“The real thing… well, there are no actual photos because it never really existed. There are some similar examples, but it doesn’t seem like they used those as a reference.”
“On the other hand, the design of the Rocket Cart seems to have been based on an actual weapon used by korean.”
The Koreans were partially reworked around the time of the Three Kingdoms DLC, and I think that made them feel somewhat more authentically Korean. Still, even if they were a civilization that was added rather hastily back then, looking at them now, it’s pretty obvious how little effort went into some parts of their design.
Of course, I get that the internet wasn’t as developed back then, and Korea wasn’t nearly as well known as it is today.
As someone who really enjoys Asian history, though, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed.
Anyway, thanks for reading my little rant
If you look closely, you’ll notice that the walls and pillars of the pagoda are not the same. Also, the real-life building does not have an open, wall-less first floor like it does in the game.
Additionally, the number of floors in the pagoda is different. Culturally and religiously, the number of floors in a pagoda carries specific meanings and is not chosen at random. The nine-story pagoda of Hwangnyongsa even has its own unique significance, and that is completely lost in the game.
This seems like a very strange thing to complain about, considering this graphic was changed in a patch over 25 years ago. (I know this might seem like an ironic comment considering my profile picture.)
What building is this, and why do you think it’s the basis for the Korean wonder?
To be honest, I don’t buy the story that Koreans were added at short notice at the request of Microsoft executives. I know that’s what Sandy Petersen said recently, but he’s known for making inconsistent statements, and it contradicts what he’d previously said about them. In particular:
they’d been in AoE, so we were nostalgic.
they had really cool turtle ships.
Korea had better name recognition from at least our American customers.
frankly, we thought the potential sales from Korea were attractive. While this wasn’t the most important point, we didn’t just ignore it.
so they had three other reasons for choosing Koreans, apart from potential sales in Korea. Also, on the subject of Huns, he said:
We already had the Spanish and the Aztecs, but we needed more [conquerors], because the Mayans and Koreans, frankly, are not too famous for their conquests.
which suggests that they chose to add Koreans before Huns.
I’m more inclined to trust statements made sooner after the actual events, and in the context of the AoK Heaven forums where he had no motive to exaggerate or make things up.
More like the developers just didn’t prioritise the things you personally care about, and didn’t have anything like as much information easily available to them.
By 2000, Sandy Petersen stated that Microsoft requested the removal of the Janissary’s hat because someone at MS thought it looked like a KKK member, though. He also wrote that dolphins (which were replaced by marlins) had to go because Microsoft said so.
But those were cosmetic changes in the end, the addition of a civ because of Microsoft’s request is a different dimension, of course…
I think he told about Microsoft’s role in the creation of the Korean civ for the first time in 2008, when ES was about to close:
Sure, I guess. Doesn’t seem like the kind of answer you’d give if the real answer was just pressure from Microsoft.
I hadn’t realised he’d said it so early, but that’s still 8 years after the fact.
Like, I think there’s probably some truth in it, but I don’t really believe the story as he tells it.
I think this is longer than he said on the YouTube interview where he mentioned it, but I can’t be bothered to look it up. Two months doesn’t seem too bad, but I don’t know what the timescales are usually like for game expansion development.
Which was fine for the time, but the longer they refuse to change the War Wagon and the Woad Raider (and the Gbeto, which isn’t Ensemble’s fault but is still a poor fit) the more it bothers me. The Aztec/Maya set really needs a rework to actually look lived-in.
Sure, but I was responding to @dustn20012’s claim that the original devs didn’t put effort into the original design. I was defending the original devs, not the current ones. (Not that I’m interested in them changing war wagons, woad raiders or gbetos personally.)
I looked it up. In the YouTube interview he said 6 weeks rather than 2 months. He also makes out (although doesn’t say explicitly) that there were only going to be four civs for The Conquerors before Koreans were added, contradicting his earlier claim that “we could have had some other, possibly more interesting civ. (KHMERS!!) instead”.
So yeah, I think there’s probably some truth in the story but I don’t buy it at face value. He’s only told this story years after the fact, and his telling of it is inconsistent.
Yeah, we decided to make all of Sandy Petersen’s claims come with a disclaimer on the wiki precisely because he’s known for dishonesty, inconsistency, and stealing credit.
