking about RTS genre)This review was created by someone with no clue or love for the genre by doing a 5 minute google search to see the trends even from times that AoE 4 did not show any content.What is the annoying part for me and i will say this over and over again...is that these kinds of reviews and even comments by players are very loud and aimless and they result into drowing the real feedback that could possibly help the devs improve their product.
EDIT: to make clear what i consider real feedback at this point, things that can be improved upon and have a positive impact even before release (in a month's period) or targets to aim shortly after release. UI issues, unit responsiveness debate?, bugs (there aren't alot but still, easy to report, easy to solve, definite improvement), civ balance etc, matchmaking algorithms etc
Videogame Journalism is sadly short on journalists worthy of the term.
That's true for much of present-day journalism. Not just videogames.
Did you actually watch the video? It's not a review, and the author makes only a very small comparison to Total War, and it's not even presented as strong criticism. This post is extremely misleading.
Yes, i watched the video. About 70% of it (~3.5 minutes out of 5 mins) is a basic run down description of the differences in civs.After that for 1.5 minute that is dedicated to its design it is a hurricane of irrelevant comparisons. The comparison to total war is not very small, it is actually core to the essential points of this 1.5 minute. The "total war...AND SIMILLAR games" actually implicitly compares it to alot more other games that are different in scope and design than just total war. The population limit and the remark that it feels like its 1995 is another comparison on the same spirit that shows lack of understanding of the genre.Even technical limits aside (which is actually a huge issue and scales with number of players) not having pop limit (or having a huge one) is just zero strategy because spamming more is always better and snowballs. These are stuff that shouldn't be explained or even be implied for a game of this genre. I am sorry, but i don't find my post misleading i actually feel like i could list another 10 reasons why their video is terrible and its like complaining that basketball doesn't have an option for 100 man teams with more orange coloured balls but i will not waste more of my time.
Hopefully their dislike ratio and especially the comments that can't be forced or bot ghost accounts even in youtube show my concerns.
The writer has produced a (very good) strategy games podcast for like a decade called Three Moves Ahead. I don't think it's fair to say she has "no clue or love for the genre". I disagree with this preview as I really enjoyed the beta but I think her viewpoint is fine, she clearly wanted something that pushed the boundaries a little more whereas most people here are happy with a more conservative design.
This is not a review. It's clearly marked Preview.
When IGN reviews come out, they publish a more thorough article and a score.
IGN doesn’t like to pick longtime series or even genre fans for their reviews. Their thinking is they don’t want nostalgia to cloud critical judgement, but it can also mean that those reviewers come in without context. It does give a good perspective from outsiders and is helpful in gauging new player responses, but it’s best taken in aggregate with other reviews.
This isn't a review though?
I have put many hours into the stress test and I am not impressed by the game at all. However her reasons were just stupid. Not suprised as its IGN though, just a reminder of how trash IGN is.
This guy is gonna review Total War 3 and say “this game plays nothing like Age of Empires, 3/10
Who even listens to these reviews anyway. Talk about old and stale. They maybe made sense in 2003 when the average user didn't have much of a chance of getting info on a game before purchasing it. Today's professional videogame critics are trash on so many levels
Good reviewers can put out reviews of games that aren't even on my radar and convince me in that way. Instead of having to gather up all the information and watch a lot of streams to get a feel for some game and whether you want it or not, these reviewers condense all that information in a 10-30 minute video that's entertaining along the way.
But IGN reviews definitely don't fall in that category.
German Gamestar is pretty good. They are closer to the playerbase so they don't talk like random elderly shouting at clouds
I agree. It’s outdated.
This isn't a review.
Though I don't think it's wrong to want to have some form of total war mechanics? I mean Total War has been dominating the RTS genre for quite some time now and while new Indie RTS games are coming, it's taken Microsoft god knows how many years to develop this game. I mean I don't see anything wrong in that tbh
Lol I watched the video, seemed like a pretty mild review. The game doesn't have to blow you away, they just said they expected battles to be grander like total war, not that it isn't total war. Fair criticism of a game I love
Pretty mild review? It's not even a review at all to begin with.
I'd this what you get when you don't pay ign to "review" your game? Some mafia shit here
Well considering this isn't a review and it clearly says PREview the probably not.
As a die-hard aoe2 fan with >1500 hours, i would prefer if aoe4 would go for a grander scale and slower-paced gameplay with formation fighting instead of sticking to aoe2 formula.
The recipe of aoe2 is successful indeed but aoe2 is not dead. So why are they targetting the same audience? In fact, AoE2:De has solidify its position in the RTS market averaging 15k players and in the last Redbull tournament which happened a few days ago, the finals peaked with more than 30k viewership.
Right now aoe4 looks as a competitor to aoe2 but aoe2:DE is not going anywhere and the general sentiment of the aoe2 community is that aoe4 is an aoe2 re-skin. I hope though that it will attract a new audience instead.
As much as i want this game to succeed, given the direction that aoe4 is going, my prediction is that it will have the same fate as aoe3:DE averaging 3k players after a few months of its initial release.
Now concerning the (p)review, i agree that IGN (p)reviews are a meme for a reason
I don’t think you made the correct assumption. AoE4 isn’t designed to be the AoE to end all other AoE games. At no stage of the development did I see the devs claim that this is going to replace AoE 2 or 3. The weird AoE2: 2 notion was completely made up by some fans.
If anything, MS would definitely want them to co-exist. Think about it pragmatically: having different games with different target demographics brings in more profit for MS than iteratively catering to the same group of people.
If anything, MS would definitely want them to co-exist. Think about it pragmatically: having different games with different target demographics brings in more profit for MS than iteratively catering to the same group of people.
Well that's my point basically. I think that aoe4 used so many established gameplay features of the aoe2 formula, that these two games look as competitors to one another, no matter their intentions.
And that's why i mentioned in the beginning that i'd rather see a grander scale aoe game than another aoe2 successor. In my perspective that's how aoe4 looks right now.
After all this time I still can't tell you what's the thing that makes aoe2 so successful, but somehow it is. So i'd rather see microsoft bring an aoe title that plays differently but has the same success instead of trying to resemble aoe2 mechanics in the hopes to have another successful title.
They are just trying to appeal to the hardcore AoE fans not just AoE 2, AoE 3 as well
What else is new?
[removed]
IGN is almost always trash and pretty much always has been.
I'm glad that it isn't like Total War.
Total war is super laggy online. You can't have lag in a super competitive fast game like AOE4, especially when you can have 1600 units in total
Just a heads up that the person recording the preview is a woman.
I guess the fundamental issue for her was that she wanted some kind of radical departure from the traditional base building RTS. However, for me and many others that's one of my favorite genres of games and it hasn't seen many major releases in a while. Of course Age of Empires is a titan of the genre and hasn't had a new game in an even longer period and many of its later titles were divisive. For people like me a new, well executed game within that genre and franchise sounds like a breath of fresh air. That doesn't mean the video writer was wrong though, it just means we have different taste.
I was in a similar boat with the zelda franchise where I was tired of the traditional zelda formula. I would've rated many of the 3d zelda titles post majora's mask lower than many other players. I also loved the new direction of Breath of The Wild but many die-hard zelda fans were disappointed because they loved the established formula. Neither me nor the hardcore zelda fan were wrong. We just have different taste.
As far as gaming media goes, ideally consumers should be able to read reviews written by a variety of people at launch to get a sense of what a game is like. They should be able to read a review written by Leanna (author of the IGN piece) and her thoughts on how it's well executed but she thinks the genre is stale and the game could have pushed more boundaries. Consumers should also be able to read reviews from people like me who are itching for the first major game in this genre and franchise in a quite a while and love the game. Consumers could then make informed decisions about their purchase based on which reviewer they identify with more. Unfortunately, the culture of gaming has this unhealthy relationship with game reviews that treats review scores as objective measures of game quality and then gets upset when games get the "wrong" score. Gaming has been this way for a while and I don't expect it to change any time soon.
I disagree with the previewer but I felt like she articulated why she wasn't too interested in a reasonable manner and I think many gamers will agree with her. That's fine. I have more of an issue with fans having the same basic experience with the game (this game isn't something that interests me) and responding by review bombing or spamming the internet with over-the-top criticism (lazy incompetent devs! killed the franchise! horrific game!). Fans like this could take a few lessons from Leanna and learn how to articulate their opinion without resorting to hysterics.
I think it's understandable to want something like that but the way it was presented in the video was quite comical. It quite literally just showed the words 'its not total war'.
I believe that a professional reviewer should show some more commitment and substance to a review. While criticizing that the game feels like aoe2 remade to modern day standards, why not go into WHY it is like that?
Why would anyone in the world care about her personal opinion on how a new game should be? Why not use objective reviewing and reporting, such as mentioning the history of the series, how aoe3 failed in player engagement and why we know that we will get something much closer to aoe2 than new groundbreaking stuff. Her review made it seem like it was a surprise this game is the way it is when there's no possible world where that could happen. The only thing objectively true other than gameplay facts that the professional reviewer talked about was that 'aoe4 is a classical rts game improving on aoe2' when that is like the headline for this launch for months.
I really don't understand how people are professional game reviewers if they don't even bring in the only franchise history details that are actually relevant. If the only thing she brought to the table was her personal opinion on how she wish the game should be, which is completely subjective, then it has the same value as any other non processional review. Which is not bad but as mentioned, lacks substance.
Edit: Removed/added some quotes.
I think contextualizing the game within the history of the subgenre and the history of its franchise would interesting I don't think it's required for a 5 min preview. Many people who play the game will encounter the game in the same way she will and won't necessarily care about the history that motivated the developer's decision -- they'll only care about what the end result is like.
She opens and closes the preview communicating that the game is, for better and worse, a lot like some classic and beloved games. Many people curious about buying the game will come from a similar perspective and appreciate her take. Even people coming from a different perspective (e.g. the perspective of someone itching for a major well executed traditional base building RTS) can watch the preview and figure out that the game might be something they're interested in.
My favorite reviews are from people that love a particular game and can do a good job articulating what makes it great and have a deep appreciation for what its trying to accomplish, but I think there should be space for less enamored reviews/previews as well.
Just a heads up that the person recording the preview is a woman.
Wait what? I would have guessed a man 10/10 times after hearing that voice. Not trying to be a dick, is there something wrong with her voice? I've never heard anything like that
The person writing the review is not the same person speaking. There, solved it.
That does by far seem the most logical explanation. There really should be a little note saying who the speaker is in that case.
Nope she's just trans.
Don't know, don't care, not my business. I just figured most people weren't deliberately calling her a man despite her being a woman and would appreciate the heads up.
They are. The 3 people calling her a man here did it on purpose despite knowing it's a woman because they are transphobes. You will see they laugh around the comments actually trying to explain because they just want to 'bait'. They also never fix their comments after someone else fixes their 'mistake' and leave their incorrect transphobic comments up while still interacting in the thread.
It's normal in gaming communities, it doesn't matter if it's an older, "mature" one.
There's a range of reasons, she could not be cis gender, could be gastrointestinal chronical diseases that may cause voice problems (GERD), could be vocal cord/ general throat problems/ genetical disorders. Either way it's likely a way personal subject :)
Aand a quick profile search show the person above is likely just a transphobe trying to invalidate someone else as a person, how surprising! We really had no idea.
Good thing you post on the subs you do so it's easy to know what we are dealing with.
Oh so thats why you say someone is being transphobic lmao. The review was written by a woman, the man on the video is just a narrator. You need to chill and stop calling everyone transphobic, it is embarrassing
I mean, you're either trying to max out on transphobism or stupidity. Either you know you're wrong and this is the ultimate transphobism move, or you actually have such a limited view of the world that you can not accept that that's her voice.
Not sure which is worse. Either way, have a nice day, not interested in entertaining people like you.
You guys are so dumb. Two transphobes calling a woman that they know it's a woman of a man, because they know that hurts her with absolutely no basis whatsoever, just a pure fabricated lie. bunch of other transphobes come in and repeat the lie.
Everyone leaves their transphobic comments up. Congrats guys, on only admiting you're wrong 25 comments down the chain and making sure your main replies are always visible pretending that you don't know it's a lie anymore.
[removed]
😂
There is nothing wrong with base building RTS, that's not why people want AoE changed, considering AoE had some of the best base building in any RTS. In fact, it could stand to have become even more complicated. You probably meant late 90s RTS instead, and in that sense, then yes. I don't want a rehash of a late 90s RTS.
That doesn't mean the video writer was wrong though, it just means we have different taste.
It is clear from her "suggestions" that she fundamentally does not understand the main RTS base, who do not want units to be recruited and used in "squads" or a giant pop limit. The skirmishes she is criticizing are the point of RTS, it's why you can micro and macro at the same time without having 3 arms, and why positioning your army is so important (not enough army to defend everywhere at once). Mocking the 200 pop limit in particular (which arks back to AOE 2 and StarCraft 1) is like mocking chess for having only 32 pieces. Basically if she had done her research properly she would have realised that the genre is much more rigid than she is giving credit for, and that it is closer to a board game with strict rules like chess than an RPG or FPS game that may take more liberties. She didn't even mention eSports or competitive once in the entire preview, despite the game and genre clearly being designed with this in mind. So I disagree that she wasn't wrong, perhaps her opinion wasn't wrong, but her distinct lack of knowledge definitely was. If she truly felt the suggestions made sense, she must qualify them in the context of the genre as it is known today, she didn't which is why she comes across as ignorant.
Fans like this could take a few lessons from Leanna and learn how to articulate their opinion without resorting to hysterics.
This is a bit silly when she is a professional with her name publicly available, while the vast majority of fans are anonymous and commenting out of their own volition. Sure it would be nice if everyone was friendly and professional about their opinions, but they're not getting paid like she is, nor is it their job like it is hers.
Leanna is that you? Lmao. Fan reviewbombs are more valuable for the average consumer than an IGN review ever will. I don't even like aoe4 and still I recognize that my dog would make a better review of it
Leanna is that you? Lmao.
No but I charge a reasonable rate for my shilling so if she or anyone else wants to pay for my services they're welcome to inquire for details. Use the discount code DingDing for 10% off orders totaling $50 or more between now and October 28th.
Fan reviewbombs are more valuable for the average consumer than an IGN review ever will.
To see how unhelpful the hysterical reactions are consider how contradictory they often are. Some AoE2 fans will tell you that AoE4 is nothing like AoE2 and very similar to AoE3. Some AoE3 fans will say it has nothing in common with AoE3 and is just an AoE2 reskin. I don't think these kinds of reactions are helpful to anyone. I think people could listen to Leanna's preview and get a reasonable sense of what the game is like and why she isn't that interested. Someone who's itching for a new RTS in the spirit of the old Age of Empires games would likely listen to her preview and realize that the game might be something that interests them. A curious consumer who read some of the more hysterical forum/reddit reactions would learn only that fans of the AoE franchise generally hate each other and bash other games in the franchise.
This isn't to say fan reviews/reactions have no place (it sounds like they did a better job highlighting the issues with Cyberpunk than many reviewers did) but they are often worthless and professional reviewers still have a useful role to play.
I don't know, user reviews have always been much more accurate and valuable to me. Many are hysterical and unhelpful, as everything on the internet, but they are relatively easy to distinguish and there are always a lot of honest reviews of users out there. In contrast, professional reviews are either extremely ignorant, or fixated on stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of a game, or blatantly bought, or a combination of the above. And many writers fit the fucking vanilla journalist stereotype so well, it really gives the impression that, deep down, they don't really like videogames all that much. At least that's my experience.
Professional reviews made sense 20 years ago when the average player had no other good way of getting information about a game before buying it. Fortunately that time is long past, and so they don't make much sense anymore apart from just advertisment.
I use a combination of both. I find professional reviewers generally do a better a job communicating what a game is trying to be or accomplish. In this case, for instance, I think Leanna accurately conveys that this is a well executed classic base building RTS even if I responded to the game very differently than her. I do sometimes read professional reviews that seem clueless but more often than not they convey useful information. Professional reviewers often do a better job communicating what their previous experience with a game franchise/genre is and how that informs their review which I find very useful. I find it's generally easy to read say 4 professional reviews and get a general picture of what a game is like.
User reviews are often good for figuring out things like how buggy a game is or how much content it potentially offers but getting much more detailed feels like searching for a needle in a haystack. With fan reviews it's often very difficult to tell what exactly the anonymous reviewer wanted from the game or what the game itself is trying to accomplish irrespective of the fan's desires. Fan reviewers tend to be very bad at separating the game from their reaction to it. This is why I said many dissapointed fans could learn something from Leanna.
The most useful "non-professional" reviews often come professional content creators I respect. People that make high quality content about Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis, for instance, would be a great source of information about the upcoming Victoria 3 for someone who's generally a fan of Paradox games.
I get what you're saying. In this particular case, though, it's kind of weird to list the fact that aoe4 doesn't conform to another sub-genre within strategy games as a negative. Total War with its larger scale has been around for quite a while. I think it's a good thing we have alternatives closer to classic RTS (not saying you disagree). I wouldn't dismiss Tekken because it's not more like Super Smash. I might prefer Super Smash, but that's not cause for criticism in a review.
edit: Thought I was replying to your original comment. My bad!
Rwviewbombs are the definition of not useful... All it tells you is that part of the fanbase is pissed. What are they pissed about? Gameplay? Company policies? Miranda's ass not being the focus? It adds nothing.
My comment was more a criticism to IGN reviews than a praise to reviewbombs lol.
And as an unrelated offtopic, if you want to discuss reviewbombs, depends on the case obviously, but the reasons for it are usually pretty obvious. And they usually have merit too, the word itself is a marketing move from companies to discredit what many times is a legitimate complaint about the game or its developers, despite the cringy drama.
If you're reviewbombing, then your review is just a statement of discontent rather than an accurate review of the product.
Yes, so? Its not like you are forced to only read the first review you see. Its pretty obvious when a reviewbomb is taking place and why, as rare as they are, and as potential buyer you immediately see what is happening and if you want complete reviews on the game you go elsewhere or ignore the reviews that are not worth it to you, and as a bonus you get to know that some people are pissed for X or Y. Some have merit others don't, but I don't think reviewbombs are a big deal at all, and definitely not some Satan's work as some seem to think they are.
I mean, IGN reviews are usually weird.
This isn't a review.
They gave the game Death Loop a 10/10 lmao
It was a good game but had a lot of issues which made it kinda a forgetable game. IGN reviews are a meme for a reason
Yeah but...this isn't a review.
I think it's an absolutely fair preview, she very clearly states that this game seems to be made for people that want very little innovation or disruption of the 22 year old formula (so most of this sub). And that if you are looking for something new, modern, or that takes into account the past two decades of improvements in strategy games, this may not be for you.
Where's the lie??
She complained that its not like total war, even though total war is not an rts... she clearly doesnt even care about the genre shes previewing.
Yeah, I mean, who borrows cool concepts from other games and genres and tries to make their game better through it? Can an adventure game have some strategy and action added into it? No way man, adventure games should stick with Myst, and never improve it after that. Try any new mechanics like formation or proper city building or new resources or enormous maps, in my RTS? Absolutely not.
Perhaps it's impossible to do this with the Age series, all most of you are asking for is a remake. I mean, it is possible that "AGE OF EMPIRES" actually means the age of a couple hundred farmers and a few hundred military units. But for a lot of us, this is a disappointment for the potential we saw in the original series. Similar to pokemon fans complaining about not having their open world games after 20 years, this just seems like Relic playing it safe yet again. And hey, it will probably ok, but still a disappointment to my eyes.
Look at where all the other successful RTS games have gone. Fewer units and faster games. AoE is trying to be an esport that is accessible to everyone. If you want thousands of units to control, it becomes difficult to watch whats happening, reduces strategic depth, makes it harder to control without insane APM, and just lengthens the games. Thats the exact opposite direction we want for RTS.
What games are you talking about? lol.
How is Total War not an RTS?! It is, in its battle phase. And that's not the complaint. Total War recent iterations showcase what you would imagine a strategy game would be in 2021 in terms of mechanics, technology, presentation and innovation; contrast that with a game that's straight up from the 90's with a coat of paint that brings it graphically up to par with games from 2010. She complains about how stagnate the game is, which is completely fair.
Total War is a Grand Strategy game with Real Time Tactics in the battles.
As another u/GepardenK already said:
This is all so dumb. Total war isn't even an RTS since the strategy part isn't in real-time. Total War a real-time tactics game (RTT), a genre that is just as old as RTS and that Total War has been a key part of evolving over the years.
And again, that's missing the point getting caught up in semantics. Are you telling me both these games don't attract similar audiences and share a similar genealogy? TW is the gold standard for strategy games right now, comparison is apt.
that's missing the point getting caught up in semantics.
You don't understand the point... these games are called different things because they're doing different things and they're intended to do things differently.
Case in point... in a total war game, you cannot add more units to your army whilst in the middle of the battle. If you have reserves, you can get the reserves to the fight (eventually) but if you run out of reserves, you're out of reserves. There is no way of rewarding players for investing in more production options in real time. All you have left is tactical decisions. In literally any Age game (except Castle Siege... and maybe Online, which I never played) this isn't true. And that's because the strategic decisions (like choosing to invest in a barracks instead of a mill) have to pay off in real time just the same as the tactics ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics
It is differentiated from real-time strategy gameplay by the lack of classic resource micromanagement and base or unit building, as well as the greater importance of individual units[1][2] and a focus on complex battlefield tactics.
I also suspect you don't understand that semantics is a really important thing to agree over. The limits of my language are the limits of my world and all that.
Are you telling me both these games don't attract similar audiences and share a similar genealogy?
Yes... MTW (either one) is more similar to Crusader Kings than either Age of Empires II or IV.
I don't think a lot of the people in this thread actually watched the video. The only Total War features they're specifically looking for is larger scale armies and battles and I think many people were disappointed that they stuck to the 200 unit population cap.
Other than that, they're just disappointed that game doesn't take any major risks, and that's a fair assessment that I expect will be common among people who are not already hardcore AoE fans.
She specifically didnt want units to be individuals. But how does that make sense in aoe?
They offered that as a possible solution to the scale issue, and I don't see any reason why that idea is antithetical to AoE. You can still have micro oriented combat with squads.
I dont know how you would design squads in a way where its easy to predict the outcomes of fights in realtime. Just sounds difficult to implement into AoE and I dont see how it would improve the game.
The Lord of the Rings RTS did this just fine.
I watched the video, this was basically a summary and not a review
These fucks found witcher 3 a meh game
The audacity
What are you even talking about? They literally gave it a 9.3 score.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/12/the-witcher-3-the-wild-hunt-review
They give a ton of games 10/10 rating. Like GTA 4 and 5 are 10. Even fortnite is 9.6. 9.3 will put witcher is top 500 list maybe. Which is a joke
Vast majority of games they review are definitely not a 9 or higher. And not even sure what you're talking about when you say a 9.3 would put Witcher 3 in their top 500 when it's literally ranked as their 28th best game of all-time. The only joke here is your comment and actually doubling down on it.
You can shit on IGN all you want, which is certainly valid and understood, but to act like they didn't like Witcher 3 is a flat out lie.
Go here and sort by rating.
https://www.ign.com/reviews/games
I think we have different idea about the number 28. It’s okay
Or you could read their article literally titled "Top 100 Video Games of All-Time." Keep embarrassing yourself though lmao
IGN reviews have sucked for quite some time, and they pound those things out for views by the "x" deadline to get clicks. Hardly ever do they have people that know something about the game or the genre do the review.
This isn't a review.
Well, no, but the point that I am making still stands. The people that IGN has to do any type of structured commentary are hardly ever people that know anything about what they are commenting on at a deep level.
IGN does shit reviews often.
Good thing this isn't actually a review then.
And why the hell not? You do realize that the original AoE cinematic was very total war esque? This is what the original developers wanted their battlefield to feel like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVkgBAqG2uY&ab_channel=HonkiTonk
The reason a lot of people were playing RTS back in the day, remember that even non RTS fans LOVED this game, was because it was a great way to fight in an epic war in a scale no one had seen yet. Dune/Command and Conquer/Age of Empires are all the same in this regard. It felt epic to play with 7 of your friends in a giant map and go on an epic 2-3+ hour match. Even now, most people play these RTS in teams and in giant MP lobbies.
It has to be said that the EXACT people that are playing Factorio and Total War used to play these RTS back in the day. It's just that these new games feel even MORE EPIC than these old games used to, so they don't want to play this game anymore with these old limitations. I kept talking to people that went "yeah, I used to love this game, but now I have total war, and that's so much better." And why not take the best thing about Total War and the best thing about AoE and make a better game?
so they don't want to play this game anymore with these old limitations
AoE2 DE has a very big playerbase man. They are not mutually exclusive, I play total war and I play AoE2 and I enjoy both a lot. I can enjoy both because they are not the same, each is a very different style of game.
And by the way current Total War is also basically the same formula it was 21 year ago.
I mentioned this in another comment, that's exactly why I don't buy the Total War games. Not since Rome II. I did pick up warhammer once it had the mortal empires, due to it's immense size and because of it's introduction of flying units, but there was disappointment there as well.
It's one thing to be completely inexperienced with gaming itself but the bar for gaming journalism shouldn't be "I play a lot of games".
The bar should be "I actually know a little about how games are put together".
In a cooking world Comparison. These critiques would be people who know about taste and texture to the extent of saying "I like or dislike it", but unlike the cooking world they couldn't tell you how it was put together. They couldn't point out any fine details to make the dish better.
It boggles my mind when I see reviews that are like "This game has grapple hook mechanics!" when what they mean is press E to zip line down. It's not the same thing. These people are actually paid.
A lot of this happens because of friendly handshakes. It's a very easy job to do and the content itself is less important than being first on the board. As soon as you google Age of Empires 4 review you want to be the first one on their with the content so that future clicks all direct to you.
Good thing this isn't a review.
IGN creates the article from a gamer perspective. Not someone who is RTS or AOE bias. RTS in the modern age is so lacklustre due to low development and it’s lack of ability to keep up with modern day game requirements.
While AOE IV is fun from a game play perspective, it is absolutely low grade in the graphic fidelity, textures and quality department. And this is an age where even flop games are prioritising high level graphics because powerful engines have made it the standard of gaming in 2021.
While RTS bias make excuses for RTS not to compete with that, and focus just on gameplay. Hence why RTS will remain a niche genre unless it really does something to wow the gaming community, which AOE IV has completely failed to do. It definitely won’t be converting majority of previous AOM, AOE II and III fans, hence relying on low unit textures and low level graphics to attract people who are spoilt with high level graphic options such as Total War.
People who still watch IGN reviews probably don't actually play and try out new games for myselfs. We are only losing the shitters post launch giving the game a bad wrap. I would like to thank the irrelavant giant IGN.
This isn't a review.
With the lack of individual unit micro in this game, i think its a totally fair comparison.
Hope these downvotes open ur eyes a little!
open my eyes to what? please enlighten me how removing friendly fire, projectile dodging and wall physics (artillary being able to shoot through them) makes for good micro.
It has a little something for everyone
It's not a great take but there is an element of truth to it. AoE 4 is releasing now, not in 2007. The gaming landscape has grown enormously, including several entire genres that were unheard of when AOE2 and 3 were releasing. There now exists MOBAs like DOTA, Grand Strategy like Europa and hybrid like Total War, 4X like Civ (technically was pre AOE but has grown a lot since), and city builders like Anno, each of which take at least some sort of chunk out of the traditional RTS game and expand it into a whole thing. And if you want to make a new game mode, like DOTA or tower defenses, Unity and Unreal are just available now.
In my opinion, no RTS can ever be a touchstone hub like Warcraft 3 or Starcraft were in their haydays because of this. Why would any of those communities that splintered off and made their new niche return to traditional RTS, particularly one as safe as AOE4? If you like large scale pitched battles, it's not even an options here, but Total War lets you eat your heart out. If you like the influence mechanics and then looking at your city at the end, Cities Skylines and Anno are bigger and have goals and game modes about that.
Basically, AOE4 doesn't really do anything to court any of those audiences, which is fine, but does mean it has to be an incredible traditional RTS to get much traction beyond brand hype
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/Games
r/battlefield2042
r/aoe4
r/darksouls3
r/aoe4
r/gaming
r/WipeOut
r/aoe2
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/SuperMonkeyBall
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/apexlegends
r/SMG4
r/aoe4
r/aoe4
r/aoe2
