Ensemble Studios shuts down

[Dark Matter]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6197465.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1

Didn't see that coming.

Oh well, after Age of Mythology, they haven't made any worthwhile games and it didn't look like they were gonna make any more good games anyway.

Also, announcing this before Halo Wars was even released was probably a stupid move from MS. Now it'll most likely flop despite the "Halo" name in it.

 

[Shoelip]

So who's going to finish Halo Wars then? Or will it be canned? One can always hope.

 

[Dark Matter]

They're still gonna release the game. But they're done after that.

 

[thesheeep]

Sounds like: "Your studio was too expensive and didn't earn enough cash. Go make console games, you bastards."

Damn it. So much about AoEIV in the near future...
Also, that will be really motivating the guys working at Halo Wars right now

 

[GeneralSamov]

That's a sad loss. Mostly due to past glory, but still...

 

[Wyrmlord]

So what, people? Ensemble makes rock-paper-scissors games with extremely slow pacing. They basically made city-building games that were in real-time. Bad combination.

They have no place in today's market, not with all the fast-paced RTS games with far deeper mechanics. Their death was long pending.

 

[GeneralSamov]

Today we celebrate selling 20 Million copies of the Age of Empires franchise and we want to thank you our fans for making that possible. We hope to keep entertaining you and playing games with you for many years to come.

Indeed, hope dies last.

 

[thesheeep]

So what, people? Ensemble makes rock-paper-scissors games with extremely slow pacing. They basically made city-building games that were in real-time. Bad combination.

They have no place in today's market, not with all the fast-paced RTS games with far deeper mechanics. Their death was long pending.

You are quite proving yourself wrong. Especially with all those fast-paced RTS games out there, the interest for slower paced RTS games will grow, as clearly not all people like clicking like mad and care more about other things those fast-paced games simply can't deliver.

 

[J1M]

I approve of this closing.

 

[Wyrmlord]

So what, people? Ensemble makes rock-paper-scissors games with extremely slow pacing. They basically made city-building games that were in real-time. Bad combination.

They have no place in today's market, not with all the fast-paced RTS games with far deeper mechanics. Their death was long pending.

You are quite proving yourself wrong. Especially with all those fast-paced RTS games out there, the interest for slower paced RTS games will grow, as clearly not all people like clicking like mad and care more about other things those fast-paced games simply can't deliver.

And yet, Dawn of War and Company Of Heroes are also more tactical than AoE or AoM. Despite being faster-paced.

And I say this as a person who doesn't even like CoH.

What exactly do the AoE/AoM games offer that other RTSes don't?

 

[Dark Matter]

Their focus on economy management building and base building was one of the things I loved about their games. I don't quite get this modern day game philosophy with making all RTS games combat focused. We really need another game like Age of Empires II, getting sick of all the Total Wars, Relic games, World in Conflict etc. etc.

BTW,the unit-counter system of AoE/AoM was fucking great. It was really flexible unlike what I've seen in crappy modern RTS games like CoH and DoW, where you have units that can barely even leave a scratch on units that counter them. In AoE/AoM, there can be times when it's actually worth fighting a battle even if you're facing against units that counter your own.

 

[Destroid]

Supreme commander maybe?

 

[Inziladun]

While I do like Ensemble's older games they really haven't made anything of worth lately. I never heard of Halo Wars until just now, so it looks like they weren't going to make anything of worth anytime soon anyway.

Always sad to see an old name die out, but really it's not that much of a loss.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Their focus on economy management building and base building was one of the things I loved about their games. I don't quite get this modern day game philosophy with making all RTS games combat focused. We really need another game like Age of Empires II, getting sick of all the Total Wars, Relic games, World in Conflict etc. etc.

Wouldn't some city-building game be better for that? Or maybe some turn-based game? That stuff is more in the area of management sims (which believe me, I very much like).

Because how can one focus intensively on building a city with a clock ticking down on the game? And having enemies who rush you?

 

[J1M]

What exactly do the AoE/AoM games offer that other RTSes don't?

Eleven different resources.

 

[Xi]

When there are only 2 or 3 developers left, people will still be going "so what!"

 

[J1M]

When there are only 2 or 3 developers left, people will still be going "so what!"

Yeah, let's support games we don't enjoy playing and never ever start a new company with new (or old) ideas, ever.

 

[thesheeep]

Their focus on economy management building and base building was one of the things I loved about their games. I don't quite get this modern day game philosophy with making all RTS games combat focused. We really need another game like Age of Empires II, getting sick of all the Total Wars, Relic games, World in Conflict etc. etc.

Wouldn't some city-building game be better for that?

Not if you prefer the mixture of base building, ressource collecting and combat the Age of Empires series offers.
I agree that the combat might not be as deep as in other games, but the amount of additional strategies that don't really have much to do with combat (well, not directly, it all ends there, of course), but instead have to do with your economy do more than just make up for that "loss".

Because how can one focus intensively on building a city with a clock ticking down on the game? And having enemies who rush you?

That's exactly what makes those games interesting. You actually can do that, because the game is slow enough to allow you to not focus on only one thing. But you could also focus on only one of those. You could care mostly about combat and do a lot of fine tuning there, with microing, etc. Or you could go focusing on your base, ressources etc. Both are valid, both can be winning strategies if you are flexible enough to adjust them to new situations.

I know that all sounds very "wishful" and AoE certainly is not perfect at that (rushing is still quite overkill if done right, for example), but it is the closest thing I know.

 

[Texas Red]

I extensively played AoM random maps. You always have to used that one single plan. I had to deduce the best possible number of farmers, miners, the best time when to advance, when to build military units etc. I remembered why I didn't like random maps.

 

[thesheeep]

Yeah, welcome to the harsh reality of RTS balancing
Kind of hard to avoid the appearance of the strategy.

 

[Xi]

When there are only 2 or 3 developers left, people will still be going "so what!"

Yeah, let's support games we don't enjoy playing and never ever start a new company with new (or old) ideas, ever.

So for new companies to arise it requires that old companies fall? Or for new ideas to arise it requires this same "so what" concept that is often touted by the irrational babbling mass?

J1M, I guess I just believe that an environment that produces more games is also more likely to produce more gems. Maybe that's not how you see it, but it's a modest position and I will stick too it. What non-hyperbole do you have to offer in your defense though?

 

[Annonchinil]

So what, people? Ensemble makes rock-paper-scissors games with extremely slow pacing. They basically made city-building games that were in real-time. Bad combination.

They have no place in today's market, not with all the fast-paced RTS games with far deeper mechanics. Their death was long pending.

You are quite proving yourself wrong. Especially with all those fast-paced RTS games out there, the interest for slower paced RTS games will grow, as clearly not all people like clicking like mad and care more about other things those fast-paced games simply can't deliver.

And yet, Dawn of War and Company Of Heroes are also more tactical than AoE or AoM. Despite being faster-paced.

And I say this as a person who doesn't even like CoH.

What exactly do the AoE/AoM games offer that other RTSes don't?

Please explain to me all these super tactics in CoH because when I played the most popular German strategy was panzershrecked grenadier spam with bunker spam, I quit when blob tactics came along.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Damn. I was hoping for an Age of Mythology 2 some day.

 

[J1M]

When there are only 2 or 3 developers left, people will still be going "so what!"

Yeah, let's support games we don't enjoy playing and never ever start a new company with new (or old) ideas, ever.

So for new companies to arise it requires that old companies fall? Or for new ideas to arise it requires this same "so what" concept that is often touted by the irrational babbling mass?

J1M, I guess I just believe that an environment that produces more games is also more likely to produce more gems. Maybe that's not how you see it, but it's a modest position and I will stick too it. What non-hyperbole do you have to offer in your defense though?

The market is not unlimited. Less competition increases the chances of startup success.

Sure, a company that makes stuff you don't like that is allowed to exist forever will eventually make something you enjoy, but in the long run we are all dead. I'd rather we didn't waste talent and resources on shit. Doing that crowds the market and results in even safer game ideas. Duplicating software is essentially free. There are no traditional restraints on the production model like physical goods. Thus, when something excellent is created there are no haves and have-nots.

You completely missed my new (or old) idea reference. Doing a real Fallout or starting a Troika today would be an example of old ideas.

 

[MaskedMartyr]

When there are only 2 or 3 developers left, people will still be going "so what!"

Yeah, let's support games we don't enjoy playing and never ever start a new company with new (or old) ideas, ever.

So for new companies to arise it requires that old companies fall? Or for new ideas to arise it requires this same "so what" concept that is often touted by the irrational babbling mass?

J1M, I guess I just believe that an environment that produces more games is also more likely to produce more gems. Maybe that's not how you see it, but it's a modest position and I will stick too it. What non-hyperbole do you have to offer in your defense though?

The market is not unlimited. Less competition increases the chances of startup success.

Sure, a company that makes stuff you don't like that is allowed to exist forever will eventually make something you enjoy, but in the long run we are all dead. I'd rather we didn't waste talent and resources on shit. Doing that crowds the market and results in even safer game ideas. Duplicating software is essentially free. There are no traditional restraints on the production model like physical goods. Thus, when something excellent is created there are no haves and have-nots.

You completely missed my new (or old) idea reference. Doing a real Fallout or starting a Troika today would be an example of old ideas.

Okay, so the old studio breaks down, employees scatter to the wind to form their own companies. What's the chance that any of those companies will be successful? In before someone says Hellgate which tanked in case you didn't know.