Beasty Reacting to: "Why StarCraft 2 players excel in Age of Empires 4?"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2024
- Original Video - • Why StarCraft 2 player...
Feel free to let me know if you have any suggestions for future videos. Enjoy this one and have a great day :)
If you are enjoying my RUclips content, check out my live stream on Twitch!
Streaming pretty much every day, starting time is at 6 PM CET. Link to my stream is down below.
►Beastyqt Clips: / beastyqtclips
►Twitch: / beastyqt
►Twitter: / beastyqtsc2
►Instagram: / beastyqtsc2
►Patreon: / beastyqt
►Discord: / discord
Beasty is now sponsored by SteelSeries! Get 12% discount on any purchase using the link:
steelseries.pbj2.net/k0qXj3 and typing in code: 'beastyqt' for that juicy 12% off!
Sponsorship contact email: beastyqt@epictalent.gg
Personal contact email: beastyqtsc2@gmail.com
Edited & thumbnail by / @blackfiresc2
#Beastyqt #AOE4 #AgeofEmpires4
Thanks for watching and supporting! :) 
Игры
Thanks a lot for the review, it was interesting to hear your opinion about all the things discussed in the video! :)
The crossover we wanted
Английский Бассет уже такой взрослый...
Узнал тебя по акценту. Смотрю и думаю, а чего такой говор родной и знакомый
AoE 4: Legacy of Ilalu
in rts there are more singleplayer gamers playing campaign and ai only i feel like
I wonder if that's partly due to other competitive gaming genres being popular on console, while RTS is basically impossible to have a two-controller multiplayer experience on console. The only way I would have been able to share a game of AoE2 or AoE3 with a friend would have been to take turns on a PC, so the barrier to playing with other people is higher than going over to a friend's house and playing Halo or FIFA or something.
@@StartCodonUST CnC3 Kanes Wrath on Xbox 360 had its last tournament in 2019. halo wars 2 won that war
@@smrtycakes7509 I just mean that more casual gamers are introduced to the multiplayer experience for game genres if they can play games of the same genre with friends on the same console, not necessarily that Halo is *still* a "successful" game or it has a successful competitive scene on the console.
@@StartCodonUSTLAN parties used to be a thing and games like AoE2 DE and AoE4 (lowest settings) run fine on a 5 y/o (non-high end) laptop. So the possibility is there.
There's simply way more hours of single player playtime (especially if you play relaxed) in RTS (AoE2 DE in particular) than other genres, which would be my guess why it skews in that direction.
@@matt_9112 Oh yeah, LAN was really the only way I experienced multiplayer for AoE3 while growing up. It was always kinda clunky when you had some people on Mac and some on PC and those versions were usually incompatible for LAN. LAN seemed like a big production you had to plan for compared to hopping on a console game.
I think the point on there being a disproportionate amount of singleplayer content in RTS makes a lot of sense.
I'm an AOE2 player that started to play AOE4 since the release of the DLC. I really like the idea of aoe4, it's more like a 21st game more than aoe2. It's not rlly as a "fast" as someone would think, because there's the same many things to do on macro and stuff, but the things that are a bit different make it a game which becomes super super fast compared to aoe2 and becaomes rlly different, which on aoe2 you cannot do. Unit management on aoe2 is more important while they kite, but on aoe4 it's more important to positionate them better. A clear example is the shoots of mangonels. Mangonels on aoe2 is like a meme until it hits ur xbow and they are all dead, and on aoe4 1 mangonel does barely nothing if there's 40 units (which in aoe2 1 mangonel can easy kill 40 xbow). Also the fact u can make spears on aoe4 that can kill or harass villagers that hard also make the game more aggresive, even the tower rush on age 1 seems unrealistic for an aoe2 player. So game start sooner and u need to be more active since the start. Another big important mechanic is the exploration, in aoe4 exploration is too much of a big key, in aoe2 you can predict what the enemy is going for because builds are really restricted to civs, otherwise play another civ. There's many different mechanics that make the game way faster, but it's only on gameplay interaction. The aoe2 and aoe4 it's the same game, i only have issues with build orders or lategame management, the rest of the game i'm quite good. Now the game has been figured out and you still might think that those 2 games are very different, but you only will notice small differents, that's why all aoe2 main players still on aoe2 and the new players that has come to stay such as Beasty, the spanish brothers or MarinLord prefered aoe4 over aoe2. If i have to recomend a RTS game to a friend i would suggest aoe4 over aoe2. Aoe4 is more friendly welcome, faster and unique game than aoe2. Think of like aoe2 is like starcraft 1 and aoe4 is like starcraft 2, just that for some reason aoe2 nostalgics like a lot aoe2 and that's why championship there has more money than aoe4 tournaments. Tho, personally teamgames on aoe2 are rlly good compared to aoe4, and FFA on aoe4 is way better than on aoe2. So, it's not possible either to compare both games on gamestyle bcs they both excel on one thing better than the other when comes to multiplayer (anything else than just 1 vs 1).
One mangonel can never kill 40 xbow on a high level. That only works if the xbow player doesnt micro at all.
Beasty I thought you might be interested to learn this. You mentioned that fighting games kind of die out when the new one comes out, but that isn't fully true. There are a handful of games that most people consider better than anything since, such as Street Fighter 2, Street Fighter 3, Marvel 2, Marvel 3, Melty Blood 1, King of Fighters 98. All of these games have subsequent editions that no one really plays much (example: Street Fighter 4+5, Marvel 4) while their most modern newest version are still played. So there is kind of a bubble of the immortalized games, and then the most recent games, while a lot of the stuff in between is forgotten. Its pretty unique to fighting games, probably because they have new versions come out every 5 or 6 years compared to like every 10 or 12 years for RTS. RTS and fighting games are my two favorite genres my whole life because their competition is so unique.
to tack on super smash bros melee which still has an active scene (tho not much money) and was never supported by nintendo in the first place.
AoE2 and AoE4 are very different animals, because the civilizations in AoE2 are much more broadly similar: you really only need to remember if a faction is a knight civ and/or late game specialist or not, even if you don't remember the exact bonuses a civilization gets. For example, you might forget that the Teutons have 40% cheaper farms, but you know it's a knight civ, so you can infer that it will want to go up ages as soon as possible to reach full strength.
AoE4 is much more ad-hoc, because not knowing that someone has access to a 400% bonus is downright fatal unless you can either adjust very quickly, or the other person also isn't adjusting to what you're doing. You can't just say, "oh, they're attacking me early, so I'll beat them in villager production and send a few raiders to attack them" like you can in AoE2.
Isn't this irrelevant at the top level since they're anyone with some experience is going to know how to play the factions.
You are speaking like someone who has no experience with AoE2. Civs in AoE2 might be similar in many ways, but there are knight civs, camel civs, archer civs, infantry civs, etc. Gurajaras are neither knight civs, nor crossbow civs. The timing windows with archers are also really tight. To get anywhere beyond 60th percentile or so, you really do need to know your bonuses and tech tree. At least the core of it.
A good question at the end about how things would have been. In my most recent history, me and 5 of my buddies have been gamers together since the early 00's, and had an Overwatch squad. We played a thousand + hours of Mystery Heroes together mostly, but regardless, they did what you theorized about by deleting Overwatch 1 from existence, and all of a sudden we were a slot short and our preferred game mode gone. None of us logged more than 10 hours in 2 before we quit and subsequently uninstalled. I dunno. We're also old as dirt so I'm sure the fear of change and fact we never gave a f*ck about the competitive nature of char balance too heavily didn't help, but still. 1k hours of 6 peoples lives for literally nothing feels really bad. Though I only experienced it for the first time recently I think that was a big part of my aversion to owning/investing time in sports games, despite enjoying playing them with friends. Anyways, a rare time I have perspective you maybe don't on a gaming matter sir! Keep at it
Cosmonarchy is like Age of Empires 4 and Starcraft had a beautiful baby, you should all check it out
Nice video and nice reaction! had a great time watching this.
I started playing AOE4 like a month ago, and this video gave me things to think about.
I really hope that forcing players to play later game is bad, because community will eventually settle down on the game they enjoy&like the most.
Current state of AOE2 and AOE4 community seems decent to me(not much that I know of), as I have seen SC:BW and SC2 league fall apart.
Transition between series takes a long time, and sometimes fail unless they are perfect upgrade.
I live in South Korea and saw transition to SC2 from SC:BW and happened quite smooth,
But that was only on Pro-level because of huge matching-fixing scandal made SC:BW league disappear in thin air, and Blizzard wanted to focus on SC2.
On player level SC:BW and SC2 was exactly like AOE2 and AOE4 right now.
Now, SC:BW has much, much larger community in Korea.
SC2 was great, but its community quickly fell apart when number of leagues decreased, and Blizzard stopped supporting smaller leagues.
The game was tiresome too, because if you look away for couple of second, you lose the game. SC2 community was based on Pro league and without the league, there was no community.
That was when SC:BW started to grow up, and all SC players came back to it - now even League of Legends pros like T1 Faker plays SC:BW on stream.
After all, fun is what matters the most when playing the game.
I just hope that Microsoft know that.
The StarCraft comment with the meme had me dying.
You made a great point around 26:00. I watched the Viper a LOT early in AOEIV until he went back. His viewership on RUclips was down dramatically when he was posting AOEIV, unfortunately.
I very casually played AOEII since it the original release, but I love AOE IV.
very interesting honestly, cool vid!
Beasty, i know you said sc2 is not a game for you anymore, but that it is a great game. I used to watch your stream constantly when you were playing sc2 and i still sometimes rewatch your vods! It would be cool if you could come back for a couple of games every now and then!
He did do a few games of it for april fools
@@harooooo1 i realized just after i left my comment! I just saw the video!! Pretty cool!
I stopped watching as much when he stopped playing SC2. But you have to realize he has played that game for many years, and if he doesn't enjoy playing it anymore it wouldn't be enjoyable to watch either.
Beasty is basically the utermal of today.
Absolutely right. The same I told people for many many years. I also told people that SC2 is mechanically too hard for casual gamers since the beta of Starcraft 2. But nobody listen to me, because I'm not a pro player and I'm not a famous game designer in a famous company. =( ... Sad Story.
The general opinion is if you are not one of the best pro players or you are not a famous game designer in a famous gaming company you are wrong. =)
So when I'm telling other people what BeastyqtSC2 told in his stream or video I'm wrong, because it's me I'm telling that. That tells a lot about how smart many humans are.
I know many reasons why Age 4 is not as succesful as Age 2 although Age 4 has a good foundation, but the rts buisness is hard and many things have to be very good.
I will list them in a new comment.
I like this kind of content, even more when it's all about games I know and care.
I'm not gonna lie, I've been waiting for your reaction on this video.
the interesting thing that mista did on that game at 10:20 was massing springald as abbasid which at the time was a strong all purpose unit. I think it was the beginning of springroll meta (before that i think feudal knight was more dominant)
he was massing the springald at the south of the map close to vortix base and vortix happened to not scout that area, he went knocking with like 5 springald on vortix door. The multiple TC was indeed a surprise but it pales in comparison to themista springroll surprise
DO A MARATHON TOURNAMENT WHERE YOU NEED TO PLAY ALL THESE GAMES LIKE MD1 IN BROODWAR, THEN SC2, AOE2 , AOE4 that's the only way
There would be no logical reason for funding to be cut for AoE2.
I was previously dimanond3 with protoss in sc2. Now I have conq1 with mongl in aoe4.
You can also ask why Dawn of War and Company of Heroes players excel in Aoe4
Sorry for my bad english.
Reasons why Age 4 is still not as popular as it could be.
Problem 1:
Upgrade and unit visual detection. Humans use pattern recognition to identify things very fast. Because the upgrade icons miss a lot of different colors and raw color patterns it needs more time to recognize the concrete upgrade. For pro gamers maybe less important, because they use shortcuts and have remembered better through muscle memory. For new players or casual players even those you use shortcuts like me we need more time to explore the upgrades, because I haven't much knowledge about Age 4 and that is one reason why I play it less althought I would like to play. And because of my friends have the same problem I even have no friends that play that game with me. That is a snowball effect and that is the reason why I don't play Age 4 although I know it is a good game. But not good enough and that is the reason why I'm fighting for Age 4 improvements so my basic concerns will be solved so that I can unconditionally love Age 4.
Problem 2:
Grubby has found out that the controlling of the units it not as good as in SC2 or WC3. It is a bit harder to click things and also the movement is not very good. Good, but not very good.
So it is a bit harder to control. I know that is a thing that is more important for pro gamers and not for me, but a bit I can feel the same problem when I want to click and move units.
Problem 3 (Maybe one of the biggest):
Age 4 beginners need for each civ a short playable tutorial to become teached about a few important strategies and playstyles. The barrier to entry is very high due to the very different civilizations. All my friends tell me they have not so much interest/time to watch youtube tutorials in order to become prepared for the game. They did it with Age 2 for many years and they have no time or interest to do it again for a new game. So I think an easy tutorial for each civ how to play a simple well known strategy like fast castle, Scout rush, fast boom etc. would help them to get in contact with this game, because they will have a fast way to learn one basic strategy with a civ they like and choose. If I will find out which Civ they would like I could tell them "here is one short tutorial in game with the civ x/y and a short way how to play this strategy you already know from Age 2."
Problem 4:
More tactical depth like when units run uphill they become slower and when they run downhill they become faster, also a few seconds after they reached the flat ground which is not only more realistic, it also gives the game a bit more tactical depth and excitement. And you can think more of it like how could fire work and affect the game or what would a chance to dodge arrows do for the tactical and micro part for the game?
Problem 5:
This is the most subjective thing. I like the graphics, but for me It's too straining for my eyes because all the details like grass and leaves moving in the wind make everything harder to discern and somehow tiring. (I'm 36, have no glasses and good eyes. Just for information.) Would be nice if there will be an option to simplify things visually without making it less recognizable. All textures also appear somewhat blurry and foggy. That for me at least is also one big reason why I prefer to play Age 2. It looks simpler, more clear and more easy to recognize.
I highly recommend seriously checking out Rise of Nations -- adds modern warfare and air combat. Excellent game done in the style of AOE series. Upon release, I could never go back to AOE2. Would be interested in hearing your review and assessment.
Not sure if argument about broodwar is correct. Reason is that starcraft2 was "upgraded" starcraft1, yes there were changes but not in the core. where is aoe4 is very different to aoe2. Yes resources, building or upgrades are similar but they are used in different situations. Also aoe2 got new DE version which made game look and play way better(in that example majority people did transition to new version of the game) If we compare both games a year after release of aoe4 then you would notice that aoe2 is way better in QoL, balance, gameplay with less buggs and no wierd siege meta. Hera and many others didnt stay in aoe4 because of money placed in aoe2 but mainly because they didnt like balance and gameplay of aoe4. And most important as you said: people dont want to watch them playing aoe4. Currently AoE4 improved a LOT but first year was breaking moment there AoE4 didnt overwhelm AoE2. Its just AoE2 after 20 years is still game design so well that it doesnt feel behind to newer titule.
Mista played AOM quite alot before switching to AOE4
As a SC2 Player coming to aoe 4: i agree with u.
It was a fast paced more complex modern rts. Your welcome carry on with your day
Age of Empires 2 is crazy hard, is why I play AOE4. The simple fact that I has like 64 civs is crazy, and simple macro mistakes (like not harvesting the sheep in order because of meat decay) will cost you the entire game
Actually, you just have to learn about 8-10 archetypes because you have several Cavalry, Archer, Monk, Infantry, Gunpowder etc civs in AoE 2.
Also, this won't cost you the game. There are still ways to recover. :)
@@FloosWorld_AoE civs in aoe2 also have unique units which make games more complex. It's not as simple as "archer civ", "cavalry civ" ect.
2 archer civs for example can have totally diferent play styles. mayans have plumed archers as a unique which are fast foot archers making them a good civ for manouver and offense, hit and run, raid type play. where as Britons have a range bonus making them harder to push and more defensive, but they lack maneuverability - 2 archer civs with very diferent strengths and weaknessess.
Cav civs are similar. Some have good knights(heavy cav) making them good in tanking fights and pushing, some have good light cav making them good for raiding etc. some civs have things like hill bonus which can totally change a fight if you don't know about it. some civs have cheaper trash unit which means that they tend to have the edge late game when gold runs out. if players arent aware of this they can waste their gold units thinking of overpowering not realising that they can afford to throw trash at his gold units longer than his gold lasts ect.
my point is there's a lot more to think about and consider that can be the diference between losing and winning a game. it's not as simple as "archer civ" "cav civ" "Gunpowder civ" "Naval civ" ect. Though i do get your point. As a beginner learning the civ types first and worrying about the niche elements later is a sensable way to aproach aoe2.
@@oll-turny-llo8200 That's true, unique units are also supposed to flip the counter triangle by having e.g. bonus damage to siege (Mangudai, Magyar Hussar) or being an Anti archer infantry (Huskarl).
Also, I'd consider Spanish as a "hidden" Archer civ as the game officially labels them as Monk + Gunpowder but given that their Blacksmith upgrades only cost food, they can easily afford an Archer rush
"Its true that StarCraft 2 is the most mechanically demanding RTS out there" do you think he meant specifically StarCraft 2, or did he just misspeak and meant to say StarCraft as a series to include Brood War? I didn't play Brood War much competitively, but played SC2 at mid masters and I found Brood War to be like way more challenging mechanically than StarCraft 2. I'm curious to hear the opinion of anyone that has played both at a decently high level.
We don't compare brood war. Because brood war is simply THE hardest in all areas of rts that you can think off. Think of a field to compare in an rts and brood war WILL always be harder, starcraft brood war is THE hardest rts game. Comparing it to even starcraft2, it's sequel, is not even close much alone another game in the rts genre. That's why people don't talk about brood war because it's in a field of is own. Using starcraft2 is a fairer comparison
When you think about it Microsoft got Starcraft and Aoe !
AoE > StarCraft confirmed
StarCraft 2 isn't harder than AOE. Sc2 is simplified RTS
AOE has way more options choices.
SC is just chaos. So it seems overwhelming. But it's not more complicated than aoe
Aoe is more complicated but it ain't "harder" there's is a difference between complexity and difficulty. Surprisingly just because aoe2 is more complicated starcraft is harder to play. After I transfered from sc2 to aoe2 it felt like a cake walk and the only times I lose is when I don't know the units, i just needed to be more familiar with the units, after a first few hours playing abit of campaign and playing the celts, I won my first multiplayer match. Unlike starcraft where it took me a month before I got my first actually win,(and I even had to use protoss to win, in contra to my main race today as terran). You could say that my skill in starcraft translated fairly to aoe2 but if I started with aoe2 I'd probably quit starcraft after a week of losing in multiplayer.
@@lordlopikong6940 I find that to be a strange thought.
StarCraft 2 has access to a larger player base. So it's harder because the competition is overall better than AOE. Because StarCraft is a blizzard game and very hyped. With eSports boosting the attention. You're likely finding sc2 multiplayer harder simply because the player base. Not the game itself
People like ghosts and lasers more than horses are archers. Esthetically StarCraft appeals to a wider audience.
I find it interesting you don't think starting in aoe wouldn't have helped your start into sc2. It definitely would.
Sc2 would help you play more aggressively in AOE. Which will beat low skilled players who just like building bases and losing 90% so yeah. Winning your first multiplayer would be easier in AOE. Because aoe has a much less sweaty fanbase. But not because the game is harder. The community is harder
unfortunately for starcraft 2 unite rebuilding is riddiculisly hard you have to be really fast and efficient to rebuild everything so thats why if you lose your army for 1 second the whole game is over
If you like strategy, you should have a look at WARNO
i would say because starcraft 2 pacing is really fast its also more suitable for e-sports also with the really fast pacing it creats also alot of excitement and more tension also with the amount of balance patches that starcraft 2 has its also the most unbalanced as as well as most frustated game ever like protoss somehow at low level being to powerful yet at pro level they lose alot
SC2 is the best RTS in history... true fact.
But I liked the conclusion. That's why I don't think we'll see AoE 5 or SC 3. I mean, it's very unlikely, because it splits the Community.
So why there is a solid Community in SC1 Broodwar or AoE 2? I guess because the games are well balanced. Meanwhile, maybe AoE 4 and SC 2 receive balance patches until they stabilise?
Why are people affraid of playing SC 2? Because IMHO it will never be perfectly balanced. Pro Players can transform an unit that wasn't created OP into an OP unit. That's when the unit gets nerfed. Or create OP builds. That's when units can get Quality of Life changes to counter that build etc.
Now, if you look from a FIFA game perspective, well, it's the same game. You might call it just FIFA, and it gets a new patch every year. If you look at it this way, it's kind of the same thing.
I don't like playing shooters, like CounterStrike, but for e.g. I don't know if there is a game called CS 2 different from CS. Maybe have different maps or objectives, but within the same game, just like FIFA Road to World Cup or something, but its within the same game, but having more fun, isn't it?
So, my conclusion would be not to split Communities. Good RTS games have a way of evolving by themselves. You don't have to force gamers into switching into another version of the same game because it doesn't make any sense to do that.
Yes, you can create a new game, such as Stormgate, and see what happens.
Starcraft 2 isn't harder to play. There. Fight me.
AoE2 seems faster to me. I have to play 4 because my mates could understand and play it after 2 games rather than 15+ on AoE2 and nothing being absorbed. Enjoying both rn though, but mostly 4 atm (friends and just something new)
Masters in sc 2. Gold in aoe4. My skills didn't transfer.
AOE4 lacks most features, even the gameplay is mainly focused on macro...
In AOE2, a good micro player is still possible to turn the tides. That is where the beauty exists. It is so exciting to see that.
In AOE4, micro arrows, some siege projectiles give 100% guarantee that it will hit and kill. That makes the game real boring...
thanks for this vid good thoughts
Why do some AOE2 plays so violently react to aoe4.
I love both games, and Sc2 as well.
Every gaming community does this. Diablo 2 loyalists hate every Diablo game to come out since. They view new things as a threat to their existing community and don’t want to fracture it.
@@ChosenPlaysYT but Diablo 3 and 4 are actual trash
(You found the D2 fan)
@@brandon8667 I’m a D2 fan too. But D2 fans say ridiculous things like D4 has no end game, when the end game in D2 has been doing Baal runs for 25 years.
if you want to see micro go play total war warhammer 3
aoe2 plays on x1.7 speed while aoe4 has only one realtime speed, so technically aoe2 is slower xdd
doesnt apply to me. I was masters in SC2 but i cant even beat bronze players in AOE4. This game is SO slow and macro heavy...almost no micro neccessary compared to SC2 (was not a zerg)
was he memeing 1:00 says SC2 is the most complex game and its a bainling bust......
Played broodwar then sc2 then AOE 2 into aoe 4. Can tell you sc2 is the “hardest” out of these just because the pace and speed of the game is significantly faster than the rest. I can tell you that most of AOE4 players can’t even defend knight harass well, they’ll smash their keyboards against a GM Terrans reaper in the first 3 minutes of their game
As a starcraft player, I'm sick to death of hearing people calling Starcraft the hardest game ever. That it's harder than chess and football combined. It's the hardest 1v1 game of all time etc etc etc. It's silly because there are so many games out there that are way different like, Age of Empires or even games outside and of rts like Super Smash bros Melee, CSGO or Dota. All of these games are hard to master if you want to be a pro player. Being a pro player overall, is hard work.
Same.
Hearing people say SC2 is the most mechanically demanding game in the world is even worse for me as a Brood War player.
Like bro, your game isn‘t even the most mechanically demanding in the franchise.
Leenock quit aoe4 😢 only korean pro player in aoe4
1:50 but Nacho Aoe said, "The level of age 4 is more low than the level of age of empires 2". It seems like a joke but he really said it. That 1di0t streamer from age of empires 2 ever throws pure hate at age of empires 4
I don't mean offense to AoE2 players. Good AoE2 players partially rely on raw mechanics of abusing the janky ass 1999 controls (that they didn't get rid of completely with DE). But with AoE4's simplified controls, the years of control abuse went out the door. SC2 is faster and thus requires far quicker decision making skills. SC2 players will of course excel in a slower paced AoE environment.
Especially that in aoe4 arrows with their laser accuracy allows you to micro your units so much(that animation, lol), vils runs like mr Bolt, economy inflation in late game reachs Venezuela level and overall visibility of units (units dont difference from eachother, its one mass of color you play) makes this game so much better.
because were gods!!!!
You excel at video games cause you don't even know how to change a tire, etc. I'm so proud.
wut? that is such a random and weak insult lol
@@dom7899 I know, i have my moments.
aoe is slow as fuck
At least to watch, this is 100% true.
@CamiloCBG also unit responding and map clicking feels woody, i love the graphics though but i prefer sc2 gameplay 🪵, also aint nobody got time too play 1 hour games every time, the early game last like 15 minutes.
@@EnvoYofAiuR85 agreed.
@@EnvoYofAiuR85 I agree on unit responsivness, SC2 still has the best RTS game engine hands down, even compared to the more recent AoE 4.
The comment about game lenght... I'm not sure.
I don't play much AoE 1-3 so I can't comment on those, but for AoE4 currently 1v1s last on average about 25 minutes. Which isn't too different from SC2 iirc. The one thing I'll give you is that in AoE4 it's more difficult to finish someone off once you have an advantage. Which means that if you are a bit inexperienced and you are up againt a stubborn opponent the game might last longer then it should simply because you aren't very good at actually killing them.
Although even in SC2 you occasionally run into that Terran that just lifts off and floats to a corner forcing you to make air just to kill all the buildings and win.
@@paolocappelli7242 AoE 1 often tends to end in a Tool Age (= 2nd Age in that game) rush fest. AoE 2 tends to be 25-35 minutes, so not too far off. I think AoE 3 is the fastest in the series as it made some substential changes such as villagers insta-collecting resources and batch training.