History is a confusing patchwork of different people’s accounts that can often be contradictory.
Her holding a sword isn’t the same as constructing an entire character.
" The extent of her actual military participation and leadership is a subject of debate among historians. On the one hand, Joan stated that she carried her banner in battle and had never killed anyone,[47] preferring her banner “forty times” better than a sword;[48] and the army was always directly commanded by a nobleman, such as the Duke of Alençon for example. On the other hand, many of these same noblemen stated that Joan had a profound effect on their decisions since they often accepted the advice she gave them, believing her advice was divinely inspired.[49] In either case, historians agree that the army enjoyed remarkable success during her brief time with it.[50]"
Never thought of a game that “is not a historical simulator, so golden ghosts, unmanned siege, machine gun turret towers and guided arrows fit perfectly well” suddenly became so strict on historical accuracy that even fictional character voice lines cannot be tolerated.
If I just wanted to know what happened, I’d go watch a documentary movie.
But I wanted to be guided and immersed in the events.
You do not do that with a shallow UK accent movie scene and then normal gameplay.
There’s barely a story behind it, and there’s barely a creativity aspect with the characters.
You could have added 0 heroes in this campaign and it would not make a difference.
Let’s start a campaign saying how great York is,
Then getting into game “now take York”.
And just doing exactly what you would do in any old single player of multi player game.
Yeah thats fine. You just wanted something else. As i’ve had to mention to you like 20 times now. You are fine to not like it. But some of your criticisms are just wrong such as saying “this isn’t creative”.
I mean, you’re welcome to your opinion, but I think it’s fair to share that the majority of people are getting on with enjoying the game. 55,000 currently ingame, and Steam reviews are up to 82% positive as of right now.
Does that magically make it a “good game”. Of course not. And regardless of it being good or bad, you can still dislike it and there’s nothing wrong with that.
But, uh, I don’t think you have your finger on the pulse about what the greater community thinks is or isn’t an AoE game. It’s clear from the start, for example, that this is a very different launch to Dawn of War III. And I’m glad for it. Relic deserve something like this under their belt heading into CoH 3 next year.
Sometimes I wonder if people here even liked AOE at all. Being happy about having iconic things being taken out, popular physics and animations saying “I didn’t like it” or “it was offensive”.
Like all you liked about AOE was the base mechanics, everything else was better off taken out.
Hence why people here jump on to this game which is unrecognisable to the AOE franchise and go “oh great game”
There are a lot of mechanics that have been transferred from older games.
But honestly, could you perhaps focus on the topic instead of undermine our loyalty to Aoe?
“huh guess you’re not a real fan” is a really cringe argument.
You can have a narrative be historically accurate without needlessly complicating gameplay.
For example, I’d rather have fun game mechanics such as collecting food to make villagers instead of continually collecting food or else my villagers die of starvation.
Or having to place 30 villagers to build a house instead of one.
We accept game representations of history as shorthand of the real thing.
But whenever people ask for a little more realism that were already well done in previous games, or just a few aesthetics improvements, they are always confronted with “this game is not a historical documentary. If you want that go play total war or your previous AOE”.
And now it has suddenly turned into a historical documentary again?
I don’t represent those people, you can go argue with them individually.
I don’t get why you are bringing completely different conversations to the table.
As i’ve stated before, we can do that narratively without needlessly ruining gameplay.
Well justifying radical divergence from the franchise by trashing on the previous AOE games only gives this impression.
So far the justification for many arguments against the dislikes of the divergence has been that people say the previous games did it badly.
And now calling the most iconic game narrations for the AOE II, AoM and AoE III franchise, as “offensive” is practically questioning the fact if the reason you like all the things that AOE IV does, and justifying all the changes is because AOE was not that game.
“Why couldn’t you do unit details like previous AOE games”
Defender: “I didn’t like them because it was too much clutter on the screen”
“Why couldn’t they add the weapon physics like they did in other games?”
Defender: “I didn’t like that because it was unrealistic and goofy”
“Why couldn’t you do story narrations like previous games”
Defender: “It was borderline offensive”
Lol so what is it about AOE that you actually liked?
I really do not care about your impression.
I know myself and know how much I enjoy aoe. I wouldn’t be on this damn forum if I didn’t like aoe.
This is a really pointless thing to accuse people of and really doesn’t add the the discussion at all.
You said you cared about pronunciation and yet you justify fake accents?
