You, as a player coming from AoE2, represent a relatively large percentage of players who play AoE4, and it’s good to see various points of view.
I still think there are 2 names that still bother me a bit, but it will be a matter of getting used to them.
I don’t think it’s wise to assume insiders are getting payed to say positive things about this expansion but you do you I guess.
And can it be so simple as that the people who are under NDA have provided with their feedback on things they didn’t like but overall liked what they saw and are generally excited for this expansion? Is it so hard to believe this?
Again, you can think what ever you want for this expansion, that’s your choice but comments like this makes it really hard to care about what you have to say in general. Not a healthy attitude to have around the forums.
I mean, we reach the point : You’re ok with “civilization creation”, we can continue during days but this is what I wanted to read. It’s alright for you to create a civilization coming from nowhere, instead of picking an already existing one in history.
You don’t see the difference between ZXL and Ayyubids.
Yes, Zhu Xi is an historical figure, but he never created a faction, nor a group claimed his “legacy” (other than philophers).
Does it cost a lot to take an existing chinese dynasty / empire ? Does it harm gameplay because devs didn’t create something ?
gilded untis are lazy itself with the only added bonus and cost but no interesting gameplay to make it up It is the same civ design of the first one but with different cost and their joan d arc as a unti is just mongol but with extra steps aside from the hoistprical which is another layer of disrespect of the historical aspect that should have this game. byzantine has numerous ideas that should be part of the main game liek the shield for melee which is something that is supposed to be the norm (remenber active longbow skill palisade), ayyubids untis are another copy apst liek camel with its charge which anothe runti with the same skill and the civ wing feels liek that is sorta of powercreep The only ci with effort thta seems at least well done form the inbfo got is the japan civ but still 1 civ and thta one is not worth to cost 15 bucks. This dlcfeel more likely a way to powercreep civ liek they did on aoe 2 which is a disater for a game thta is supposed to be assymetric because they ahve to lower the quality to make up the time to produce new civs.
For any people that often say aoe4 is neglecting the historical part, that point is very simple to prove honestly, screenshot aoe4’s ingame compendium then you’ll understand where that criticism comes from
As soon as I saw Japan…I clicked buy on steam
They are creating two new civilizations that are a part of history to that extent, so you are getting good value for the money with just the byzantines and the Japanese plus all the new maps, biomes etc.
The variant civilizations are just a bonus to this expansion, that just provides alternative takes on already existing civilizations in the game like a “what if” civilizations. They are still part of history as they are based around historical people and group of people of that time. All they did was to come up with new fresh hopefully fun gameplay that make the game better and more refreshing to play for the players.
You already get your money’s worth without the variant addition, so why don’t you want to buy it and just stick to what you like? How does it effect you in any way when you can simply ignore all the variants if you chose to do that?
Stop being so egoistic and think only about yourselves, this game has a large community filled with people who like different things, if anything this expansion give us more options to play this game and while respectfully sticking to history enough while taking certain liberties of course.
It’s not centered around you or me and the people who compare the variation civilizations to adding space marines or minotaurs in the game is just silly and its just a ridiculous statement.
Literally anyone interested can become an Age Insider, it’s not some kind of paid program. And I as an Age Insider have my fair share of issues with AoE 4.
@Gil-galad Comment without disrespect.
I have literally 0 respect for such an ,opinion, … its not even and opinion … he recommend people to not buy this DLC … you should completely shut down this thread full of non-sesnse and wrong facts …
Personally, I understand what you are pointing out by saying « You have more than expected for your money, so ignore what you don’t like ». The main difference between you and me, is that, unfortunately, I can be dragged out of a universe by its incoherences. We lose the immersion by adding non-historical civs even though I agree that it is a lot of content objectively, I am just non convinced by its legitimacy.
It’s totally subjective on what someone feel as incoherences, and you have your right to feel this way about this even though I disagree with you but, why do you need to open a thread promoting others to not buy this DLC? You do your way and let everyone else decide for themselves.
I mean were you particularly immersed fighting as China against the English in Sweden while you are using battering rams to set buildings on fire?
I understand not liking specific ideas for historicity, but AOE has never been particularly immersive. (see anything with monks, or AOE2 units setting houses on fire by whacking them with swords)
China is a real nation not “The Rice Eaters”.
English is a real nation not “Kingdom of Wool”.
Sweden is a real region, not random map seed 8462837.
Battering ram is a real thing that existed, not AT-XT.
If those do not matter at all you are free to change all the names in the game into fictional ones and all the don’t-carers will still buy the game definitely.
I’m not sure where you are going with this. Is designing something around the legacy of a philospher too abstract for you? Or are you now claiming shao-lin monks are myth.
See, I would much rather people who do not understand the appeal of immersion to not chime in rather than make false assumptions or strawmen. Do you really think people who enjoy AoE sit there rabidly screaming at the screen for the lack of “realism”?
Everyone who enjoys these games concedes to how arcadey it is. That is part of the appeal. But, just because it is arcadey doesn’t suddenly mean you would accept anything into that game. If you had watched a hundred episodes of a show about robots, and suddenly it became about flowers and plants instead–that would prompt you to question the reason for the change. Especially if what you specifically enjoyed about the show, was the robots.
I do not play AoE simply because it is an RTS. It isn’t the only one in the world. Hell, many would argue there are better RTS games out there. But, I don’t care for them as much as I do for this one. For me, this comes down to the fact that history is the focus here. And there is a whole two decades worth of examples as to what their approach has traditionally been in displaying, portraying or executing any of these concepts. For a lot of that, I have been pleasantly surprised and happy about their approach.
What they are doing now however, is breaking that–and they certainly aren’t doing it for your cause–you don’t seemingly care whatever the hell they call these civilizations. So why do something that specifically harms a great proportional demographic of their audience? it is simply stupid, if you ask me.
Anyway. You don’t “get” what immersion we seek from these games. There is no reason for you to make up wild scenarios about what makes sense and what doesn’t, simply because it doesn’t conform to your ideas of realism. That isn’t the point here.
Shaolin monks are not the legacy of a philosopher,
And the legacy of a philosopher is not a nation, a military organization, or even a political party,
I mean if they’d like throwing out the canned arguments such like “you’re using…to fight against…in…” and “this is not a historical simulator”, there is no need wasting time on real arguments with them.
Just do the same: why not add space marines to the game?
I mean, it’s not like we are playing as the nation itself very much, or do you construct a bunch of walled cities and villages in your games. The title of your civ doesn’t even show up while playing so how is this “taking you out of the immersion” anymore than using 2-handed swordsman to mow down swathes of troops in an aoe.
Heck for this matter, we should just remove hp bars altogether
There is a difference between “compromises to game designs” and “INTENTIONALLY adding violators when you don’t have to”.
According to you:
You don’t see the unit names most of the time either. Just icons. So please rename them to “space marine” “super gigachad no 2” or simply “infantry that counters cavalry”.
You don’t see the map name either. So please rename them to Seibertron or map seed 7478290.
But of course everyone asking for a bit more accuracy or consistency is definitely asking for 100% reproduction of what happened in real history!!!
So if you think civ names don’t matter, then EVERYTHING does not matter.