So just for the record: You are saying they should add greeks with heroes, mythological units and god powers because “they also worked in Age of Mythology”?
Also if I wanted to play AoE4, I would play AoE4, you “argument” is completly ilogical, should they add the German Wehrmatch to AoE4 becuase “Relic made CoH” too?
As for the complains with the voices being shared let’s not forget one thing
Italians, Huns and Goths share the SAME voices with Bizantines, Mongols and Teutons respectively and no one complains about that
Are you sure?
And I complain too. Here is my vote.
So let me get this straight. Your profile only has recent activity and only on this topic, your name is “NewpatchisGreat” and your english isn’t very good (no offense). Also your point that Romans, Celts, Goth and Huns being anywhere near as problematic as the new 3k civs is so ignorantly bad it’s hard to believe you even wrote it unironically.
There is no way you aren’t a paid ‘bot’ by microsoft.
Man the people defending this with strawmen is so weird, they are the same people who will then diss on any ideas from tge community
The fact thar the guy in reddit with “Hera’s discord” as an argument got a lot of people in his side drives me nuts
You should be happy your getting new content, AOE4 had to wait for 2 years, just to get 2 variants
If consumers dont support and devs have no money, game get cut continue support like aoe3
Again with this fallacy? The last content DLC for AOE3, Knights of the Mediterranean, was incredibly well received by the community. At least 1 million people own the full game and the F2P version of AOE3 has 3 million owners. AOE3 consistently has half the number of players as AOE4 and is the 5th most popular RTS on the market according to Steam. There’s oodles of support and tons of money to be made and World’s Edge still abandoned it. The studio is simply incompetent.
Don’t try to guilt us into buying stuff we don’t want, particularly not with false arguments. It won’t work.
These are the exact same, manipulative, conformist, appeal-to-emotion arguments fanboys used to defend V&V.
No, I’m not happy to receive bad content. “Content” in itself is neither good nor bad. Good content is good. Bad content is bad. Is Tale of the Dragon good just because it’s “content”? Of course not.
I don’t care about AoE4 and it’s completely irrelevant in this discussion. You can go even further and say it’s players have it good because at least their game wasn’t abandoned like AoE3.
And it’s bad to support bad content, because it shows the devs that people will support whatever slop they throw out. Translated into basic English: they will not make good DLC anymore, because bad ones still sell. Obviously such a future is bad for the game.
If the community shows it’s discontent, then the message changes: If they want money, then they must make good content. This is not a charity, we spend our hard-earned money on what we want, we are not forced to purchase anything. If the game dies, it’s their fault, not ours. You can’t guilt me into spending money. Buy it yourself 10 times if you care so much.
And if they keep making shit content, might as well let the game die instead of letting it become more and more shit.
Well, you shouldn’t be worried about that since, according to someone in this same thread:
So in the end why does it matter if we are dissatisfied with this dlc and don’t buy it? The dlc will sell either way, right? For a member of the reasonable and wise silent majority, you’re awfully loud and excited.
Don’t threaten me with a good time! This game peaked after Dynasties of India. Everything that came afterwards has made the game worse (yes, even chronicles and TMR). Even the bugs and path finding have become so much worse since DoI. I would welcome it if they stopped touching this amazing game that was created by ensemble studios.
Don’t think. CONSUME!
No. I only support them when they make what I like, and show continued willingness to do so. I don’t want to support devs to continue turning the game into something entirely different. I play the game for what it offers, not the developer icon stamped onto it. If they failed to sell something I don’t care about, then I don’t care. At that point I can leave and look for other games.
But we have been given two years of continuous BS already. You support BS, they think BS is more profitable and give you more BS.
Romans at least lasted until 476, the Huns until 450s or 460s, and the Celts existed way into medieval times as Scots, Welsh, Bretons, and numerous other groups, whereas the last of the 3 Kingdoms ended in 280 AD, still 2 centuries earlier than Romans and Huns, hence they definitely don’t fit in AoE 2.
And I’m personally glad they all happened, especially the 1st one since I almost lost hope for anything good after RoR.
This “East Asian” DLC almost nailed it until the whole 3 Kingdoms and no Tibetans which made me extremely disappointed.
Definitely, some fake accounts lately to rage bait people. On Reddit, they might be using bots to upvote a thread that lambasts /aoe2.
WE is serious about appealing to the Chinese market. They even brought in the typical Chinese corporate bot army.
Prepare to embrace the impact, gentlemen.
Of course, it’s a good thing when they listen to the community and act upon it. When that happens, the new content is well received, even if experimental like Chronicles.
However, when they decide to make experiments based not on community feedback, but on their own whims or whatever reason, things go badly. This has happened three times now, and I wish they’d learn the lesson already and change course.
Chronicles did more harm than good. I was skeptical on chronicles when It was announced and after playing it I didn/t Like it. I was worried the direction the game might be heading in and wrote so in my review and on a few comments on the forum. What did I get? A bunch of clown emotes/steam awards on my negative review for chronicles.
The positive reaction to chronicles probably played a part in what is happening now.
I don’t mind having my expectations subverted.
Just not when what they subvert is my expectations about the content being good.
I think they had already started working on the dlc long ago when Chronicles was released, I doubt they switch to 3K at this point.
Not denying it was divisive, I’m just stating the objective facts: the majority liked it. In contrast, the majority hated V&V and Return of Rome. The difference between the good and bad experiments is “experimenting” with something that the community is already asking for (campaign DLC), versus experimenting with something nobody asked for.
I wouldn’t really fault Chronicles tho, the devs already got this message loud and clear with the other two experiments, but they simply can’t or don’t want to change course. They have the “blueprints” for what works and what doesn’t, and they trip on the same rock time and again.
