Historicity goes out the window when talking about Variants, you should know by now. Every pretence of accuracy is null, no use wondering why something is this or that way and how it could have been more historical. It’s a new concept and not a new standard.
If you really can’t get over this fantasy (meant as what-if scenario not mythology or sci-fi) element you’re free to not purchase and also quit the game because regardless of your decision plenty of people will buy and some play the Variants too. I don’t understand you, I think you’re exaggerating, but you be you, freely.
You should ask yourself: is it appropriate to start a boycott campaign, just because of your personal preferences?
Let me hit you up with the same kind of strawman. Why even have graphics? Why have music? Why have any type of art at all? Why isn’t the game just a coloured grid with units that are just shapes? Why have “elephants” whatever that is? “camels” OoOoo noo thats too artsy!
People asking for a rename are not asking for a dramatic rework to de-arcade AoE. No one is asking for the ridiculous examples you gave. But, then again, if you had an actual argument, maybe you wouldn’t have to make up one just to “win” it.
Lmao, good, says all folks need to know about you.
As for an additional rebuttal of this bizarre claim that is not only held by yourself, addressing others in this thread; AoE has always been an arcadey game that simply uses history, true. And those who enjoy it, tend to have different reasons for doing so. I personally enjoy both the marriage of history and RTS, and AoE has been my source of interest for that.
It is not too much to ask for an European Knight when thinking of a Frankish civilization, or Gunpowder units when considering a Chinese one. That is sort of the expectation of “How do we represent a civilization in this game format, in a fun way?”
Now, this all changes and becomes uninteresting to me personally when the question instead becomes “what made up bullshit civilization can we make to pad out a DLC?”
That is the reality of this, and where much of the bitterness comes from. I don’t care about a “Zhu Xi’s Legacy” just as I don’t care about a “Cactus Civilization” or “Lego-Zerg civilization”. For a RTS whose entire premise has always been to use history and civilizations for decades. I was hoping to see more of the same. More civilizations, more peoples.
It isn’t like AoE2 that already has 50 groups represented, and new additions may be difficult to conjure. On the contrary, AoE4 has just surpassed 12 and there is no reason to simply make up things when there are so many peoples and civilizations that need to still be represented.
I don’t want made up fantasy. It is not that hard.
I feel you… but I made my mind up and I’m buying. We’ll have to be on the lookout for the next DLC though, maybe we can make things better for the future. The present it’s done so I’m fine…
If we look at the “variant civs” design from a retrospect now:
(1) Do the designs of the “variant civs” fit so well to the names and “settings” (one of them does not even exisif), that no other real historical civs or factions can be made equally “fun” as them? For example, you cannot give elite units to any real faction. You cannot give tech bonuses and auto-gathering landmarks to any real faction. Only what we get already is the only model that works.
(2) Does it take far more efforts to find a real faction or subfaction in history than making up a whole story of “what-if” civs? (Again, one of them is not even a what-if scenario. It’s “what we haven’t added to the current Chinese”.)
(3) Have we run out of real civilizations in the waiting list to add to the game?
(4) Will people who care about fuuuuun become really mad if those variant civs are made a liiiiiiiittle more in line (only in terms of names and aesthetics) with other civs in the game?
Ever since the merry good people here invented the “only campaign” interpretation of Adam Isgreen’s own words, the haters once again lost their only weapon (which they desperately dug out from the trashcan) to attack poor lil AOE4.
It seemed like a valid criticism at first and misled people for a while, but people are wise and vigilant enough to put an end to their plots. Justice triumphs again.
“We start with historical inspiration from some element in the history of the classic civilization and then build gameplay from that theme.”
and also
" History is always the first source of inspiration for the Age of Empires team, but we also look to our community and how they play the game. Looking at the landscape of play, we saw opportunities for fun RTS experiences we hadn’t yet explored."
In my opinion the blogpost they made on September 25th actually addresses everything that people have complained about. It’s been made clear why the people who are upset are upset. So what happens next, and why is it not enough to just speak your opinion?
We are 12 days from release. If the purpose of casting doubt on the expansion is to make a plea to the developers to alter their course it’s too late. Arguably, the reason they haven’t been as transparent is because they were never open to having input on the design process, but are willing to listen to feedback to fine tune things.
On that note:
“We won’t always get things right, but we are listening and always learning and we appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us. Your voices are a part of our development process and we’ll continue to hear them.”
This has been true since the release of the game. They have changed landmarks, added units to factions, and continue to monitor conversation and issue feedback surveys to poll interest. They are operating in good faith with the community! It’s on us as community members to respect that and try to work with them, and a big part of that is remaining civil and keeping grounded expectations.
We are all, together as a collective, a representation of that. Reading through the forums and finding constant bitterness from the community only strains the relationship. Please, let’s just keep things from becoming personal and respect each other even if our opinions vary.
However, if you make four variants like, for example:
Order of the Dragon with historical units not “gilded HRE”.
Some more focused and consistent Chinese sub-faction with the same traits but a better name than “Zhu Xi’s Legacy” or “Empire of Jade”, for example the Jurchen or Khitan etc.
Orleans or Armagnac still focused on Jeanne d’Arc as hero, or maybe another whole faction centered on a hero that is not necessarily Jeanne d’Arc.
The current Ayyubids.
You don’t need to invent this concept and make up a whole story and explanations after explanations for it at all in the first place.
But of course, that would not be fuuuuuuuuun anymore.
With all due respect, you have greatly participated in this so it is hard to not smugly note that this is very rich coming from you. I hold the opinion that people should let their thoughts flow; good or bad. What I think is important to note is that, none of this is in anyway really directed at individuals; we aren’t complaining about your existence nor the existence of other people. Complaints are directed at the game, and that should end there.
But, a lot of discourse happens because people refuse to hear or see negativity. They MUST react to it. You spent quite some time trying to exert your own stance against opinions–mere thoughts.
None of these complaints or thoughts are in the actual game mind you, which is why I make my comments and complaints. About real things. About the game and its content.
I agree with this. But, this needs to be respected both ways. Otherwise, it is simply you requesting that people don’t complain. We can’t have constant conflict just because people badmouth someone’s favourite game.
I believe it’s important to maintain the perspective that we are discussing a video game, not a historical chronicle. The variants are meant to enhance the multiplayer content, something that has been ahistorical to an extreme degree since AoE 1. The campaign remains historically focused, and I hope that is clear when you enjoy it on the 14th.
Keyword detected. Great classic move. Here we begin.
Why not add space marines to the game?
Why call the units hoplites, knights, musketeers, not space marines?
And more importantly, point out a single person here asking for a HISTORICAL CHRONICLE.
Sure if they do not call them “Zhu Xi’s Legacy” or “gilded villagers”, multiplayer players will not play them.
That’s how every don’t-carer doesn’t care.
BTW, I have been waiting for you to come back after the gameplay reveal how “Empire of Jade” was such a perfect name that fits perfectly well to its gameplay far beyond my wits, and no other name has the same charm.
The fun comes in owning those history loving nerds, of course!! Because honestly. Every person noting that this is about fun, has not shown a shred of interest about the actual themes of these civilizations. No one is making fan art or passionate threads about how interesting the lore of the Empire of Jade is. No, the fun comes in telling history-lovers off.
And when you point it out, you get the same response. “its just a game”, “this is an rts”, “if you wanted realism, watch a movie!”. Great arguments as always.
Let’s put that into perspective. You would call for such a future development, I mean post release, patch after patch, they turn these variants into something more historical? Would this be worth it instead of leaving them as they are, balancing aside, and working on new content, preferably more in line with what you are saying? Or are you just talking how it could have been and should have been done?
2DE and 3DE, and also AOE4, do this to existing contents. I don’t see that as a problem or a great challenge.
Like in 2DE and 3DE, they don’t contradict.
Slow updates to already-sold contents could come slower, but nowadays they are also essential to maintain the healthy game environment as well, not just sellable contents.
I’m talking about how it should have been done and should be done in the future. And they should put an end to this current direction.
This time it only upsets some “really hardcore historical nerds who want an 100% accuracy historical textbook” (according to some people’s words). If this Pandora box is open, next time they will also upset the other people. Eventually only the “devs always right” people will be happy.
When I first saw the concept of variant civs, I thought it was a great idea. It’s a no-brainer way to add more contents and I immediately came up with a bunch of no-brainer options from real history.
Who knows they went for all those twisted logic and mental efforts to justify mostly fictional stuff.
You are completely on point with this analysis really, I have found most of my time constructing posts in response to users. A lot of it has been fixated on conduct. It’s not something I particularly enjoy doing or look for in a day though. Most of the time when I read through these forums in particular I just feel exhausted. I kind of feel like a janitor or hall monitor, and that’s both condescending and not my role. But I do feel like someone should say it, and moments later I’m making the post myself.
A lot of times my intent comes from a place of confusion, though. A lot of times it’s because I don’t understand what expectations have been upset. For instance:
For me, the reality is that we are going to have 6 additional factions, 2 civs and 4 variants, on November 14th. Discussion on how they play and how they are designed can’t really begin until then. I’ve just been trying to get an effective understanding on why people are upset.
I don’t intend to answer that question for you, but my impression so far is that the issue is that it’s a new concept unfamiliar to longterm fans, and that some people wanted different content than what’s being offered. I have also understood that there is a desire to see history represented, but from my perspective that is being accomplished.
My focus here is clarity and understanding, am I off on my analysis?
Okay, that makes sense. If the variants can get better, why not?
Frankly, looking back is a waste of time. What’s done is done, now let’s look forward, so we can be constructive. Besides, a lot of arguing has already been made.
It surely had potential and I think the Devs just missed it. My theory is that they just wanted a way to try out the new mechanics and thought it would have been neat doing it this way. Boy were they wrong… but I’m sure they had the best intentions.
You are pretty much right. People are just voicing their concerns. I think it should be rather frictionless for both you and I to voice concerns even if they are polar opposites in terms of reason and origin. There is no reason for you or I to attempt to convince each other either, or to attempt to mark one or the other as a hater or fanatic for just holding an opinion.
These forums would be far better if people just spent their time and energy directing their thoughts into what they actually care about. Showing respect to those that hold a different opinion, and at most, maybe correcting others when there is indeed misinformation.
The point of discussion should be to expand our understanding, to learn from each other. I’ve participated in far too many arguments myself and am attempting to tone it down as much as I can, so as hypocritical as it may seem for me to say, I do think we should work towards that.
You may not understand a certain perspective, like thinking less of a DLC because it has seemingly more content. But, you aren’t obligated to understand either. The thoughts conjured around that perspective are directed as always, at developers and those who listen. They aren’t there to tell you that you are wrong for holding a different opinion.
It is ok to not be on the same page and to disagree. What I think is important, is to engage with content you are passionate about, rather than engage with content simply because it doesn’t line up with your own. That janitor role does indeed sound difficult.
