That seems kinda abusable haha.
Personally, I didn’t do that. But someone might.
Point of note on the topic though. The developers are also replying to the negative reviews of the game that mention the DLC as well. Not just the DLC reviews.
3 Likes
Those are just robotic responses.
Hmm, off the cuff it sounds like a whole lot of placation, especially that last bit. I hope they do address our concerns, but honestly this dlc has broken my trust and it’s gonna be a long road for them to restore that.
We’ll see…
8 Likes
I mean the two most controversial DLCs are also the two DLCs for which what was teased was most dissimilar to what was released. Seems like an awful big coincidence.
4 Likes
You will be shocked at the playrates of the new civs
I mean it’s about the most you can possibly acknowledge what’s been going on without acknowledging anything that’s been going on.
After basically any other dlc if they said “our goal remains to preserve the experience you love…” I’d’ve been like “yeah…no s***”. Why would we ever think the goal is something else than that?
I’m not saying they’re ready to make changes, or do anything more than placate us. It still feels like vague corporate speak. But it seems, at the very least, we can now say the devs seem to know what our concerns are. Whether they are willing or able to do anything, or even actually acknowledge the problems, are entirely separate matters.
And honestly my trust was already quite strained after V&V.
7 Likes
Well, according to steamDB it’s not as badly received as V&V.
It has also more positive reviews already than TMR. One week vs almost 2 years. that’s quite the success imo
They should adjust the heroes, some units (firearcher range) and if the community wishes, make 3K part of antiquity mode, together with Chronicles civs, Romans, maybe Celts and Huns…
1 Like
You can’t cut Celts, they are part of the William Wallace campaign, basically the first civ every player uses, and they represent both the medieval Scots and Irish, anyone arguing their removal doesn’t understand civs or is just bad faith arguing
Huns could maybe be reflavored into the early medieval White Huns (hell, they kinda fit the bill already, just change their architecture), no reason to remove them
I kinda agree on Romans tho, tho again, could be reflavored a bit into also representing the Papal States (central Italy)
Even the Three Kindoms civs can be renamed and reflavored, but it will take a lot more work
1 Like
The Celts go way back, that civ started in antiquity fighting against the romans btw, celts are a very broad term
It has more total reviews than TMR and a lower % of positive reviews.
Pretty much all of the “experimental” dlcs have higher review counts than the normal dlcs.
More people have been interested in reviewing V&V2 compared to TMR and proportionally more people are unfavorable towards V&V2 than TMR.
How can you possibly twist this around into “quite the success”?
4 Likes
V&V2
you are being silly. We got a ton of new content, units, buildings etc
twist this around
it’s a direct consequence. Do the math. More people enjoyed buying and playing (and reviewing) 3K than MR already. And why should one listen to the haters if the DLC is optional.
@Julix3748 I wasn’t talking about removing. 3K can be exclusive to antiquity mode, same as Romans. Celts and Huns and maybe Goths could be playable in both…
But it isn’t optional.
I have to encounter the 3K civs in any kind of multiplayer. I see them every time I select a civ. And if I wanted to be competitive, I would have to acknowledge and study them. They are things that I am forced to engage with.
12 Likes
What??? TTK has 53% positive reviews, TMR has 65%! Absolute number dont tell as much as you implying. It might just mean more people felt willing to say something. Did you interview the reviewers to know why the reviewed each of them?
And lots still dont like the Shu, Wei and Wu, as they themselves said in the review, but for some reason still gave a positive review, even if when the list they themselves did on bad and meh things was quite big. Why did they leave a thumb up? I dont know, nor do you. What I know is that there are lots of lay offs in the gaming industry and people here and on reddit seem to fear that if this DLC fails, it could be a really bad thing to this game future. Are these two information linked? I dont know, I didnt made any real research. But, if I were to make an hypothesis, it would be my guess.
11 Likes
Sure, but we were also lied to again. And beyond that the dlc is a Frankensteins monster
And more people played V&V2, disliked it and left a negative review than TMR.
This is the most shameless cherry picking I’ve seen in quite some time
11 Likes
Most of that should be accredited to the free patch that coincides with the DLC, not the DLC itself. Credit where credit is due, especially since I can enjoy all those castles without the DLC and those new units we got can already be enjoyed by the Chinese, koreans, and vietnamese without the DLC.
Firstly, how do you know? We can’t tell the full breadth of who bought and enjoyed the DLC thanks to the playstation release plus not everyone who plays says anything about it.
Secondly, one should listen to the ‘haters’ because it is not optional; putting these in ranked means that, even if you don’t buy the dlc, you still have to see the 3k civs anyway. So yes, people who don’t like the dlc do deserve to be heard.
2 Likes
I disagree with the “Victors and Vanquished 2” label for this 3 kingdoms DLC. There are no Victors, only Vanquished (us).
To be fair - credit where credit is due - this change arrived only because of the DLC…it definitely paid for, or was expected to pay for, this work. The aforementioned patch was just to tease us this DLC and make us wanna buy it. It’s not like they would work on these skins and special regional units if there was no DLC coming.
2 Likes
Oh, I get that. But the fact is that we can enjoy them without it, so in a rare way it’s still a win that it’s all there to use even if you skip the dlc.
2 Likes
the patch came as a preview to the dlc which is something they didn’t do before. But the patch itself introduced all of 3K content too so it’s indivisible on a technical level. Just like the savar being introduced with TMR for everyone but this time one patch earlier. for people who complain about 3 new entries in a list (xDD) some sure do “struggle” with reading sometimes:
we wanted to provide a preview of our work in progress. Why so early? These patch notes are long – legendarily long – and we wanted to give you an early look to take it all in. Everything you see outlined and described below is what will come in the next update to Age II: DE.
Today, we’re doing something a little different with our patch notes. Usually, you get these on the same day that an update is being released, but this time we’re providing patch notes in advance.
Wrong; it’s divisible on the level that, by not purchasing the DLC, I can still access the free content regardless of whether or not I actually buy the DLC.
Yes, I am aware. And like the Savar, it is free content made accessible even to those who don’t plan on buying the DLC.
For someone who tries to act like a “reasonable” voice in defense of the DLC, you sure act rather holier-than-thou to those who argue against you… mayhaps the oh-so-kind sir suffers from a delusion that you’re anyone but the sad, poor defender of the shareholders who caused all this strife amongst us?
4 Likes