I can only assume that the point you're trying to make is that there's not nearly enough information for a reasonable answer. It's certainly hard to come up with solid ideas without a clear understanding of the game's pacing.
In RTS games, teching and building armies compete for resources, so I'd hazard guessing that Game 1 happens because somebody opted for early aggression, which forces everybody to spend money on units to fight off the early threat. Looks like a well balanced game where both teams kept the aggression level high, which justifies the long duration, and the low-tech end-game.
Second game looks like there was little to no early-game aggression, which meant that everybody got to funnel resources into teching up early. I'm not sure if late-tech battles are more all-or-nothing, or whether one team was just clearly stronger than the other -- though if that's the case, why didn't they push for an advantage earlier? AoE is much more symmetrical than, say, Starcraft IIRC, so one team having a weaker early game but a stronger late game doesn't seem likely.
I'm curious, though: how does this relate to the article?
The players in the first game are likely experts and if a team from the first game plays against a team from the second, the game will be over in less than ten minutes. Its not merely that "someone opted for early aggression", its that when playing at the elite level all players opt for aggression. Its not rock, paper, scissors. Its a game of rock, paper.
The point is that deployed features trump undeployed "it'll be great when its ready" technology.
I'm happy for my competitors to opt for spending money attempting to achieve "good architecture" over "working code".
Ok, so the analogy is kind of shitty. Unlike Age of Empires, spending money on "good architecture" is actually less effective at creating good architecture than writing working code.
In RTS games, teching and building armies compete for resources, so I'd hazard guessing that Game 1 happens because somebody opted for early aggression, which forces everybody to spend money on units to fight off the early threat. Looks like a well balanced game where both teams kept the aggression level high, which justifies the long duration, and the low-tech end-game.
Second game looks like there was little to no early-game aggression, which meant that everybody got to funnel resources into teching up early. I'm not sure if late-tech battles are more all-or-nothing, or whether one team was just clearly stronger than the other -- though if that's the case, why didn't they push for an advantage earlier? AoE is much more symmetrical than, say, Starcraft IIRC, so one team having a weaker early game but a stronger late game doesn't seem likely.
I'm curious, though: how does this relate to the article?