Exactly what’s going on. I’d prefer to keep the discussion focused solely on the topics I’ve already mentioned, because that’s what the company will actually take into account going forward, but a couple people keep derailing the conversation into pro vs anti-woman arguments that aren’t the focus of the complaint. Jeanne could have been implemented a variety of other ways that would have been largely praised. It’s not about her it’s about the way she was implemented.
The criticism of this post is about making an entire civilization spanning centuries of in-game time center around a single figure that was a leader for 3-4 years. I was just mentioning we should be focusing on actual discourse instead of trying to conflate people’s reasonable criticism of the civ into ###########.
If that was about me, Im not offended by the post, just trying to focus the thread on the discussion instead of derailing the thread with a red herring.
1 Like
The thread is titled “Erase Jeanne d’Arc” . What I posted is in line with discussion. I don’t believe for a second that these arguments about history or whatever even apply. I think that is a vehicle for attack and that the real issue here is the representation that Jeanne d’Arc brings.
1 Like
I completely agree with you, of course what you can’t do is have Magic, a magic sword, a magic arrow, a magic fire, a magic ray, excessive magic!! Elements like conversion, healing and much more are already part of the entire franchise and that’s incredible and you can add new things without being magical!!
I just want the critiques being put forth by the community to actually be received as legitimate and this “sexism” narrative you and like one other guy are pushing cheapens that.
Like you’re definitely trying to push this as the reason for the critiques by creating some psychoanalytical narrative, for your own reasons. People who actually are saying she sucks cause she’s a girl (which I’ll reiterate has never been said once, I think there is legitimately 1 or maybe 2 people in the entire forum I’ve seen that I’d even assign that attitude to) aren’t even being responded to, everyone is ignoring them.
1 Like
Never in my life have I seen such backlash before the announcement of a faction option whose identity is formed around an individual. No problems with historical discrepancies for the naming convention of Rus instead of Kievan Rus. The use of gunpowder by abbasid and delhi. Shinobi on the japanese faction, or invisibility abilties. But a woman? Dozens of threads. It’s hard not to see the pattern here.
Jade empire got at least as much backlash, if not more. But at least they changed that to a passable (in my opinion) civ name. The criticism is calling a civilization a person’s name in general. People also hated Sultan’s army.
I personally also think it’s excessive, but before the adjusted names, Jeanne did not receive meaningfully more criticism than the other names. Heck a lot of people on here suggested names like Army of Jeanne or Followers of Jeanne. How do you explain that, cause it still has a female’s name in the suggestions
2 Likes
Yeah that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m addressing the outright removal of the faction or the alteration of the faction so that Jeanne d’Arc is not a part of it. I am at odds with the erasure.
They wanted to erase the faction. The OP did not want to follow other ideas of having multiple leaders removing Jeanne as the only one. The main discussion is the idea of a faction designed around hero units.
1 Like
Yeah and this points to the person specifically and not the concept.
But you’re only at odds with the erasure because she’s a woman lol. The complaint is that they don’t want MOBA-style heroes leading civs with activated abilities. Also, there’s the logical inconsistency of having a single person live through 600 years of history along with the civ, it doesn’t make sense. If the same situation happened and everyone was like “hey we don’t want a William Wallace faction named William Wallace. He wasn’t relevant enough and it looks weird next to all of the other empires,” you wouldn’t be defending it so hard. Again it’s the same reason YOU are the one bringing up the gender narrative when everyone else seems at ease with leaving that out of the discussion.
1 Like
Just glosses over the fact that the OP would also consider Alexander the Great as a civ name to be ridiculous, and last I checked Alexander wasn’t a woman. He even said having it be house of Armagnacs would be OK and leaving Jeanne as the hero unit.
3 Likes
The issue that I have is the removal of the faction as a whole or the removal of Jeanne d’Arc from gameplay. Please, just understand that.
Oh that’s definitely different than making up veiled motivations behind people’s critiques. It’s called a hypothetical bro, they’re used in debates all the time.
1 Like
Idk, if you read the thread, you would see the author isn’t trying to remove the faction nor Jeanne, just change the civ name. He/She mentioned multiple times that this is about the name of a civilization just being a person’s name
Unfortunately I agree with this thread.
Everything was perfect with the Japanese and byzantines
The 4 variants takes my motivation away to play the game.
AOE4 just lost it’s soul
I know that I could just ignore those Civs but the games immersion is different.
I must return to AOE 3
9 Likes
You haven’t even tried the new variant civs, how can you know how you will feel? Comments like this make no sense. It’s okay to be unsure if you will like it, but at least give is a chance to create a real opinion on the matter.
But no one is stopping you, go back to AoE3 and enjoy it! This is the most important thing that we have many AoE titles to play for different reasons.
4 Likes
I agree that playing a civ is often necessary to understand and form an opinion on all sorts of parts of civ design — how certain new gameplay mechanics work, balancing, strategies, etc.
I’m not sure one needs to play a civ to form an opinion on a number of other parts — a civ’s name, the unit roster, building roster, tech tree. Most of us are conversant in the franchise well enough to accurately grasp some parts like those.
2 Likes
But aside from the little information that we know from the short summary on the website for Jeanne D’arc we still don’t know the following:
-
The full unit roster for this civ
-
Building roster for example how will the landmarks work here? Will there be new ones replacing old French landmarks etc.?
-
We don’t know which techs will follow from the French and what will be new/limited
The name I agree is a bad name but that’s about anything we can properly give our constructive feedback right now, unless those few that are under NDA and already have tested it.
2 Likes
Totally agree. Just erase this dark stain on AoE’s history.
3 Likes