Im not talking about “liking the game”. As I said before, you can enjoy it for ehatever reason you want
But dont act as if its an argument. You are calling us “whiners” because we want a change that will “ruin your childhood”. And thats completely ridiculous.
You can justify why you think a game is well written or is an interesting challenge. Nostalgia is not about appreciating anything of the thing itself but about “feeling comfortable”
And if this change happens and you hate it so much and you clearly dont care about Tatars and Cumans just put a mod to make all central asian civs look middle eastern (and no, we cant do the inverse because unlike you we care about all these civs and dont want to have Saracens with Persian architecture)
Acting as if saying that “positions built in irrational feelings are less valid” is dictatorial is being overly sensationalist
I have a huge nostalgia for classic cataphracts. I think the new one looks way less cool. But I also recognize that the old design was ridiculous, and would probably look awful if remastered as it benefited a lot from how pixelated the game was. If someone went around saying that the new cataphract looks awdul and we should get a remaster of the OG amd that anyone that says otherwise are shills who are impeding him of feeling nostalgic about the game I would say that hes being ridiculous.
Same here. Original Cata looked so much better to me. But I understood current one is more accurate.
Also related, I like original War Elephant better. Not because of just nostalgia, but because of current ridiculous size. I wish there were a mod to replace current WE with old smaller WE.
Yeah that’s they key I think.
A feeling is ok until you put it on the table as that.
If you tell me you would prefer to keep Persian architecture as it is cause you like it that’s your right.
If you add that we should all feel like you that’s very stupid of course.
That’s why I usually say I prefer people who preventively admit they’re biased pro or against X rather than trying to rationalise it to sneakingly force you to adopt their feelings.
You’re entitled to like what you like and others are as well if freedom still means anything.
That’s why for example I’m very much against pronouns and things like that. I may use them out of courtesy (or pity), but it must be clear that there’s nothing forcing me to feel towards you exactly like you feel towards yourself. That’s very dumb and very antidemocratic imo but let’s not open a pandora box cause we’re not allowed here, you just got the point.
I like the game as it is, pointless astethic changes will reduce my enjoyment. this is a completely valid argument. you can say that it doesn’t apply to you, but claiming it isn’t an argument is ridiculous.
I am not claiming it will ruin my childhood. my childhood is long over.
I am very much in favor of making the civ ↔ architecture set mapping modable. if you want to play as koreans with aztec architecture, go nuts. but don’t force changes like that on everyone.
and how does that make the argument less valid? you completely ignored the point where lots of people (i’d even go so far as to claim a majority) play this game at least partially out of nostalgia. so pointless reworks like this risk alienating the fanbase. and for what? just to satisfying a few people who spam this forum and the subreddit.
that would be a bad option for me (still better than changing the persians though), the architecture is part of their identity
Thing is we are not agreeing to the “Pointless” part.
Yeah, I wish. Unfortunately you can’t do that on ranked afaik.
BTW, if your whole argument is based on Genghis Khan 4, campaign players can have totally different architecture regardless of civ. Although, I’m sure Khwarazmian empire architecture was closer to Central Asia than Middle East.
Those changes are changes that the vast majority of players like (or not care about).
You generally seem to dislike most new things, you even want to have a AoK/AoC only queue for ranked.
Are you ever going to play this scenario again?
And then couldn’t you just mod it to look the way you want instead of forcing the wrong architecture on everyone.
do you have even the tiniest amount of evidence for that?
first of all, that is not true. I like a few of the new civs. I enjoy most of the quality of life changes. I’d love for more campaigns to be added.
second, even if it were true, it doesn’t in any way affect my argument.
yeah, the mongol campaign is the I’ve replied the most after the Barbarossa campaign
why should I need to get a mod to put a game back into the state I bought it in? I am the one who has stuff being forced upon, you bought the game with the “wrong” architecture. the architecture it has had for 25 years.
Have you considered that you’re being selfish? You want to deny people a change that the OVERWHELMING majority have been asking for simply because YOU don’t like that change. Guess what? You aren’t everyone. So either suck it up or mod it.
This thread.
Plus many other people in Social Media and other places asking for it.
For you nostalgia is a bigger argument then for most other people.
If the developers would only listen to people like you every new civ would just have a few boring number bonuses until every combination of bonuses has been used.
The Byzantines, Spanish and Vietnamese where changed too and almost everyone was happy about that.
So why do you think people would not be happy about this change.
Byzantines are as old as Persians in AoE2.
I bought this game when it was worse in many ways then it is now, and I like that it improves. I like that there are regional trade carts now.
this thread has 60 users. there are 40k active players in ranked alone. you are delusional if you think this is representative of anything.
if they listend to me we wouldn’t be stuck with god awful civs like romans, units like shrivamsha and monaspa, but instead they would have fixed the bugs that have been in since launch and made campaigns for chinese, vikings, japanese, koreans.
that would be a game that’s objectively better than the one at launch. instead we are stuck with a game that still has many of the same bugs, has clearly deteriorated in some regards (eg pathfinding) and has had additions which are considered controversial at best.
Strange that none of those people say anything against a potential Architecture change.
Whenever someone makes a controversial suggestion there is usually an army of people complaining about it, but here we just have a thread of people that are almost all share the same opinion.
the vast majority of players either doesn’t care, or is unaware that this is even being proposed
that puts you in the minority. at least in the competitve scene. you can listen to any stream and view the disdain people have for those units (actually thousands of people, not the 60ish people who are in this thread)
People that don’t care would not complain about a change either so they don’t matter.
Of course there are some people out there that don’t like the idea but what matters is what percentage of people likes or dislikes the idea. The majority here likes it so why should it be totally different in other places?
The only argument against it is just hating change in general. But people that hate change stop caring after a while because then the new thing is the thing they are used to.
I’m not in the competitive scene.
99.9% of players aren’t.
If the game adds things that are unbalanced then the competitive scene has to start making rules like banning OP civs like Magic tournaments constantly ban new cards.
It would be awful if the game would have to stay boring with the only civ bonuses being numbers going up or down.
Isn’t the current Middle Eastern castle supposedly based on an Italian castle? Like how both West European and Central European castles are based on English castles, the original British wonder is based on a German church and the Native American castle is based on a temple and not a fort.