China and its presence in Age of Empires III

Age of Empires III: DE III - Discussion
1

Gentlemen, I come to talk about China because I’ve been thinking these days about its influence on the Age of Empires saga.
It was expected that the first DLC civilization in Age of Mythology would be China, as it already existed, but it needed to be worked on again. That makes sense. However, I didn’t see an entire expansion in Age of Empires II with a Chinese theme coming.
My hypothesis is that a sponsor, shareholder, or investor, possibly new, of the “Age of” saga could be Chinese or strongly supports pleasing up to China.
I confirmed my suspicions when I saw the Immortal Pandas. A panda that can’t take damage? That can only respond to some Chinese interest. To me, it’s fantastic to include more content with greater precision, especially in the information and art of any civilization. I love the idea, but…

How does this relate to Age of Empires III? Well, now I’m also convinced that the game has been abandoned because our hypothetical investor/director simply dislikes China’s representation in AOE III. Tell me, who would like their history to be portrayed as consisting solely of weak, fragile, and cheap people?
Therefore, I propose that we create, at least on paper, a new interpretation of China, even from scratch, one that strives not to fall into stereotypes or exaggerations foreign to the spirit of the game and its foundation, its interpretation, and abstraction of other civilizations. You know, an explorer, monks in the monastery, artillery, unique units whose best qualification isn’t their negligible price.
However, I admit I don’t know enough to do it myself. Who wants to help me? Which ideas do you have?
Maybe, with a new China in the projects, they stop the hate on AOE III.
Usual devs of AOE III won’t do it, they abandoned the project. But we may try, at least. What if it works?

2

Tell me, who would like their history to be portrayed as consisting solely of weak, fragile, and cheap people?
Therefore, I propose that we create, at least on paper, a new interpretation of China

I don’t think it is a good mind to want to rewrite something because we suspect it might not please to some (if it actually does or not doesn’t matter).

The Asian Dynasties expansion was “designed”, in the sense that it follows the conceptors/investors of that time thoughts. Willing to rewrite what was written for the simple reason that “it might not be pleasant / Microsoft thinks China may not like it” would be a total denaturation of the original work.

The Chinese civilization in the game has a strong and interesting identity. One may want to redesign it to better align with historicity or gameplay (balance, etc).

Now on the matter of if China is a factor in the designing of games, or represents a direct influence, of course, it’s a huge market.

1 Like
3

This is too much of a stretch

But I would not be surprised if they planned a series of coordinated attempts to make the franchise a massive hit in China, and AOE3 with no relevant contents to offer and portraying a less popular period of China (they believe) gets shelved and eventually cancelled.
…and the first of these attempts seem not to have worked.

4

Your message contains a lot of speculation, especially regarding the influence of Chinese investors on the decisions made for the Age of Empires series. While I think there is no clear evidence to support it. I don’t think the “China factor” is directly related to whether Age of Empires III was set aside. However, I do want to point out that, compared to Age of Empires IV and Age of Mythology, Chinese players are indeed less fond of how China is represented in Age of Empires III.

There are two main reasons for this:

  1. The appearance of units and buildings is unattractive.
  2. The design of units and buildings is extremely inaccurate.

And when I say “extremely inaccurate,” I really mean it. Ming and Qing-era armor and military uniforms were not ugly—in fact, they had distinct characteristics and were quite recognizable. However, the unit designs in the game feel very strange to Chinese players. With very few exceptions, they bear almost no resemblance to familiar Ming and Qing elements. Iconic designs such as the Ming “Yong” character helmet, flying saucer-shaped helmets, arm-wrap armor, cloth-covered hidden armor, fish-scale armor, and mountain-pattern armor are all missing. Even if the unit designs lean toward the Qing Dynasty, details such as cool hats, warm hats, Mongolian-style hats, cloth armor, and helmets are all completely wrong—yes, completely inaccurate.

Take the Mongolian cavalry as an example: their half-naked torsos and shaved heads reflect outdated stereotypes. China has over six million Mongols—more than any other country—yet their portrayal in the game is simply not how they actually looked.

The architectural designs also suffer from similar issues. The structure, color schemes, and decorative details seem entirely based on vague impressions rather than historical accuracy. In this regard, Age of Empires IV is leagues ahead. Another issue is the irrational village design—why would a nomadic-style settlement be called a “village”? If it’s a “village,” it wouldn’t be nomadic. If it’s nomadic, it shouldn’t be called a “village.” Both Han and Manchu people were settled civilizations, and I’ve brought up this problem multiple times before.

The weapon choices are also strange. While some Western players might find them appealing, for us, they seem like something out of a Wuxia novel. Take the meteor hammer and repeating crossbow, for example—these are highly exaggerated representations. The iron flail has little to do with China. The Shen Huo Fei Ya (Fire Crow) was just one of many early Ming gunpowder weapons, and it wasn’t particularly significant in actual combat—other weapons like the Yi Wo Feng(Nest of Bees) had more recorded usage. The Meng Huo You Gui (Flame Thrower) belongs to the Song Dynasty, not the Ming or Qing.

One of the biggest problems is the appearance of the arquebusier (bird gunner) in its first stage—no hat, an unidentifiable hairstyle that is neither a Han-style topknot nor a Manchu queue, but rather a buzz cut. Buzz cuts never existed in China for over 3,000 years since the Zhou Dynasty. On top of that, the outfit looks like a Santa Claus costume—it’s just too ugly.

That said, I don’t think the fundamental game design is a problem. The idea of China having a large population and fielding numerous units makes sense. Weak individual units due to high military population? Also fine. The unique gameplay mechanics are something we actually like.

However, the unattractive unit designs and completely inaccurate representations of units and buildings make it difficult for Chinese players to feel immersed. Instead, the game feels filled with stereotypes—if not outright bias.

5 Likes
5

Regarding the Shaolin monk as a key element, I agree that it is historically inaccurate. If changes were to be made, I would prefer that all three Asian civilizations have hero units that are actual military generals rather than religious figures. However, since the design choice has already been made and the hero unit is a Shaolin monk, Chinese players might find it odd, but not necessarily too jarring. From a pure entertainment perspective, it is still fairly acceptable.

2 Likes
6

I have to say, if they’ve designed a better CHINA civ, AOE III may have won far more players in China.
I know many players say, the Chinese civ is weak(stronge in fact, but looks so weak in new players view), or they don’t like Qing dynasty and like ming better, or the weapons and suits are full of mistakes, or the Chinese campaign is fictional and unaccaptable, they want some campaigns base on real Chinese history, or the binding army mechanism is bad…
And you all know how large the game market of China is, if you realise this 5 years ago, things may change.

7

As a Chinese player I think you might be overreacting a bit.

Is the Qing dynasty and its eight banner system a historical favorite in China? No, it was mostly remembered as a dynasty established in bloodshed, and ended in misery.

Is the AoE3 depiction of the Chinese civ perfect? No. Previous posters has already elaborated on that, so I can save myself from repeating those points. That said, I would comment that there are other civilizations that are even more stereotype-based than China.

But does that mean we Chinese players hate AoE 3 for its depiction of China? Probably no.

First, not everyone has to play their own mother country in a game. We play a game for its overall system, not just a civ.

Second, honestly I don’t think AoE3 is particularly bad at depicting China. The choice of the era is a bit unfortunate, but all AoE games have their fair share of fantasy elements. The AoE 2 Chu-ko-nus and AoE4 shaolin monks are no better.

Third, the stereotype that Chinese players are politically sensitive is also a bit overblown. Civ2 is splitting China into several civs and AFAIK there isn’t very strong opposition among the Chinese player base. Our insistence of Chinese reunification in real politics does not mean we are so delusional as to think the Chinese civilization was always unified or glorious.

Anyways, I liked both African Royals and Knights of Mediterranean, and I felt as hurt as everyone else with that cancellation announcement.

8 Likes
8

Tencent (a Chinese Company) had involvement in the new AoE mobile app. Idk if there’s any further involvement by them in any other parts of the series. Of note on Tencent, some people have alleged the possibility of security concerns regarding what information might be available to the Chinese government via Tencent.

Another possibility for increasing China’s presence in their games is simply a desire to increase market share in China. A further question raised by that speculation would be whether any historical topics otherwise worth mentioning might be, left out, for the purpose of not offending the Chinese government.

9

Beyond the bombastic claims of China secretly being behind the game’s cancellation or the bizarre grandstanding of us, the community, fixing the issue to the point where the devs take notice, since both claims sound utterly insane.

I do actually like the idea of splitting China at least into a Qing and a Ming civs, or at least having a Jurchen civ alongside a China civ, they did coexist during the game’s period, both had very distinct approaches to warfare and could propose some real neat, different civs from one another…

That said who’s ever gonna make all the wonder models you’d need to make both civs possible lfmao.

3 Likes
10

Yes,if world’s edge developers china has rework to powerful civs.maybe Microsoft has In order to pay attention to the Chinese market and players it’s a good thing for aoe3de

11

Thank you all for your responses.

Yes, I am simply speculating. My hopes to save the game are still there, but it looks that my courses of action may not be enough…

Still, I think a China redesign would be a fun exercise, even if it does not mean anything after this thread.

1 Like
12

Your hypothesis is really interesting. However, it does not make much sense from Chinese community’s view, as we never see WE/Microsoft actively promote those Chinese theme expansions in our community.(Even they made Chinese announcement for Immortal Pillars on website)

13

pure conspiracy theorey. there is no chinese investments in aoe and then there is likely no chinese influence on decisions on aoe. aoe2 released a chinese dlc simply because a lot of people are asking for it on forums. and because india has received one before , china as a big nation with a long history are meant to receive the same treatment, make total sense.

aoe3 being abandoned has nothing to do with china. you think the chinese company behind aoe3 doesn’t like aoe3’s china and ask aoe3 to be cancelled? that theorey is laughable.

14

Well, Tencent worked on the mobile app. For me personally they’re involvement makes it a no go. The alleged possible security concerns (any data they have on customers being available to the CCP) seem too great to be worth it. I quit playing SC2 after finding out Tencent had a somewhat large investment in Blizzard. So, you’re slightly off on China having nothing to do with the franchise, but I agree that a “China asked us to cancel AoE3” is extremely far fetched and not a terribly convincing theory.

If China were to make future moves to further their involvement in the franchise I could see certain changes to China’s depictions being made though.

To me, the best conspiracy theories (beyond simple financial facts we can’t directly see) are:

  1. AoE3’s setting in an era of colonial expansion and during a time where slavery was ongoing in many Western countries, wasn’t liked by some people in the power structure. Eventually they got to a point where they had some excuse to cancel it. If I recall hearing correctly, even after the at launch reworks of the Lakota and Huad the game got negative press from game journalists. That could have also explained a hesitation to promote the game if they thought anyone really still looks to game journalism and not to player discussions and YouTubers (I’m exaggerating a bit, but game journalists don’t seem very relevant at this point).
  2. The team assembled to work on the DEs and AoE4 were mostly AoE2 players who didn’t like that AoE3 wasn’t a direct successor to AoE2 and didn’t want to highlight what they felt was a mistake. They’ve been neglecting the game’s promotion for years imo and eventually found an excuse to cancel it.
15

Edit: Wrong Thread.

20 characters.

16

Faltan más mapas para completar asia, más que nada china. Civilizaciones menores y Corea