Many people complained to the United States. Me included.
With this one too
Malta was also criticized
However, there is no comparison with the current criticism about the next DLC. The first ones were criticized for being absurdly forced, while the next DLC is criticized simply for not being from a different region than Europe. In fact I think that the trend in adding civilizations is being fixed with the next DLC, since the next civilizations are solid proposals, regardless of the complaints.
I hope that for the 20th anniversary they will surprise us with some rework on maps of Central and South America that tend to be quite summarized and do not contain anything new since the TWC expansion. Also some adjustments to the European map biomes, as it recycles many pre-existing assets.
The people who complained about the United States were because we all thought they added it just for nationalism, with Mexico it was because it is broken.
Furthermore, I welcomed Mexico as a civilization because it was exactly what I wanted to see, post-colonial civilizations.
I understand if you don’t like them, after all you have the right to have bad taste (joke), but I want more of these civilizations and I won’t stop asking for them whenever I can.
PS.
Also, almost no one complained that they were post-colonial civilizations.
They complained about malt because it was pure recycling.
It was an insignificant and envious minority, just because they were noisy doesn’t make them relevant, also because I should care about the opinion of people who see every added civilization that they don’t like as a threat to what they want.
To avoid problems of understanding, I clarify that I am not talking about you, I do not remember reading you among those people.
Je me rappelle de certains commentaires négatifs sur steam à propos des dlc, parce que certaines personne ont mal pris qu’il y ai des dlc sur la definitive edition et que pour eux il aurait fallut mettre le jeu en maintenance active, bref il n’y a pas grand chose qui m’étonne parant de là.
World conquest is something they should really do once they finished up making DLCs for the missing parts of the world (Southern Africa, Australia and Oceania)
They could ask Relic (if they still exist) for help with that since they did something similar in Dawn of War.
The big takeaway from all of this is people will complain about anything instead of relishing in the fact the perceived unwanted stepchild who barely is promoted against all odds is still receiving support. While I can understand the frustrations of some I also think people should take a step back and enjoy the ride for reasons that should be quite obvious.
I don’t buy the claim people are upset about another Euro DLC releasing back-to-back when you consider KotM was released TWO years ago. How many doom threads flooded this forum last year? a whole bunch.
The devs clearly have to choose wisely what makes the most financial sense to justify continued support. This isn’t AoE2DE where even the most poorly received DLC has 900 reviews.
People get too caught up in politics and their personal bias when they should be concerned about is if the civ is fun to play. This is a game after all. I was dubious about including USA in the game but after playing it quickly became a favorite.
As stated earlier in this thread I want an Asian DLC too and after this DLC I hope WE provides the devs the budget necessary to make it happen. I was talking to ES devs back in the day about adding Persia.
People need to practice a little bit of gratitude because nothing is guaranteed and if this DLC is so offensive then don’t buy it. Simple. Again, this isn’t AoE2DE where WE is attempting to milk the playerbase by releasing shoddy DLCs. My only worry is if that bleeds into this DLC due to micromanagement.
Most of these reviews were negative and on purpose to review bomb V&V, same thing happened with ROR dlc which had 1615 reviews for a total of 47% review score. The last two “real” dlc (TMR and DOI) for AOE2 had around 300 reviews which is the same as AOE3 dlc.
Lets be honest, most people don’t review DLC. Most people will only review it if they have something negative to say.
Also Mexico and USA where controversial, and still are, specifically because they go against the premise of the game: the conquest and colonisation of the new world.
They where just as controversial as Malta, there exist many people who are opposed to more European settler colonial nations, just as there exist people who are mad about the upcoming DLC (or even KOTM for simply being European civs).
Yes, I agree… although I would put Gran Colombia with Haiti and Brazil with Argentina to have an empire and a republic in each dlc…
Yes, a female General would be fine…
It is not anachronistic, the HRE lived until the Napoleonic Wars…
Yes, there is an American DLC missing in the middle…
Yes, anyway, the Mediterranean DLC will be 2 and a half years old by the time they release the Baltic DLC…
Yes, this will happen…
Yeah, it’ll probably happen as a big anniversary patch…
It’s a nod to the campaign…
Yes, I agree…that could just be in the last dlc with Oceania…
Yes, last year many complained that there would no longer be DLCs and I said that there was going to be a new DLC, and now that there is, they complain that it is in Europe, when we already knew that it was going to be in the Baltic because they had leaked in a PUP…no one forces us to buy the DLC, we can always wait for the next DLC and that’s it…
In fact, it does not go against the colonization and conquest of the New World but rather it is a continuation of that…after independence, the Americans continued with colonization and the ######## movement to the west fighting against the natives…and The Mexicans fought against the Yucatecan Mayans until the beginning of the 20th century, in addition to the fact that in the Steel campaign the Mexicans besieged an American fort (although using European units in both cases)… note that in American Conquest it has scenarios in the War of 1812, the Alamo and the American Civil War (AoE 3 is missing these last two)…
I have no idea what you’re talking about. There was widespread disapproval when both USA and Mexico were announced. It’s a loud minority asking for more post colonial civs.
Not liking a civ is generally not due to envy. It’s more due to confirming with a perceived theme or quality. I’d rather have no civ than a poor quality one with a bad theme like Malta.
Dude its AoE3, they could release 10 civs with all unique mechanics and assets thats also well balanced and fix bugs existing all for free, and people would still complain because they didnt fix X or they didnt make ottoman into a civ with 3840284329489302 politicians and age1 trainable sipahi. Thats why this containment thread isnt exactly going to do much since end of day its just us forum ghouls talking about what a community of 10,000s wants or doesnt want. Its fun to guerss and estimate, but the fervor some have is misplaced
100% agree with this statement, although more than offending, I find more of the same boring, but that is why I am not going to buy the next DLC.
Prove it, give me the data from all the forums, not just this one and don’t base it on comments, because we can’t know if they are the same person or in addition to possible multiple accounts.
If course, I’ll happily spend my day meticulously scraping the forums for negative sentiment against colonial civs. Especially when you’ve already willfully ignored it and decided it’s a conspiracy by a few people with multiple accounts.
The majority of people actually don’t care one way or the other, and collecting comments or whatever other “data” you think is reliable is nothing but a waste of time.
Those of us who comment are a very small minority, I would be surprised if we exceed 200 users. (obviously only the ones we commented on AOE3)
I could be wrong, but I think the forum started getting these almost cult-level fans when Microsoft started ignoring AOE3, maybe that sparked a feeling of competition in a lot of people on the forum.
I’d also add that a significant number of forum posters mute threads like this, or post once or twice on them to state their opinion and then never again. I find the constant spam of germany split threads to be exhausting after the like, 3 years of having one made every few weeks. Sometimes (like last week) we get 2 or 3 threads running concurrently.
Secondly - - personally I’m disappointed by the choice to add more euro civs almost exclusively because it feels like we will get a low effort expansion. KoTM was weird because I don’t particularly like the civs and think malta was a mistake, the expansion included a tremendous number of maps and minor natives. That alone was a very exciting thing! To get more euro means we will almost certainly not get anything close to the amount of content we got last time. That and the uncomfortable wordless stare at the camera for 5 seconds during the “civ announcement” on stream makes me even more nervous. Idk its nice they’re making anything for us, but this feels like a disappointment brewing.
Personally, I would have liked another DLC about southern Africa, or about Asia. But what’s wrong with another European DLC? Nothing in principle. I just ask Microsoft to make sure to add additional content, besides the 2 civilizations or else I will be disappointed.
If they assume that Knights of the Mediterranean already added practically everything there was to show about Europe, the next DLC will be very mediocre, but if they believe that there are even more expandable aspects, then I see no reason for it to be questionable.
She took up arms and fought for the country’s independence, becoming a symbol for it, recognized by the Emperor at the time and today she is one of the patrons of the Brazilian army.
Napoleon destroyed the Holy Roman Empire, which was already a bankrupt organization, and throughout the rest of the century, Prussia and Austria would vie for hegemony.
The HRE was a relevant organization in the 12th/13th century, and then it was only decline, which is a context much closer to AGE 4.
