I would rather wait for a delayed DLC than missing contents like this. Chronicles became highest rated and most reviewed DLC for AoE2DE by far for a reason. Despite not marketed as Multiplayer DLC primarily. Quality contents will always sell. Even I do hope Chronicles do end up becoming its own ranked ladder and that is if more civs are out. Even offering a price model for Chronicles civs only to make it more easy to buy for wider audience.
But doing bad mistakes will make people question more and more in future. Even will slowly cause decline in rating and sales. Just look at what was happening to traditional AoE2 DLC and why Mountain Royals DLC faced mixed criticism.
That’s fair, I don’t mean to sound dismissive. There are certain battles I would be very disappointed if they miss in the Macedonian campaign e.g… Seige of Thebes, crossing the Danube. But I still believe some will be skipped unfortunately.
To be honest I’m not entirely sure why mountain royals was disliked. All the two civ dlcs have seemed pretty on par for me.
Pricing mostly and downgrade of singleplayer contents. Singleplayer contents were OK-ish but pricing was nearly as expensive as base game. I still believe they simply wanted to squeeze last amount of money out of AoE2 then axe it like AoE3. V&V also happened. I still think Chronicles is what saved them from having it axed as well. Well business matters mostly.
I find this quite surprising, actually. I’ve played about two thirds of the Chronicles campaign, and so far it feels like a case of quantity over quality to me. It’s obviously had a lot of time and effort put into it, and it’s visually pleasing, but nothing else about it feels like it’s up to the usual standard. But that’s just my opinion, and presumably lots of people disagree with me.
Higher price than previous comparable DLCs, with inconsistent pricing internationally (if I recall correctly, it was especially expensive in Brazil). Georgians were horribly underpowered on release, then overpowered after some balance changes, and are arguably still not in a great spot. Some people disliked the reuse of Mediterranean architecture for Caucasian civs. Some people disliked the (apparently very ahistorical) Armenian civ design.
Some people being me.
That would be me again.
I too am honestly a bit disappointed in chronicles, but I wouldn’t use “quantity over quality”, because I think in certain areas, the quality (or maybe effort) is quite high, while somethings are, like you said, not up to the usual standard.
What I like to say is “style over substance”. There are a lot of new assets, voice lines, architecture sets, the voice acting on the campaigns is very nice, the new campaign introductions are also very nice. But that’s just everything surface level. Everything that actually matters, like the gameplay of the campaign, and the new civs, were a bit disappointing. To sum it up briefly, I found the new campaign to feel very scripted& forced, as well as very arcady. The new civs again also feel very arcady and in general they feel boring because they don’t feel very balanced.
But I find it interesting how BfG chronicles has a much higher reception than say, Dynasties of India, which for me, Dynasties of India was better in almost every measurable metric.
You mean the lack of usual build and destroy focused campaigns like previous DLCs? In a way I think it was a bit refreshing to have some arcade-y style campaign in a way. Also actions of decision following across all scenarios. Even some attempts to innovate to make gameplay interesting and even letting the players to explore other aspects of campaigns. So I actually feel the need to explore the map more often. Side missions did meant something.
But yeah there are tons of hiccups do exist. But I do hope they polish this aspect of the game. Also avoid repeating old mistakes. Like covering unnecessary events like raids instead of skipping major ones like Platea. I did wish some places legit had a good AI or sort.
I dont find being scripted as bad. Its a singleplayer campaign and shouldnt be surprising to have such behavior. Atleast it was quite similar to old AOK campaigns where it B&D element was a bit less compared to new ones. Altho some places do need touch ups like awkward time limits of some campaigns which game doesnt tell you. It really needed more time to sit back and relax instead of rushing through everything.
It wasn’t just you, but yes.
Yeah, this is probably the best description. The quality of the visuals is very good – and the scenarios are actually “high quality” in the sense that the maps are very detailed and the trigger usage is quite intricate. It’s the quality of the gameplay that I think is lacking. But yes, generally I agree with everything you’ve said.
Yes, they don’t even feel balanced against each other, let alone against other civs. The unique tech choices are supposed to be a major innovation, but for me they’re a failure because there’s an obvious right choice. In some cases they’re not even worth having – especially in the Athenian part of the campaign, where all the unique techs are for land units but most scenarios are predominantly naval.
Partly, but for me that’s just a small part of a wider issue: the lack of consistency throughout the campaign. Every scenario has at least one mechanic-of-the-day – some new way of acquiring resources, or gaining some kind of experience points, or capturing enemy buildings, or a building with some unique ability – that’s introduced for that scenario only and never returns. The same assets get used in different ways in different scenarios, e.g. in one scenario a tent might just function like a house, in another it’s a mercenary camp, in another it’s a unit production building.
Firstly, this makes the whole experience feel fragmented, like playing a series of minigames rather than an RTS campaign. (I guess this is what people mean by “arcadey”.) But secondly – and especially in combination with the frequent lack of a normal economy – this makes for a gameplay experience that’s very much on rails. I don’t feel like I have much freedom about how to approach a scenario – I just have to figure out how best to exploit the one-off mechanic(s).
This hasn’t worked properly for me. In the Achaemenid part of the campaign, the aura quests carried over but my choice of bodyguard didn’t. In the Athenian part, it’s the other way round. I don’t know if anything else is supposed to carry over, but I haven’t noticed anything. (I haven’t got up to the Spartan scenarios yet.)
I know it wasn’t just me, but I was probably the one who complained about the issues you expressed the most.
For singleplayer games, its ok. Rather leaves open for more testing ground and enjoyable. Even possible ideas to include in multiplayer or other games. More room for innovation is just there. Like bodyguard mechanics and bribing some resources to weaken enemies has been quite interesting actually did happened historically. Playing it like multiplayer in mind shouldnt be the right way to see it. Altho I do complain there isnt a better difficulty level across campaigns. Some campaigns did felt far too easy and sometimes extremely difficult for pros. Also gotta do lot with timer cap again. Even minigame way of designing campaigns isnt necessarily a bad idea per say. Innovation is why I gave it a higher rank compared to previous DLCs. Its more memorable being able to do more than just killing all enemies.
Probably its more about bug reports. There is a bit spoiler ahead. Spartans campaigns felt a bit too hard start. Had less time to adjust with the civ like you can do with Archaemanids and Athenians. Should’ve gave a Feudal start to get adjusted to the civ. Even had timer limit issue once again.
I wonder when will release Chronicles 2. There is no mention of it in the recent important communication.
This year the will release either Macedon or Roman Republic and Roman Empire, both with their repescive campaign( Alexander and The Diadochi wars) and a Roman campaign
Probably November like the last one, they only announced it a month in advance last time so I don’t expect to hear about it till late in the year.
Based on the finale cutscene, almost certainly focused on the Macedonians, I would guess Roman republic and Carthage for the third dlc. Maybe Roman Empire and Gauls/Germans if there is a forth. At least that’s what I’m hoping for.
Yes, given the very positive reviews, it’s definitely ok! Just not to my taste, and not what I expected to be to other people’s tastes. To me it feels a lot like the old RPG-style campaigns that The Forgotten had, and I thought those were generally unpopular.
I don’t really want it to play like multiplayer. It’s definitely possible to make distinctive scenarios with unique features while maintaining consistent game logic – for example, StarCraft II does this very well (although it’s a long time since I played it).
Maybe. I found the Achaemenid scenarios mostly very forgetable. The Athenian ones have been more memorable for me, but often for the wrong reasons.
Right now I’m up to Within the Long Walls, the “political” Athenian scenario, and I have quite mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I am struggling with it and have failed twice on hard – and that makes me feel quite determined to complete it, mostly through a sense that I should be up to the challenge. On the other hand, I’m finding the gameplay really quite frustrating and not especially enjoying it. It seems almost impossible to gain any political favour early on without selling your estate, and once your political favour drops and the riots start, it’s just damage control. Any advice appreciated, though I will probably just lower the difficulty level for this scenario.
Forgotten style had terrible execution. Had tons of soft locks and far more out of place behavior. Like original Alaric had Italian Genoese Xbows. There was Magyars campaign which was basically V&V style awkward RPG but far worse and took forever to finish it. Had virtually no dialogue and you didnt have any clue what to do next even. From that point onward FE simply went B&D style with some new dialogues. Which are basically OK-ish but still good in my opinion. No harsh feelings but I would say FE is more suited for PvP balance(even awkward balance) than something Singleplayer. They did learned some lesson for DE campaigns. Especially with Rise Of Rajas.
Tbh, I trust R@W-CaptureAge far more these days. R@W team even did a Julius Caesar campaign for their mod. Had bit of hiccups but actually was very good. Once again lacked many B&D element. I would say they have to balance between arcade and traditional B&D more.
I think most interesting scenario by far. Because it literally reflects IRL politics in a way. Where real enemy is winning elections not to score a victory against Spartans. Just taking small good fights as much as possible. Saw some YouTubers having tough time with this.