I mean, I like the boxing villagers one and still have that enabled, but even though I am a funny guy and like goofy stuff, I still would rather developer time be allotted to actually fleshing out the game in meaningful ways.
2 Likes
IDK if more architecture sets are “needed”. They don’t serve any purpose beyond the aesthetic. I love the sets, don’t get me wrong, but I think people put too much focus on adding different sets, adding different skins, unique castle designs, etc.
Literally just watched the interview with Masmorra and FE about the ROR release, and one of the things that was identified as a strength of the game was the readability. That gets harder and harder everytime you add another skin or another architecture set. Admittedly many of us fans have been around some 20 years, so adding a little more complexity doesn’t seem like much.
Imagine a new player trying to get into the game has to remember what some 15 different buildings look like, through various ages, and 10-ish architecture sets. Admittedly the devs do a typicallyi good job of using consistent elements and shapes to make that easier. The monastery and university are really the only examples were that isn’t the case.
Also I’m not convinced some of the architecture sets have too many civs using them. Not to be pedantic but it’s not like there’s some archictectur-ometer that shows six is too many, only that it is more than some other architecture sets. I do feel like the architecture sets are useful when judging civ geographical diversity to about the first approximation. This would imply there are way too many european civs (but that’s another topic thread).
While my profession is web development, I’ve been “design adjacent” for many years. Most of the designers I know would say less is usually more. We already have enough visual assets IMO. I’d rather see more campaigns, or regional units, than architecture sets.
4 Likes
The huns have the central european style because most of the population of the hunnic empire were conquered gothic peoples.
1 Like
There are some civilizations that would not feel right with existing architecture sets. In order for their inclusion to feel complete, they would need all new ones. I don’t think more architecture sets would affect readability all that much, as the designs of buildings are standardized enough that it’s immediately apparent what they are in different styles.
5 Likes
I dunno. So long as all the buildings have the same silhouette, I don’t see the problem. Units I can see as an issue having different models, but buildings? No.
4 Likes
Yup, exactly. And even buildings that don’t have the same layout have things in common to make them obvious.
All of these Monasteries look different, but it’s obvious they’re Monasteries because they’re clearly religious buildings.
4 Likes
Yeah, I usually speak in terms of what is prioritized, and most of my dissatisfaction with the game ATM traces back to poor prioritization of things I think are important. I think most people understand that the developers are talented, passionate professionals, who unfortunately have to follow the agendas of higher-ups who are less connected to and invested in the game. And sometimes I and others will refer to “the devs” a little too broadly when discussing decisions that were probably made by people who don’t work on the game. On the other hand, a flawed end product (obviously according to the perspective of the user) can appear indistinguishable to the user from “lazy,” so I understand why some people express their dissatisfaction in this way. But I agree that they should be more careful in what they pin their discontent on, and not needlessly insult the skilled people that are working hard to make the game as good as it is.
Agree and disagree with your post. I agree with certain propositions, like architecture-maxing not being necessary, and there not being any inherent problem with a set containing x number of civs. However I don’t really agree that new sets will present much of a readability problem, (certainly not compared to the difficulty of making readable regional unit skins), or that players have to “memorize” all these different buildings throughout the ages. The artists have done a great job of making buildings distinct yet recognizable across sets, and the concept art for most new proposed sets is instantly intelligible (I don’t have to be told what X building is supposed to be, or memorize anything). But yeah, I’d rather have new civs, bugfixes, new editor units, etc, and generally more things that are additive rather than transformative (regional skins are kind of both, but I view them as more the latter than the former). A new Andean set and central/south African sets are the only must-haves as far as I’m concerned, assuming they actually do add new civs from those regions.
5 Likes
I kinda think that East Asian civilizations need their own sets. Himeji Castle is nice and perhaps the best castle, but probably not really the best with respect to Korea and China, and even Vietnam.
File:Beijing Southeast Corner Tower (20210917085427).jpg - Wikimedia Commons
That could be a template for Chinese castle.
Korea and Vietnam could have their own styling, I guess?
Also, for Portugal, the castle of Braganza, a modified version, can be used in game.
5 Likes
Replying late, but considering the Imperial Age architecture for East Asia is already based on Chinese architecture, I don’t think a split is necessary.
If there’s a Tai civilization, I hope they can get a Buddhist temple or wat with the Burmese.
Its still wood based and not based on Chinese architecture. The houses and town centre are all made of wood!
1 Like
Architecture sets in-game are based on abstractions. A lot of civs have architecture styles that don’t fully fit them.
I think the East Asian is one of the most overlooked ones. The East Asian style is very Japanese. Mainland Asian/Chinese should use a lot more stone.
To make a comparison the East Asian style now would be like having just one ‘Christian European’ style for Britons, Franks, Spanish, Teutons etc but its heavily based off English architecture.
I’d be happy if they at least gave a new castle style that China, Vietnam, Korea and Mongols could share.
3 Likes
So should Georgians/Armenians just use the Mediterranean set?
No, because even in an abstract game like AoE2, aside from the Byzantine traits, Caucasus architecture has no similarities to any existing set at all. Chinese architecture is at least superficially similar to the East Asian set in-game.
You’re saying that, apart from what they have in common, the two styles have nothing in common, but the same could be said about Chinese architecture vs the East Asian architecture in-game.
I do very much think that if civilisations from the Caucasus were added they should get their own architecture, but you should argue for the same treatment for all the civilisations in the game which have poorly-fitting architectures.
Chinese architecture is already represented in the Imperial Age.
Besides, Japanese roofs and Chinese roofs look very similar, at least how they’re presented in-game. Most laymen are not gonna notice a huge difference between the two on the surface.
The other issue is that there isn’t any civ that could use Japanese architecture aside from the Japanese, and I don’t like the idea of unique architecture sets.
EDIT: I found this comparison of different East Asian styles. If we look specifically at Chinese vs Japanese, you can’t honestly tell me they don’t look at least similar on the surface.
2 Likes
The average Western player might not notice the difference between the roofs, the average Chinese player might not notice the difference between certain features of AoE2 Mediterranean vs Georgian architecture.
All I’m saying is that in an ideal world civilisations in the game would have more accurate architecture. For example, I’d like Ethiopians to not have a mosque. So if they did release Georgians with a Mediterranean set (which would be wrong) one could just add it to the pile of inaccuracies in this game.
One could say, why should Georgians/Armenians get their own special architecture when Incas have to use the Mesoamerican set? I wouldn’t say that personally, rather I think that all accuracies should ideally be addressed, including the issue with the East Asian style being far too Japanese in appearance. Surely we can agree on that? I don’t see the point in disagreeing for the sake of it, or in arguing for less content rather than more.
Also there are pretty clear differences in that image you added, the roofs and the walls are different. The similarity lies mostly in the shape/size of the example but they’ve all been drawn that way. The Japanese and Korean designs look quite similar though, maybe they should share a set. I’m not expert on these matters personally I just noted what others who seemed knowledgeable were saying and thought it best to question the contradiction in your perspective.
1 Like
You raise good points, but the issue is that Chinese and Japanese architecture are a lot more similar to each other than Caucasus and Mediterranean architecture are. And I am not a layman, as I have a massive interest in architecture from around the world, so if I have trouble telling the difference, that means they’re pretty darn similar. Sure, they might be made of different materials, but the basic styles are very similar.
Caucasus architecture is similar to the Mediterranean architecture when it comes to religious structures, but that’s where the similarities end. Everything else is completely different. So your comparison is a bit faulty.
I think architecture sets should be a generalized abstraction of different cultures that have roughly similar architecture. It doesn’t need to be one-to-one.
And yes, I do actually think the Incas should have a new Andean set, as long as there are new South American civs that come with it. I don’t think unique architecture sets should be a thing, so I am opposed to the Japanese having a different architecture set from the Chinese.
It might be helpful to look at a game that already tried diversifying from AOE2
Koreans in Rise of Nations
Japanese in Rise of Nations
.jpg){kind=link}
Japanese Castle
Korean Castle
AOE2’s one is much closer to Rise of Nations Japanese style. the RON Korean style is much closer to what I’d like in a new East Asian style. Theres absolutely enough variety in building styles between Japan and the mainland to justify another one.
4 Likes