First impressions of Chronicles: Battle for Greece

[UpmostRook9474]

@Velk413

I mean i’ll be honest, i’d rather they put Chronicles in the same game than make a new game for it or something just for the sake of it taking up a smaller storage footprint on my computer, because Chronicles is pulling a lot of the same back-end data as AoE 2 is.

To me, Chronicles does not belong in AoE2. The former is antiquity and the latter is medieval.
The themes should be taken seriously so better they are different games, in my humble opinion.
If ones just like the antiquity theme, they can buy only Chronicles without AoE2.

@JordanEver

RoR was always the port of Age of Empires 1 to the AoE2 engine and they did exactly that and that’s it. It never intended to be nothing more than this.

Frankly speaking, to me, the AoE2 does not need those antiquity things from the beginning.
They just abandoned AoE1DE, which is disappointing, and ruined the theme and immersion of AoE2DE.

@JordanEver

There is no way to ‘bring engine upgrades to AoE1DE’, they would need to do what they did with Age of Mythology, remade the entire game in a new engine, and they basically did this, they remade the game in the AoE 2 engine without excluding AoE1 from existence.

Just remake the game with a new engine and replace the old game data, and that is an engine upgrade to the game from players’ perspective. You would still launch AoE1DE on Steam, but the data of the game would be new.

@JordanEver

Whats the difference…???

If people want these antiquity themes to use the same engine as AoE2, they don’t have to be made into AoE2 content. Update the existing antiquity-themed game, or become a new antiquity-themed game. My personal feeling is, these things becoming AoE2 content damages the theme and immersion of AoE2, bringing confusion and doubt to people.

I probably won’t buy this DLC. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who support antiquity things being stuffed into AoE2, but in that forum I mentioned, people seem to be generally not excited and even disappointed.

[RankBadge728]

@UpmostRook9474

People have believed for months that AoE2 would be getting a big expansion, yet this DLC doesn’t seem to actually expand anything beyond graphics for the main game of AoE2. In comparison, RoR at least brings the Romans to AoE2 players.

Doesn’t this DLC add three more playable civilizations to the game where as ROR only added just one, Romans?

[OperaticShip743]

@UpmostRook9474

Perhaps one day we may see the Dutch Revolt, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Revolution in AoE2DE.

That’s disappointing for both AOE-2 and AOE-3 players.

[JordanEver]

@UpmostRook9474

Frankly speaking, to me, the AoE2 does not need those antiquity things from the beginning.
They just abandoned AoE1DE, which is disappointing, and ruined the theme and immersion of AoE2DE.

How they ruined it if you don’t buy it you will literally never see the two content…?

@UpmostRook9474

Just remake the game with a new engine and replace the old game data, and that is an engine upgrade to the game from players’ perspective. You would still launch AoE1DE on Steam, but the data of the game would be new.

But would this not simple be an entire different game…? Do the AoE1 fans don’t want the game they like in the way they like…?

@UpmostRook9474

If people want these antiquity themes to use the same engine as AoE2, they don’t have to be made into AoE2 content. Update the existing antiquity-themed game, or become a new antiquity-themed game. My personal feeling is, these things becoming AoE2 content damages the theme and immersion of AoE2, bringing confusion and doubt to people.

I probably won’t buy this DLC. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who support antiquity things being stuffed into AoE2, but in that forum I mentioned, people seem to be generally not excited and even disappointed.

Fair point. They could indeed create a separate game to put these things there. But I think after the Return of Rome decision, its too late now.

[JordanEver]

@RankBadge728

Doesn’t this DLC add three more playable civilizations to the game where as ROR only added just one, Romans?

No, this DLC add zero playable civs to the AoE2 game. People that only play multiplayer get zero content from this DLC.

[Darkillermon]

You mean “People that only play ranked get […]”

[UpmostRook9474]

@OperaticShip743

That’s disappointing for both AOE-2 and AOE-3 players.

Unfortunately, the traditional conventions of the timeline covered by the game have broken down clearly. No one is sure whether they will do so.

You know, just give the Hand Cannoneer a more modern Musketeer skin, increase the projectile speed to 15 or more, and allow it to have basic 100% accuracy and ballistics, then it will be able to perform like AoE3 unit.

If people want to see something in AoE1 timeline and AoE3 timeline so much implemented on the AoE2 engine, I honestly would rather they would be AoE5 or any new game using the same engine than just attached to AoE2.

@JordanEver

How they ruined it if you don’t buy it you will literally never see the two content…?

If you don’t buy the DLCs, you just don’t have access to them. They’re still on the screen, you can still see them, and you are still aware of their presence.

@JordanEver

But would this not simple be an entire different game…? Do the AoE1 fans don’t want the game they like in the way they like…?

As far as I know, there is not much difference between AoEHD and AoEDE except for picture quality. And, RoR actually only does what AoE1DE should do, such as debugging, adding some user-friendly and convenient designs, introducing a new civ, etc., just like AoE2HD to AoE2DE.

People who enjoyed the original AoE1 game can continue to play AoE1HD, just like there are people still play AoE2HD.

@JordanEver

Fair point. They could indeed create a separate game to put these things there. But I think after the Return of Rome decision, its too late now.

When RoR becomes a reality, I’d rather they continue fleshing out RoR and bringing more content to it and Chronicles can still be released as another game. However, they are just abandoning it like they abandoned AoE1DE and then cramming more of the same antiquity-themed stuff into AoE2.

Now, I just hope that Chronicles’ future development doesn’t focus purely on antiquity, but instead focuses on something that doesn’t lend itself well to being represented by AoE2, such as civil wars. In AoE2, wars within a culture is often criticized for being reduced to a mirror game of a single civ. However, in Chronicles, perhaps kingdoms, city-states, warlords and even clans can be allowed to become their own civs, so that such things as the Three Kingdoms of China, the Sengoku Period of Japan, and the Heptarchy of Britain can be better presented.

[Atsavin]

They might not but I am ready for other developers. The best thing to come out from them recently was that Polish mill lol.

[SirWiedreich]

@UpmostRook9474

If people want these antiquity themes to use the same engine as AoE2, they don’t have to be made into AoE2 content. Update the existing antiquity-themed game, or become a new antiquity-themed game. My personal feeling is, these things becoming AoE2 content damages the theme and immersion of AoE2, bringing confusion and doubt to people.

I agree with this, and most of the OP, but the reality is we’re way past RoR/BfG “not having to be made into AoE2 content.” Right before RoR I voiced a preference similar to yours, of wanting RoR to be its own (entirely) separate game, even if it was created from an AoE2 clone. RoR being made as an official mode within AoE2 was concerning in that it completely changed the meaning of “AoE2 DLC” from a familiar type of Medieval civ/campaign content to anything they decided to call an AoE2 DLC. But RoR was sort of palatable as a one-off and imperfect but tolerable way of continuing to support AoE1. BfG completely solidifies the intention to make AoE2 into a platform or “expanded universe” with multiple modes, and not just the Medieval game it’s been for most of it’s existence. Not my first choice, but it is what it is, so I’d rather lean into the positive implications than backward-facing “what-ifs” of desires to close pandora’s box. For example, crossplay is one of the main appeals once the campaign is finished (or for those not interested in it), and the chance of that being removed to put the ancient content in a separate game is nil.

[Velk413]

@UpmostRook9474

However, in Chronicles, perhaps kingdoms, city-states, warlords and even clans can be allowed to become their own civs, so that such things as the Three Kingdoms of China, the Sengoku Period of Japan, and the Heptarchy of Britain can be better presented.

This is a good shout for sure! Though I do hope they bring all the civs from Romae ad Bellum in as well.

[JordanEver]

@UpmostRook9474

If you don’t buy the DLCs, you just don’t have access to them. They’re still on the screen, you can still see them, and you are still aware of their presence.

So if the devs add an option to hide them from the screen, your problems are over?

@UpmostRook9474

As far as I know, there is not much difference between AoEHD and AoEDE except for picture quality

That’s the point no? People that like the game want to play them as they are? And its not just picture quality, a lot of things where changed, like farms.

@UpmostRook9474

And, RoR actually only does what AoE1DE should do, such as debugging, adding some user-friendly and convenient designs, introducing a new civ, etc., just like AoE2HD to AoE2DE.

But RoR is an entire different game from AoE1. And I ask again, do the AoE1 fans (i’m not one of them) want their game to be completely changed?

@UpmostRook9474

People who enjoyed the original AoE1 game can continue to play AoE1HD, just like there are people still play AoE2HD.

Then they will not get the definitive edition of game lol Today they have it.

@UpmostRook9474

When RoR becomes a reality, I’d rather they continue fleshing out RoR and bringing more content to it and Chronicles can still be released as another game. However, they are just abandoning it like they abandoned AoE1DE and then cramming more of the same antiquity-themed stuff into AoE2.

If there is barely any player for the AoE1 content, why would they keep adding content and things to RoR…? They ported AoE1 to the Age2 engine and thats it, the work is over. I don’t think its a good business decision to keep making things for it.

[UpmostRook9474]

@SirWiedreich

BfG completely solidifies the intention to make AoE2 into a platform or “expanded universe” with multiple modes, and not just the Medieval game it’s been for most of it’s existence.

I know the DLCs are like water that has been thrown out and cannot be taken back. I’m just confused about the future of this game, like watching a car that is driving toward the sea. As you said, they changed the meaning of “AoE2 DLC” to whatever they want to call an AoE2 DLC. Not only the Dutch Revolt, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Revolutionary War, but perhaps even Halo, StarCraft, and Overwatch can come. Who knows if the Zerg and Omnic will become civs.

@JordanEver

So if the devs add an option to hide them from the screen, your problems are over?

It’s there, the hiddenness, if there will be, is just a lie to yourself. You still know the game is going in an unexpected direction.

It’s somehow like, if you delete your ex’s contact information and remove all items, texts and photos related to her, can you completely forget about her, as if she never existed in your life?

@JordanEver

That’s the point no? People that like the game want to play them as they are? And its not just picture quality, a lot of things where changed, like farms.

As far as I know, many of the negative reviews of AoE1DE exactly came from the fact that they didn’t change enough. Year-old bugs still exist, there is a lack of more user-friendly and convenient design, and there is no more new content. These are all things that AoE2DE has solved but AoE1DE has not.

@JordanEver

But RoR is an entire different game from AoE1.

Not that different in my opinion.
On the other hand, as I stated above, I’ve seen AoE1 players complain that AoE1DE doesn’t really bring enough improvement. I don’t guarantee that this is the mainstream opinion of the AoE1 community, but I have seen some people think that this is one of the main reasons for the poor market response of AoE1DE.

@JordanEver

If there is barely any player for the AoE1 content, why would they keep adding content and things to RoR…?

If there is barely any player for the AoE1 content, why they made RoR?

When they were willing to take care of the abandoned child again (even in a less than ideal way), they should continue to treat it well rather than abandon it again.

[JordanEver]

@UpmostRook9474

It’s there, the hiddenness, if there will be, is just a lie to yourself. You still know the game is going in an unexpected direction.

It’s somehow like, if you delete your ex’s contact information and remove all items, texts and photos related to her, can you completely forget about her, as if she never existed in your life?

The right comparison would be ‘that girl you never dated or even talked to’ no? As you would never even touch the dlc.

But the point is that you don’t want the devs using resources to create antiquity content, right? You can say right away, it’s not a wrong opinion to have, its just a taste. Just like people that only play multiplayers don’t want the devs using resources for campaigns/solo content.

@UpmostRook9474

As far as I know, many of the negative reviews of AoE1DE exactly came from the fact that they didn’t change enough. Year-old bugs still exist, there is a lack of more user-friendly and convenient design, and there is no more new content. These are all things that AoE2DE has solved but AoE1DE has not.

I think the only public that AoE1 have is basically vietnam players and they got back to playing the conventional AoE1 and don’t like the Return of Rome…? That’s some bad place to be: changing everything and alienating the people that want the game to be exactly as it is or changing everything.

@UpmostRook9474

Not that different in my opinion.

You don’t think people that play AoE1 don’t think that RoR gameplay is totally different…?

@UpmostRook9474

I’ve seen AoE1 players complain that AoE1DE doesn’t really bring enough improvement. I don’t guarantee that this is the mainstream opinion of the AoE1 community, but I have seen some people think that this is one of the main reasons for the poor market response of AoE1DE.

I have seem it too, but that’s why i’m asking. The only community I know for AoE1 is vietnam and they like the game the way it is. So if they don’t want changes…

@UpmostRook9474

If there is barely any player for the AoE1 content, why they made RoR?

So they can drop support and maintenance for AoE1.

[UpmostRook9474]

@JordanEver

The right comparison would be ‘that girl you never dated or even talked to’ no? As you would never even touch the dlc.

I have been aware of this DLC, saw this DLC, leared imformation of this DLC, and discussed this DLC.
This DLC is in my memory, existing in my cognitive world. Not discussing, not buying, not playing it will not make me unaware of its existence.
I do think the relatively right comparison would actually be your ex or maybe better a girl you had crushed and felt disappointed.

@JordanEver

But the point is that you don’t want the devs using resources to create antiquity content, right? You can say right away, it’s not a wrong opinion to have, its just a taste. Just like people that only play multiplayers don’t want the devs using resources for campaigns/solo content.

I thought I had said it very clear that I do not appreciate those too antiquity things being brought into this game. But if they insist on this, I hope they will continue to work hard, such as introducing other Chronicles sub-games for the Three Kingdoms Period of China, the Sengoku Period of Japan, and the Heptarchy Period of Britain. Again, in this way, Chronicles can take a unique path, not just focusing on antiquity but focusing on stories that are difficult to properly present in the main game of AoE2.

By the way, I don’t think players who only focus on ranking or multiplayers do not welcome campaigns. At best they are indifferent to it. If your opinion comes from the negative market reaction to V&V, I would say that its failure stems more from the fact that its content was not suitable as official campaigns in the way of their designs and was of poor quality, rather than because its content itself was consist of campaigns.

@JordanEver

You don’t think people that play AoE1 don’t think that RoR gameplay is totally different…?

Putting aside subsequent new civs and updates, do you think that people think AoE2DE is so different from HD in gameplay?

@JordanEver

The only community I know for AoE1 is vietnam and they like the game the way it is. So if they don’t want changes…

I think it is more likely that purchasing DE and a console capable of running DE is not so simple for players from Vietnam. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

[JordanEver]

@UpmostRook9474

I have been aware of this DLC, saw this DLC, leared imformation of this DLC, and discussed this DLC.
This DLC is in my memory, existing in my cognitive world. Not discussing, not buying, not playing it will not make me unaware of its existence.

That’s an argument against any dlc that a person don’t like, as the mere existence of it would bother that person. Too extreme don’t you think?

@UpmostRook9474

a girl you had crushed and felt disappointed.

That’s a proper comparison.

@UpmostRook9474

By the way, I don’t think players who only focus on ranking or multiplayers do not welcome campaigns

Oh I saw plenty of comments mad that the multiplayer where getting nothing. A lot of players are ranked-only, and they are very active.

@UpmostRook9474

If your opinion comes from the negative market reaction to V&V, I would say that its failure stems more from the fact that its content was not suitable as official campaigns in the way of their designs and was of poor quality, rather than because its content itself was consist of campaigns.

Oh no, V&V deserve all the backlash it got. The marketing itself was deceiving, saying to players it was a campaign focused DLC and then it was individual scenarios (NOT what people have in mind for campaigns). And then not only the scenarios had questionable designs, the amount of broken and janky stuff was everywhere. I know because I played everything.

@UpmostRook9474

Putting aside subsequent new civs and updates, do you think that people think AoE2DE is so different from HD in gameplay?

No? Because there is not much gameplay difference between DE and HD.

But AoE1 to RoR have radical changes that completely changes the gameplay.

@UpmostRook9474

I think it is more likely that purchasing DE and a console capable of running DE is not so simple for players from Vietnam. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

Well, only the AoE1 fanbase can really say what they want. Hope they are happy.

[Prokman7582]

You are the voice of reason, I was about to lose my mind in here.

My only disagreement is that I believe RoR is what aoe1de should have been, or what vanilla aoe1 should have become if it was continuously supported all over the past decades; I see no radical changes in RoR, only improvements. I still say “this is aoe1” when I play it, a functional aoe1, with its nice Granaries and Storage Pits.

[AlphaCreator727]

RoR is a playable game in the hands of an AoE2 player. The main public for AoE1 is in Vietnam; which they didn’t even try to play it. AoE1 fanbase (and actual player base) are the Vietnamese, for the rest of the world is a game of the past.

[grizzgolf]

I really wish the new civs could be used for Rank

[CagierNebula24]

It’s Greece vs. Persia, of course I’ll buy it.

But I wish it had been done in the same engine they made AOMR with. That would have been glorious. It could have been a full game.

[EricTheRed283]

1. Prologue: Gates of the Gods | The Grand Campaign | AoE2: DE

Diving into the Grand Campaign! Mission 1 | Age of Empires II: DE - Chronicles: Battle For Greece