Orléans or Duché d’Orléans
1 Like
I assume they are insistent in having Jeanne’s name in the faction name in order to clearly emphasize it revolves around her hero unit specifically, which is why I made suggestions such as the ones above.
I’m going to have to ask why. If Jeanne and the choices you make in her Journey of a Hero define your progression as a civ ingame, why does she not represent the faction?
Is any other faction designed this way? Is she not unique (so far) even by the standards of design in IV?
It’s not that the devs can’t choose other names. They’ve just demonstrated they can. It’s not that they can’t think them up.
To me, this is a difference in opinion. But I don’t get the apparent refusal the consider the choice the devs made - even if you prefer your own suggestions.
I am not sure how to make it clearer, but I will try:
As I mentioned before it is a bit like using the wrong part of speech. For example a local school district here has their list of “values” and it is something like:
- Responsibility
- Inclusive
- Integrity
- Respect
- Excellence
- Kindness
One of these items clearly does not fit. It could also be changed so easily to fit and still convey the exact same idea.
An individual hero’s name clearly does not fit in a list of factions.
It is not an either or situation. It can so easily be tweaked to convey the same exact idea AND logically fit in the list. It is such an easy and small thing to do.
That is why I do not consider any arguments I have seen to be compelling. Because they can be satisfied while ALSO making the faction name fit in the list.
1 Like
I could make the same argument of Zhu Xi’s Legacy and Order of the Dragon.
Only the (newly named) Ayyubids matches. But you’re concerned specifically about Jeanne?
If you’re concerned about all three, I take it back. But if you want to talk about tenses and grammar, let’s go there. I personally like the variant concept, but it’s very hard to iterate on a historical empire for any length of time without breaking from “the Mongols” or whatever.
Doubly so when we have a unique gameplay element to consider. If Jeanne was explicitly defined as a “Hero” variant, would that help? Language can easily be justified in a bunch of ways.
Oh I also have the same problem with Zhu Xi’s Legacy, although I would be less hopeful of any change since they have already changed it. At least with the addition of the word “legacy” after his name you can somewhat twist that into referring to a faction of people. Hell, even changing “Jeanne d’Arc” to “Jeanne d’Arc’s Legacy” would be slightly better.
Order of the Dragon is a faction name though. It is a group of people. That is the name that has been fine from the start. “Sultans Army” although lame and generic at least was the correct “part of speech” as it were.
It is clear these are not really “civilizations”, “factions” would be a better term. Whether or not that is an issue for a game called Age of Empires is a separate discussion, but seems moot anyway because that is obviously not going to change. Some people are raging about the whole design of Jeanne, but that ship has sailed.
Perhaps, though I’ve heard AOE2 devs considered them a mistake. AOE3 is obvious because colonization, but in AOE4, what do you do for Meso civs and siege? Giving them normal siege makes like no sense so they would have to get really creative.
Oh, I’m not referring to the faction argument. I’m keeping it linguistic. As per your list of names, with “inclusive” sticking out (vs. the more matching “inclusivity”).
The Ayyubids, the Mongols, the English, the Malians.
The what, Order followers? Legacifiers? None of the three fit the grammatical rule you’re imposing. If by that you meant “matches the semantics of members of a faction”, then I misread you, sorry.
And if I did misread you, we’re back to “that’s the hero’s name”. Yes, it doesn’t represent her followers. It represents the singular lynchpin the variant revolves around. Jeanne.
Despite the inconsistencies in the way the civilizations have been named from the start, they were still all names that made sense in reference to a faction of people.
“Kevin” does not and never will make sense as the name of a faction. Even if the titular Kevin is the lynchpin that it revolves around.
I am struggling to make it any more clear how the name linguistitcly clearly does not fit.
Does “Jeanne d’Arc’s Army”, or any of the other suggestions, somehow lose the sense that she is central to it?
Did you read all of her faction’s description? It is not just her as a lone unit after all. She does have an army/followers.
I’ve read every piece of info the devs have given out (and wished they’d do this more often, I love them explaining their reasoning even if folks / me / whoever disagree with particulars. It bridges a gap, generally).
“Kevin” is not the patron saint of a country with centuries of history. I don’t get the need to keep making these absurd references that don’t represent what’s actually being discussed.
I get you don’t like it. But “Kevin” is not it.
My opinion I’ve given a bunch of times. You know where I stand. I know where you stand. I’ve told you I have no issue with some of your (and other folks’) suggestions, but there is never, ever going to be a One True Name that stops everybody arguing. Your suggestions will not work for the historically accurate crowd. The historically accurate crowd are onto a tough bargain (even if they don’t know it) because Jeanne’s name is surprisingly complex affair!
What we’re seeing is a compromise between gameplay and recognition. And we’re going in circles here, because I’ve said that already. I think.
You know I appreciate your posts, you know I’m not just doing this to be stubborn (though I guess on some level, we all are - in a good way haha). I don’t get why you can’t see the reasoning at play here - even if you think it’s terrible and should burn in the fires of hell forevermore. Anyone can refuse to call anyone’s reasoning cogent - but can you honestly say you can’t see it? Or do you just dislike it that strongly.
Forget Kevin if you must. I am just demonstrating that whoever the particular individual is, that is irrelevant to my point. My argument is purely one of lexical semantics.
I understand totally their reasoning for wanting Jeanne to be in the name after showing how central she is to the faction. That is why I only made suggestions that maintained that. I think with the way they designed the faction there is a very strong argument that her name SHOULD be part of the title.
The reason I don’t accept arguments for the current name is because they can be satisfied while ALSO being linguistically consistent. If the name was changed in such a way people making those arguments would STILL be satisfied.
1 Like
Fair enough. I disagree on the consistency then, I think. To me “representing the faction” is a lot looser thing than a simple (or proper) noun. Which is why I differentiated the Malians, Rus, etc from Order of the Dragon (picking that one as most people seem to have the least issue with it amongst the variants).
1 Like
Yes, for me they are alternatives to the AoE 3 revolutions, no more, no less…
And at least now they are more historically correct…
For me the Ayyubids are going to be the same as Joan of Arc, but with Saladin…
In reality, with AoE 2 they had ideas that in the end they did not implement due to lack of time or limitations of the engine, with AoE 3 they said it was a mistake, not because of the historical period, but because they implemented many things at once that perhaps did not fit into the main saga and when they wanted to make it a spinoff, MS didn’t let them and what came out came out… and with AoE 4 they could make the meso civs have an early siege bonus and that they can destroy the wooden walls, but they can’t do it with stone walls…
Personally, I think the reason Jean de Arc isn’t “Jean de Arc Army”, is simply because the second is longer, and I’m not kidding:
-
The detail is that for the game files, especially when it comes to putting the civ titles in the codes, a short name works better than a long one and less one with several words.
-
In fact, I think it’s the same reason why “French” is “French” and not “Kingdom of France” or English is not “English Kingdom.” Same with Rus, which could be “Rus Zarate” or “Rus kingdoms”.
-
A special case is the Muslim kingdoms, which must be referred to with the distinctions of caliphate, sultanate or dynasty to differentiate terms that are not the same.
-
The Abbasid dynasty, for example, exists because there is a difference with the Abbasid Caliphate, which is remembered as ending in 1258, however the game considers the dynasty, because it remained alive as religious leaders but no longer military in other kingdoms, including the Ayyubid and the Mamluk Sultanate.
-
However, the variant civ, Ayyubid (Which I assume represents both the Ayyubid and the Mamluk Sultanate), is unmistakable with just that name, so instead of the Ayyubid Dynasty or Sultanate, it is just Ayyubid.
-
I suppose the same thing happens with Delhi, which is technically a city, you have to add the “Sultanate” part to refer to the proper kingdom, otherwise it would have simply been Delhi.
-
The Ottomans could have been the Ottoman Empire, but they reduced it to Ottomans, because the name is unmistakable.
I think that’s the whole reason actually.
The other clue I have has to do with the image I published a few days ago theorizing various civs that could appear in the future, or that I thought were pretty in general. Most of the titles fit on the selection screen, except Hanthawaddy Kingdom (which i had to reduce is font), so if this civ ever existed, they would probably just call it “Hanthawaddy”.
I’m just theorizing by the way.
1 Like
I’m a part of “every aoe fan”, as I have already been playing age of empires and the rise of rome in the 1990s and don’t have ANY problem with the chosen names of the expansion.
I do have a big problem with the arcade elements which will be introduced in the expansion.
This is not fortnite, league of legends or dota and SHOULD NOT become it.
1 Like
These types of incentives are what I have suggested for a long time to motivate the use of other civilizations
