Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition (AKA AoE2 HD HD)

[Zboj Lamignat]

Which is better is highly subjective. I liked the old voice acting better, even though I'm not a campaign guy and the remixed music of DE is worse to my ears. A whole lot of little thing add up to a lot differences and the newsfeed-ey main menu

Yeah, OK, if you highly subjectively prefer non-DE for that sweet main menu then all power to you.

which displays tournaments and events just make it look like a Blizzard-level service rather than a game that survived 15+years without the ''constant support''

AoE2 in being a popular multi game and devs catering to playerbase needs shocker, stop the presses!

which is mostly due to them releasing unbalanced civs as DLC and working on it to save face and prove they're not releasing P2W civs.

Oh boy, I see you know what you're talking about. Spoiler: you have readily available stats, new civs were never even slightly close to being op. In fact, patches so far rather boosted than nerfed them, although still at no point was any of them problematically ahead of the curve. Even bigger spoiler: from the game's advent to this day, civs that were ahead of the curve and arguably op were always some of the original ones, like franks or aztecs.

There were much more advanced AI scripts for the base(nonHD) game and many of them got carried over to HD, and probably the same people worked on DE's AI. Something like Barbarian AI for HD is still head and shoulders more competent than the original AI, and that's been around since before HD.

Pre-DE I have never, ever, not once seen AI doing such advanced and human-like moves like pushing the deer or doing a well-executed and well-timed scout rush (that on a moderate difficulty!).

Also, all the units are Warcrafty / Fortnite popamole-looking in DE compared to HD and the original.

In the older versions you could tell from a glance whether you were looking at an archer or a x-bow or a skirm or an elite-skirm. In DE, they're all merged and similar looking. You'll have to have a 2nd look to separate militia from vills or cav archers from light-cav.

What, in the name of a sweet everloving god, are you even talking about. If you have any, even the tiniest, problems with distinguishing and archer from a crossbowman in DE then turn off your computer an go get your brain checked. This isn't a joke, this is serious.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Either the game is complete and there's no reason to patch it or it's incomplete trash that shouldn't have left the development for some time.

Literally your previous point:

Considering there are things like UserPatch (...), I am obviously not the only one.

 

[Tacgnol]

Oh boy, I see you know what you're talking about. Spoiler: you have readily available stats, new civs were never even slightly close to being op. In fact, patches so far rather boosted than nerfed them, although still at no point was any of them problematically ahead of the curve. Even bigger spoiler: from the game's advent to this day, civs that were ahead of the curve and arguably op were always some of the original ones, like franks or aztecs.

Yep, someone posted the stats in the AOE2 thread not that long ago. Franks were on top and then a bunch of classic civs like Mongols were next in line.

These "P2W" new civs aren't doing the win part very well.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Which is better is highly subjective. I liked the old voice acting better, even though I'm not a campaign guy and the remixed music of DE is worse to my ears. A whole lot of little thing add up to a lot differences and the newsfeed-ey main menu

Yeah, OK, if you highly subjectively prefer non-DE for that sweet main menu then all power to you.

which displays tournaments and events just make it look like a Blizzard-level service rather than a game that survived 15+years without the ''constant support''

AoE2 in being a popular multi game and devs catering to playerbase needs shocker, stop the presses!

which is mostly due to them releasing unbalanced civs as DLC and working on it to save face and prove they're not releasing P2W civs.

Oh boy, I see you know what you're talking about. Spoiler: you have readily available stats, new civs were never even slightly close to being op. In fact, patches so far rather boosted than nerfed them, although still at no point was any of them problematically ahead of the curve. Even bigger spoiler: from the game's advent to this day, civs that were ahead of the curve and arguably op were always some of the original ones, like franks or aztecs.

There were much more advanced AI scripts for the base(nonHD) game and many of them got carried over to HD, and probably the same people worked on DE's AI. Something like Barbarian AI for HD is still head and shoulders more competent than the original AI, and that's been around since before HD.

Pre-DE I have never, ever, not once seen AI doing such advanced and human-like moves like pushing the deer or doing a well-executed and well-timed scout rush (that on a moderate difficulty!).

Also, all the units are Warcrafty / Fortnite popamole-looking in DE compared to HD and the original.

In the older versions you could tell from a glance whether you were looking at an archer or a x-bow or a skirm or an elite-skirm. In DE, they're all merged and similar looking. You'll have to have a 2nd look to separate militia from vills or cav archers from light-cav.

What, in the name of a sweet everloving god, are you even talking about. If you have any, even the tiniest, problems with distinguishing and archer from a crossbowman in DE then turn off your computer an go get your brain checked. This isn't a joke, this is serious.

Its not my fault you confuse zombie voice acting with your main menu strawman. Also not my fault you like remixes over the original music.

lol what does ''catering'' mean to you exactly? I sense you're the kind of guy who looks at old games and calls them ''dead'' because the balance isn't switched around every week to hold your abysmal attention span and the devs don't release weekly PR-speak for you to consoom.

If you were following from any time before DE, you'd know that Inca towers were griefing 101 and if you were following from before HD, you'd know that Franks were shit before getting the Chivalry UT. But I guess you're from the wave of casuals brought in by DE who came for the graphics so those things didn't exist?

I don't know about deer pushing but modded / UP level AIs could lure boars and execute builds long before your lord and savior brought forth DLC for this 20+ year old game and saved consoomers' souls in the process.

Look at the old vs new models. There's much smaller differences between them than the easily distinguishable units of HD or UP.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Yeah, Franks were 101% shit when halbs and bloodlines were not even a thing and their knightline utterly pasted everything

Catering is not a difficult word. AoE2 is a game that has around 10k people (or more) in multi lobbies at this moment, games like that demand constant attention from the devs to listen to what community has to say. Those patches also bring things like new maps, coop, map generation and AI improvements. Like, why tf am I explaining these things?

So you claim old AI is better than DE? What point are you even trying to make? Rhetorical question.

Literally :itisamystery: bro, but I still think you should get that checked.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Yeah, Franks were 101% shit when halbs and bloodlines were not even a thing and their knightline utterly pasted everything

Catering is not a difficult word. AoE2 is a game that has around 10k people (or more) in multi lobbies at this moment, games like that demand constant attention from the devs to listen to what community has to say. Those patches also bring things like new maps, coop, map generation and AI improvements. Like, why tf am I explaining these things?

So you claim old AI is better than DE? What point are you even trying to make? Rhetorical question.

Here's a whole thread about the unit design: https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/units-are-difficult-to-distinguish/64796 Zoomed in units looking different is not the same as everything looking the same when zoomed out. You either play at a slow enough pace to make it not matter or could never differentiate them in the first place.

I haven't tested the AI but I don't think it can be much better than the modded ones for HD. I'll have to check that. I won't say the old one is better but I don't think much more could've been added on top of existing AIs because at the end of the day it can't react or make decisions organically like a human can. Either way, it won't be a big selling point to me because different AIs existed for different purposes before and a harder / more competent AI would be created as a mod eventually, if it was possible.

So you don't know the difference between Age of Kings (AoK), The Conqurors (AoC) and HD (Forgotten Empires / HD). AoK didn't have bloodlines and and halbs. AoC was released in 2001 and it did have halbs, bloodlines, monks, and unique techs, and economically powerful civs, all of which kicked Franks into uselessness.

So I'm guessing you thought everyone was playing AoK until 2013? BTW that same halb-less AoC was chugging along without much issue from 2001 to 2013 without M$'s ''catering'' having tournaments and active players and a streaming and youtube scene. Just because you discovered it now doesn't mean it didn't have a playerbase before. It took the Forgotten Empires mod sending public interest into overdrive (and M$ failing at the console market) for them to take notice again. And since then they've released more and more DLC for less and less value, made the game shiny for casual paypigs and made it exclusive to Windows 10. If that's your idea of progress, you shouldn't get your head checked because the healthcare system doesn't need more easy money.

 

[pickmeister]

Literally your previous point:

Dude, I tried to explain it to you but it’s all snarky comments and “Haha I used a straw man argument, I am so witty and funny!”.

To elaborate for someone who isn’t a complete retard:
You can play original AoE2 right out of the box, as it is a well polished game from the start. But you can bring it to the next level with UserPatch that brings unobtrusive changes (like widescreen resolution) and a great number of changes can be turned off in case you dislike them.

I completely agree with Dark_Hollow, especially about the new sprites not being distinct enough, hence me finding DE to be trash. It’s not just about how the units look. With the changes to the graphics overall, units aren’t distinct enough on the map, everything just melts together, creating a blur. That’s what happens when you just fiddle with sharpness, saturation, contrast with no direction and slap a bunch of post processing effects on top of it. The sprites not being distinct between each other is just a shitty cherry on top.
And why are there stupidass effects like the sparkly effect when a villager mines gold? It doesn’t make any sense, isn’t realistic, and doesn’t bring any advantage. Or the light beam around relic?
The sprites absolutely are not just upscaled original ones, they look way different and animations are altered as well - smoother, faster, but different and aren’t even trying to look realistic like the original did. The new sprites are just floating on the ground. Never had that feeling with the original.

And since everything had to be smoothen out and upscaled, why do the sprites still turn in only 8 directions? With everything being smooth but leaving the turning jittery, it’s jarring as fuck and screams lazy untalented hacks.

It’s nothing new with them, it’s like copying classmate’s homework but changing sentence order so it looks different and original. They changed the tint in AOM HD from the original as well. Why, considering it should be the same version of the game with new resolutions? I have no idea. But they achieved making it look worse anyway.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Here's a whole thread about the unit design: https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/units-are-difficult-to-distinguish/64796 Zoomed in units looking different is not the same as everything looking the same when zoomed out. You either play at a slow enough pace to make it not matter or could never differentiate them in the first place.

Thank you for posting a 70replies thread from 2019 where people are very far from consensus on the topic. Now, can you look at the concrete pictures that I posted (since you've mentioned having trouble telling archer from an x-bow) and tell me:
1. What, exactly, makes it so hard for you to distinguish between those two obviously different models.
2. What makes DE model bad compared to the classic one.
Thanks!

Btw, I played this game extensively in the original, HD and DE versions and it was never a problem for me (the problem was that I never actually liked the designs and animations all that much compared to AoE1, but that's a separate topic), nor was it ever mentioned as a pain point by people I have played with. For reference: I have myopia so bad that it would be enough to officially consider me disabled in my country.

I haven't tested the AI but I don't think (...)

Either way, it won't be a big selling point to me

Who knew, right. Contrary to main menu and lack of patches.

So you don't know the difference between Age of Kings (AoK), The Conqurors (AoC) and HD (Forgotten Empires / HD).

You just made a huge dumbass of yourself yet again by saying franks were "shit" before introducing chivalry, which is total, utter bs, because they were always a top tier civ that was also utterly op way before that, when "no franks and no teutons" was the thing in multiplayer. You're acting as this is a proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and that DE is bad because of patches and balance changes

I'm trying to be patient and reasonable here, but you really need to:
1. Stop trying to act like you're an expert on this game. It's not the first time you've made bizarrely outlandish and compromising statements.
2. Stop acting like a raging retard, it's really tiresome.

all of which kicked Franks into uselessness

What. Are. You. Talking. About. Franks always had top tier eco, great tech tree and were a top dog in pretty much the most dominant unit category in a lot of match ups. At literally no point they were a lower tier civ, let alone "shit" or "useless".

So I'm guessing you thought everyone was playing AoK until 2013? BTW that same halb-less AoC was chugging along without much issue from 2001 to 2013 without M$'s ''catering'' having tournaments and active players and a streaming and youtube scene. Just because you discovered it now doesn't mean it didn't have a playerbase before. It took the Forgotten Empires mod sending public interest into overdrive (and M$ failing at the console market) for them to take notice again.

Blah blah blah, I'm really tired of doing basic thinking for you at this point. If you don't know what you're talking about, then just look at the readily available data instead of posting constant stream of bs and then get back and try to actually discuss if DE helped with AoE2's popularity, support, community etc with me.

If that's your idea of progress, you shouldn't get your head checked because the healthcare system doesn't need more easy money.

I think my posts on the topic of DE on the codex have made it blatantly clear on what I consider progress. I'm neither able nor willing to help you talking to yourself in your head.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Here's a whole thread about the unit design: https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/units-are-difficult-to-distinguish/64796 Zoomed in units looking different is not the same as everything looking the same when zoomed out. You either play at a slow enough pace to make it not matter or could never differentiate them in the first place.

Thank you for posting a 70replies thread from 2019 where people are very far from consensus on the topic. Now, can you look at the concrete pictures that I posted (since you've mentioned having trouble telling archer from an x-bow) and tell me:
1. What, exactly, makes it so hard for you to distinguish between those two obviously different models.
2. What makes DE model bad compared to the classic one.
Thanks!

Btw, I played this game extensively in the original, HD and DE versions and it was never a problem for me (the problem was that I never actually liked the designs and animations all that much compared to AoE1, but that's a separate topic), nor was it ever mentioned as a pain point by people I have played with. For reference: I have myopia so bad that it would be enough to officially consider me disabled in my country.

I haven't tested the AI but I don't think (...)

Either way, it won't be a big selling point to me

Who knew, right. Contrary to main menu and lack of patches.

So you don't know the difference between Age of Kings (AoK), The Conqurors (AoC) and HD (Forgotten Empires / HD).

You just made a huge dumbass of yourself yet again by saying franks were "shit" before introducing chivalry, which is total, utter bs, because they were always a top tier civ that was also utterly op way before that, when "no franks and no teutons" was the thing in multiplayer. You're acting as this is a proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and that DE is bad because of patches and balance changes

I'm trying to be patient and reasonable here, but you really need to:
1. Stop trying to act like you're an expert on this game. It's not the first time you've made bizarrely outlandish and compromising statements.
2. Stop acting like a raging retard, it's really tiresome.

all of which kicked Franks into uselessness

What. Are. You. Talking. About. Franks always had top tier eco, great tech tree and were a top dog in pretty much the most dominant unit category in a lot of match ups. At literally no point they were a lower tier civ, let alone "shit" or "useless".

So I'm guessing you thought everyone was playing AoK until 2013? BTW that same halb-less AoC was chugging along without much issue from 2001 to 2013 without M$'s ''catering'' having tournaments and active players and a streaming and youtube scene. Just because you discovered it now doesn't mean it didn't have a playerbase before. It took the Forgotten Empires mod sending public interest into overdrive (and M$ failing at the console market) for them to take notice again.

Blah blah blah, I'm really tired of doing basic thinking for you at this point. If you don't know what you're talking about, then just look at the readily available data instead of posting constant stream of bs and then get back and try to actually discuss if DE helped with AoE2's popularity, support, community etc with me.

If that's your idea of progress, you shouldn't get your head checked because the healthcare system doesn't need more easy money.

I think my posts on the topic of DE on the codex have made it blatantly clear on what I consider progress. I'm neither able nor willing to help you talking to yourself in your head.

You. Are. Getting. Annoying. To. Talk. To. Ms. Diva. I. Will. Keep. It. Short.

-There are plenty of people who hate the new look. Its subjective at best, and to me, its much more difficult to make out units what units are when zoomed out (as I said in my most before, but you retardedly ignored).
-So you have tested the AI then? Nice, so other than deer luring, what are the improvements?
-I've said it 69 times already but replacing good sounds and music with shitty mixing is more than the main menu. Are you reading anything before replying?
-lol Huns were dominant before AoFE / HD when they were nerfed. Behind them were Mongols, Mayans, Aztecs, Vikings, Korans, Celts etc depending on the map. Just think in your vast brain what Franks had before the +25% berry gather rate and Chivalry. What did they have? Weak scouts that were inferior due lack of bloodlines, bad archers, a bad unique unit that synched terribly with cavalry and paladins that had 192hp vs 180hp. Recent stats are from DE, and they got buffed well before DE released. Get a grip.
-I'm no expert, but I didn't think there wasn't Bloodlines in AoC. So that makes me at least more qualified than you. But in the interest of humor, please point out my ''compromising'' statements.
-I'm not interested in stalking you but you seem to think DE is better because it made AoE2 more popular? How does popularity and constant low-effort DLCs make it better?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Dude, I tried to explain it to you but it’s all snarky comments and “Haha I used a straw man argument, I am so witty and funny!”.

Ah, using strawman as a strawman. I knew this is going to be a 4d type of thing when I saw your first post.

You can play original AoE2 right out of the box, as it is a well polished game from the start.

And your point is, what? That DE isn't? The fact that you don't like the visual changes is not exactly something that makes a game unpolished. It didn't have game considering camels ships, at least. Which is not a high bar, since that's what it was supposed to do, but there you go.

 

[pickmeister]

Ah, using strawman as a strawman. I knew this is going to be a 4d type of thing when I saw your first post.

And your point is, what? That DE isn't? The fact that you don't like the visual changes is not exactly something that makes a game unpolished. It didn't have game considering camels ships, at least. Which is not a high bar, since that's what it was supposed to do, but there you go.

I never even made an attempt to refute your argument, as it wasn't necessary because I was merely explaining to you why, in my opinion, the new versions are trash. Therefore, you calling me a strawman, is an invalid argument (now is the first time I did it, see, Mr. Strawman?).

It's been amusing for a while but you got boring quickly. You're a bad troll. At least make an attempt to put words together in a comprehensible manner. Your word salads are reaching Sleepy Joe levels.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

DE's special added visual effects are a bit ugly, and at first I did find it hard to distinguish cav archers and light cavalry when they were milling around together. Also the menu does look worse than the old one which had the anvil etc icons. I also think the old sprites were better looking in and of themselves. But if you spend a while playing DE, the old AoE2 looks worse in comparison. Also the new balance is fantastic.

BTW, wasn't it true that Franks used to be a pretty shit civ? Farm techs being free was not a good enough eco bonus, their knight bonuses were nothing special ever since Bloodlines got added to the game, and their lategame options were mediocre.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

You. Are. Getting. Annoying. To. Talk. To. Ms. Diva. I. Will. Keep. It. Short.

1. You are now using a mysterious group of people that are supposed to agree with you? You can verify in 3 sec that vast majority of people moved over to DE and are happy to stay there. You have problems distinguishing two units with a completely different weapon model when you zoom out? Ok, I guess that proves DE graphics are shit.
2. It does a lot of stuff. It's not easy to scout snipe anymore, it uses scout to properly harass villagers, it does different kinds of rushes very well, it responds to your units composition quickly. And that's on moderate onwards. It's overall a visible improvement and it gets updated.
3. So you don't like the new remix much, and...? Is that the point where I concede that DE is shit and go back to HD or cd version of Conquerors? Ok.
4. DE only nerfed them. They have strong eco, strong infantry, good in siege/trebuchet wars, king of the hill in the king of the hill unit category. And that's at their lowest point. Shit? Useless?
5. It was you who said that they were, quote on quote, shit before chivalry, thus directly claiming that time when there was no bloodlines, halbs and other changes and franks were completely rolling over everything didn't exist. Stop trying to spin your dumb statements as proving other people are dumb.
Your compromising statements? Like the one I just explained? Pay2win civs? Talking about ai when "you didn't test it"? What does that last one even mean? Did you play DE?
6. So does a big number of people agreeing means something or not? You're flip flopping in the span of a single post. Having a big, active community is probably important for a largely multiplayer game, you know.

BTW, wasn't it true that Franks used to be a pretty shit civ? Farm techs being free was not a good enough eco bonus, their knight bonuses were nothing special ever since Bloodlines got added to the game, and their lategame options were mediocre.

They were crazy op initially (them and teutons) and original devs were a tad too eager to nerf them due to this, which knocked them down a fair bit, but their boni were always in the good tier. Then they got buffed again and remained at the top despite steady nerf attempts.

 

[Tacgnol]

Ah, using strawman as a strawman. I knew this is going to be a 4d type of thing when I saw your first post.

And your point is, what? That DE isn't? The fact that you don't like the visual changes is not exactly something that makes a game unpolished. It didn't have game considering camels ships, at least. Which is not a high bar, since that's what it was supposed to do, but there you go.

I never even made an attempt to refute your argument, as it wasn't necessary because I was merely explaining to you why, in my opinion, the new versions are trash. Therefore, you calling me a strawman, is an invalid argument (now is the first time I did it, see, Mr. Strawman?).

It's been amusing for a while but you got boring quickly. You're a bad troll. At least make an attempt to put words together in a comprehensible manner. Your word salads are reaching Sleepy Joe levels.

You were the one that stated that the non DE version was better with zero explanation initially.

Literally just:

Don't play Definitive Edition. Play the original with UserPatch as God intended or at least HD. Yes, I am serious and yes, I am that autistic.

Zero explanation as to why.

I just felt your autism needs to be combatted before you get someone playing an inferior version of the game without any counter. You've explained why you feel (wrongly imo) that DE is inferior. Leave it at that.

If you want to discuss it further, at least take it to the AOE 2 thread. This is the one for AOE4.

 

[Young_Hollow]

You. Are. Getting. Annoying. To. Talk. To. Ms. Diva. I. Will. Keep. It. Short.

1. You are now using a mysterious group of people that are supposed to agree with you? You can verify in 3 sec that vast majority of people moved over to DE and are happy to stay there. You have problems distinguishing two units with a completely different weapon model when you zoom out? Ok, I guess that proves DE graphics are shit.
2. It does a lot of stuff. It's not easy to scout snipe anymore, it uses scout to properly harass villagers, it does different kinds of rushes very well, it responds to your units composition quickly. And that's on moderate onwards. It's overall a visible improvement and it gets updated.
3. So you don't like the new remix much, and...? Is that the point where I concede that DE is shit and go back to HD or cd version of Conquerors? Ok.
4. DE only nerfed them. They have strong eco, strong infantry, good in siege/trebuchet wars, king of the hill in the king of the hill unit category. And that's at their lowest point. Shit? Useless?
5. It was you who said that they were, quote on quote, shit before chivalry, thus directly claiming that time when there was no bloodlines, halbs and other changes and franks were completely rolling over everything didn't exist. Stop trying to spin your dumb statements as proving other people are dumb.
Your compromising statements? Like the one I just explained? Pay2win civs? Talking about ai when "you didn't test it"? What does that last one even mean? Did you play DE?
6. So does a big number of people agreeing means something or not? You're flip flopping in the span of a single post. Having a big, active community is probably important for a largely multiplayer game, you know.

BTW, wasn't it true that Franks used to be a pretty shit civ? Farm techs being free was not a good enough eco bonus, their knight bonuses were nothing special ever since Bloodlines got added to the game, and their lategame options were mediocre.

They were crazy op initially (them and teutons) and original devs were a tad too eager to nerf them due to this, which knocked them down a fair bit, but their boni were always in the good tier. Then they got buffed again and remained at the top despite steady nerf attempts.

1. You're saying DE is objectively better, I'm saying its not.
2. I tried two AI vs AI games on DE. One was Chinese mirror on Arabia and the other was Aztec mirror turbo-random on Arabia. The images of the results are attached below. In both cases, AI difficulty was set to hard and the blue player was the new AI and the red was the HD AI. Both of them are still very bot-like in that they still walk vills into enemy military and wait for a long time before attacking, but the HD AI won both times in this little test. They might chase deer on Arena but it was absent here.
3. I'm saying definitive is not definitive, that's all. Your strawman of reducing the preference to the main menu is invalid is all I'm saying.
4. Franks were absolute garbage in competitive. Strong infantry+strong cavalry means means a solely food+gold focused economy. They didn't have squires, making everything weaker to ranged attacks and their UU and UT was terrible value. Their eco bonus amounted to getting the farm upgrades free, which was not very substantial, especially if you didn't reach the imperial age. Their archers and light cav were gimped, their infantry was slow and their military bonus only gave 4 extra hp to cavaliers and 12 extra hp to paladins. Huns were nerfed well before DE, but that's besides the point.
5. No, I said they were shit before Chivalry despite bloodlines existing because the Frankish bonus of knights having +20% hp didn't make up for light cav lacking 20hp from bloodlines, among other things like their weak eco and bad support units.
6. All I'm saying is that having a bunch of new people who can't wait for more DLC or an Xbox port doesn't make the game better. If you think they do, please explain how.

 

[Young_Hollow]

inferior version of the game

Do you not understand that its subjective? The older versions have much wider mod compatibility, higher population limits, run on weaker systems, doesn't require Win10, has arguably better music and voice acting, doesn't have seasonal events or a battle royale mode. Do you really think its so objectively bad?

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

The AoE3-style unit production queue visible at all times in DE is fantastic. As is having unretarded shift-queueing.

 

[Tacgnol]

inferior version of the game

Do you not understand that its subjective? The older versions have much wider mod compatibility, higher population limits, run on weaker systems, doesn't require Win10, has arguably better music and voice acting, doesn't have seasonal events or a battle royale mode. Do you really think its so objectively bad?

The whole reason this argument spawned is because pickmeister claimed that DE was inferior with no further explanation. It is fine to have an opinion on the best version of the game, but it is extremely dishonest to suggest that it's a simple choice or that a lot of these things aren't down to individual 'tisms. My only concern was someone without knowledge of DE coming across his post and thinking that it was some sort of Codex hivemind opinion when it's clearly not.

If you wish to keep arguing this, take it to the AOE 2 thread, though I don't really see why it needs to be argued further. People have strong opinions on which version is best and I think every facet has been argued to death in the last couple of pages.

 

[pickmeister]

You were the one that stated that the non DE version was better with zero explanation initially.

You're right, but how is it in any way relevant to what I wrote in my previous post? It's not.

I just felt your autism needs to be combatted before you get someone playing an inferior version of the game without any counter. You've explained why you feel (wrongly imo) that DE is inferior. Leave it at that.

Asking why = combat
Haha, you're insane.

I stated what version I consider better and why and so did you. All of us shared our opinions. I haven't said even once that your arguments are invalid as those are your opinions I simply do not share. That doesn't make your opinions wrong. You have your preferences and I have mine, that's why our opinions differ.
However, it takes an actual retard to dispute obviously subjective opinions on a video game which is what both of you, Tacgnol and Zboj, are doing.
"I dislike new graphics, voice acting, menus, general feel, and atmosphere of the game, hence prefer the old one."
"THAT'S WRONG!"

My only concern was someone without knowledge of DE coming across his post and thinking that it was some sort of Codex hivemind opinion when it's clearly not.

Thank God you were here to save the day. Your service can't be appreciated enough. The perception of the Hivemind does clearly weigh heavily on your heart.
Even if I shared a complete bullshit statement on a whim, which I did not, then the person being baited by it and not doing any more research past that absolutely deserves to be fucked for his laziness.

I'm amazed someone as thin-skinned as you two can survive on Codex.
But I actually find the fact that one of the arguments thrown around is "Majority thinks it's better, therefore it's better." rather funny. I'd expect that on reddit but certainly not here.
Also, by looking at the steamcharts, I am not so sure about that statement. Yes, the DE numbers are higher than HD. But HD numbers are pretty much the same as when it was released in 2013 up until 2015 when newfags started to significantly pour in. Does that mean the majority moved over to DE because it's "objectively better" or the normie paypig consoomers, that never really played much the original in the first place, moved over, because they were just getting hyped up for heavily shilled DE, because everything new, naturally, must be better? I don't have a clear conclusion. I just wouldn't use it to support either side.

 

[Tacgnol]

Cope more newfag.

 

[pickmeister]

Thank you, for proving my point.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Making this in re this post: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/age-of-empires-iv-medieval-again.117891/page-22#post-7609621 addressed to all and especially to Zboj Lamignat in the AoE4 thread considering the weakness of the Franks before the FE mod. This is the blog of Cysion, who started work on the Forgotten Empires mod, a mod which mixed up the balance of the Conquerors after 10+ years of balance-wise dormancy and became so popular it prompted M$ to take notice and take them on as a studio under their wing, releasing AoE2HD with their input. The Forgotten Empires mod kickstarted the AoE2 renaissance and for better or worse, has led us to the state AoE2 is in today.

His review of the Franks civ: http://www.cysion.be/aocbox/?p=541

Franks are simply tricky to play with. They have a rather limited techtree and only excel in their heavy cavalry, which is not sustained by their economy. However, in teamgames they’re a force to reckon. A paladin pumping ally forces your enemy to make either camels, halberdiers or his own weaker paladins, which is not population effective late game.

 

[thesheeep]

Can you two lovebirds take a room, or maybe just the actual AoE2 thread that is right above/below this one?

On the other hand, this is one of the more close-to-topic derails of this place.

 

[Sensuki]

Franks are the easiest civ to play.

Very smooth economy and generally very simple army composition, particularly in team games - make scouts in feudal and make knights->cavalier-> paladin, get some throwing axemen to counter pikes if needed.

There are some areas where they struggle, but they're definitely baby's first aoe2 civ.

Franks have strong winrates in closed and open maps on all ELOs in ranked, and in tournaments.

Not sure what the dev is talking about there re: economy, the faster berries and the free farm upgrades make them so smooth to play. The cheap castles are crazy as well.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Franks are the easiest civ to play.

Very smooth economy and generally very simple army composition, particularly in team games - make scouts in feudal and make knights->cavalier-> paladin, get some throwing axemen to counter pikes if needed.

There are some areas where they struggle, but they're definitely baby's first aoe2 civ.

Franks have strong winrates in closed and open maps on all ELOs in ranked, and in tournaments.

Not sure what the dev is talking about there re: economy, the faster berries and the free farm upgrades make them so smooth to play. The cheap castles are crazy as well.

Faster berries and stables only came after the 2013 HD edition. Before that, they had a food+gold heavy army that was supported only by free farm upgrades and a UU and UT that were bad value for money. In Feudal, their scouts lacked bloodlines and were 20hp down despite being a cavalry civ and in imperial, they lacked and still lack archers and their skirmishers are gimped without the bracer tech. They also lacked squires which meant all their infantry moved slower and so became more susceptible to ranged damage.

Before the FE mod / HD edition, they were one of the worst civs in 1v1 tournaments and a worse pick than Persians or Huns or Mongols or Spanish for teamgames because all of them had much better economies and team bonuses.

He's talking about the pre-2013 age, which could be called age of the Huns, because they were the commonest pick by far in 1v1 games on open maps.