Disappointingly lazy

I’m lazy to pay for stuff in real life, but not lazy to pay for digital stuff.

Well, it’s AoE1 after all

on the complete side: one of the most amusing and equally sad things observed after the announcement, is labeling the DLC (=AoE1) as ‘European’, or even doing that with Romans themselves.
Rome was one of the literally few unique empires of this type when it comes to its cultural, ethnic, and religious aspects.
When thinking about the Roman Empire people should think about North Africa or Middle East as much as the Italian Peninsula.

Back in that time world looked completely different and the center of its weight was closer to Damascus than any important European cities, of which most didn’t even exist back then, and that (sub)continent was one big, tribalized, savage mess covered in forests.

Just the Roman Law is one of the pillars of the ‘West’, but the Roman Empire was far from something to be labeled just as ‘European’.

4 Likes

I don’t see how you think that AOE3s latest Euro DLC sold better than the rest. It has less reviews than the other 2 civ DLC we have and for understandable reasons.

I agree that OP is being a little dramatic. The stuff they’ve added on the AoE1 side isn’t my cup of tea, but the new QoL stuff and campaigns surely took a lot of work. I will say though on first impressions the new AoE2 Roman civ does look a little lazy at least on the graphics front, where it seems they’re mostly just using existing architecture and Editor objects, apart from the new Castle and ship. But it’s likely that they’ve added more than that. TBD

There’s something to this, but there are also other reasons for being “silent” that don’t automatically equate to a consensus around liking something. Until the “silent majority” makes itself heard, it’s hard to make any kind of informed decision as to what it wants, so people with agendas will speak for them at their own convenience, which people tend to do on both sides in these kinds of arguments.

Depending on how big “a handful” is, it might be. Otherwise what’s the point of “doing the research?” The problem is that we don’t have great metrics for assessing what the majority of the playerbase (or potential new playerbase) wants. MS surely has better tools, and has surely done some research, but it’s dubious to imply that they did some kind of comprehensive survey and found out that “Rome/RoR” was the most promising and profitable new content they could make.

I’m not sure what the point of this post is, other than to go out of your way to say “ackshually” (and miss the point of why many people don’t want more “European” civs). Yes, Rome was a multi-cultural, multi-continental empire, but considering it to be European for the purposes of in-game civ design is acceptable, especially if the new civ represents the Western Roman Empire as some suspect. Do you really think the new Roman civ is going to emphasize North African or Middle Eastern content in its design? Anyway, the point is, a lot of people would like content from relatively neglected areas of the world (Africa, America & parts of Asia) instead of further subdivisions of areas that are already fairly well represented.

2 Likes

In theory, that’s true- it doesn’t. In practice in most of these outrages/internet dramas reality proved that silent/unbothered/left out of the discussion/unengaged/let’s call it however we wish majority, is substantial and whether said outrage is justified or not, it doesn’t matter and end result aligns with plans of the publishers or developers of the product.
It’s not guaranteed gamers (and to be more precise here- AoE fans on Steam) will automatically like this DLC, but I do predict they will and in a year after the release it will sit on solid ~72-85% positive rating on Steam. If they keep expanding RtR- maybe even higher.
These decisions are not made blind, they calculated it, listed pros and cons and came to the conclusion it’s a good decision for 2DE or just the brand in general.

Forum like this represents a dedicated, but VERY tiny fraction of the customers that decided to buy AoE2 DE and the upset visible here is not reflected anywhere else in comments from what I’ve seen so far. And most likely won’t be in sales because it does like a good value for money and the concept of a much smaller, separate bunch of civs built around 2DE gameplay framework is exciting, because AoE1 gameplay, even in 1DE, is very outdated and cumbersome and can’t be pushed further because that would invalidate the whole concept = a remaster of the original game and not remake that heavily changes gameplay mechanics.

It should be obvious why I wrote about it- I’m responding to criticism about this DLC being European, which is extremely idiotic to the point where it should be considered weak trolling for anyone that played AoE1 for more than 20 minutes. And this DLC is AoE1. ‘Roman’ part, that civ being playable in 2DE, is just a small bonus. I don’t care too much about compared to the rest.
You don’t have to be snarky unless you don’t mind people lying and presenting uneducated if not straight-up ignorant opinions about Age of Empires I - the vast majority of that game is technically set in greater Asia.

What do you mean by ‘emphasize’ NA or ME? The entire civ design does that by design. This game is about warfare and conquest and based on historical entities.
It’s not a walking simulator about art and culture. Are there some core units that Roman army relied on (from NA, ME) that should be included in the redesigned Roman civ? If so- list some. I can’t from the top of my head.

Roman army wasn’t ‘European’, wasn’t ‘African’ or ‘Middle Eatern’. It was Roman. And Rome was most of the world known to them. People trying to criticize that civ because what, the capital is in modern Italy, is just weak.

What? What subdivisions? Explain that.
They’re just bringing the entire AoE1 roster in, not focusing on one civ group.

What ancient empires from Asia, Africa or America are missing?

I don’t care that much about AoE1’s timeframe. But adding the Romans in AoE2 just sucks.

2 Likes

Sure, I at least think they did enough research to be confident that it wouldn’t bomb. Does that mean it was the best possible option in terms of sales/growth? Not necessarily, although I grant that’s a possibility. Anyway, it’s what we’re getting, so I’ll try to be semi open-minded.

Indeed. But considering Rome, and especially Western Rome to be ~“European” as I’ve said, is flawed but IMO acceptable for purposes of game design, where civs are grouped together at least by architecture, and to some extent by geography, even if the Roman Empire defies easy categorization on the second front.

I’m talking about AoE2 content exclusively. AoE1 is obviously not particularly European-themed, but it’s also not something that I consider relevant to most AoE2 fans, so I’ve been discussing mostly the “AoE2 side” of the DLC, which is the new Romans civ. On the one hand, I probably should have been more clear about that, on the other hand, it’s weird to be in a place where AoE2 fans have to be explicit about wanting new content that’s relevant to their own game. There are quite a few other threads discussing why the “Romans” being added are already sufficiently represented by existing civs. And that doesn’t need to be rehashed here (and is irrelevant anyway since Romans are being added). Anyways, if this DLC is exactly what you wanted, congratulations. Some of us are hoping for more AoE2 civs from the AAA regions in the future.

2 Likes

Honestly I assumed it was a given the campaigns would be upgraded and ported in. It is pretty dissapointing if they are not. I hope they plan to add them at a later date at least.

1 Like