How to move on from V&V

[CitingOregano34]

@FloosWorld

Battles of the Conquerors is a campaign with a set of narrative-wise unrelated scenarios that overall follow the same idea - depicting Historic Battles from famous Conquerors such as William of Normady.

Fine, here is the entire quote. To me, this is a definition not fitting for the concept of “campaign”, only for Historical battles. Every other campaign depicts historical events and follows “the same idea”. However, there is a very big difference between HB and other campaigns.

@FloosWorld

One campaign deviating from the 5-6 mission pattern with a narration and whatnot does not make it not a campaign.

Ok, so… Take everything away from a campaign, which makes it a campaign in the first place, and then you’re left with… something that is still a campaign? Right. Might as well say Greenland is in Europe because it’s controlled by Denmark, or something.

@FloosWorld

Players expecting something and the game that has always handled Historic Battles as a campaign are therefore two contradictory things

Like I said: 97,5% vs 2,5%

@FloosWorld

this doesn’t change that fact that both Historic Battles and V&V are campaigns.

And yet the Steam page doesn’t advertise V&V’s content as such. The only time it was called a campaign DLC was during it’s first announcement.

@FloosWorld

When hovering over Historic Battles, the info box on the top right, says this:

Yes, my favorite campaign protagonist… The Conqueror. Such a campaign he had, where he conquered stuff with his buddy, The Forgotten. So sad that he was forgotten.

@FloosWorld

Where were the complaints back then?

There were none, because we got actual campaigns alongside these scenario collections. Nevermind the fact that the scenarios in question were new…

[Quasibrodo]

@FloosWorld

@Quasibrodo

If I created a mod that had unrelated scenarios, one depicting a LOTR battle, one depicting a sci fi battle (let’s go with terminator cause why not), one depicting a historical battle (let’s go with cannae, and one that via copious triggers, recreated the game of monopoly, would that be a campaign simply because they’re in a set? If they were accessible via the campaign menu, would they now be a campaign?

Not my point, so not applicable.

@FloosWorld

Yes because Battles of the Conquerors is a campaign with a set of narrative-wise unrelated scenarios that overall follow the same idea - depicting Historic Battles from famous Conquerors such as William of Normady.

Quoted even more specifically

@FloosWorld

that overall follow the same idea

Please elucidate to me how your point about scenarios following the same idea is unrelated to my counter point about hypothetical sets of scenarios that do and do not follow the…as you put it

@FloosWorld

same idea

You literally repeat this point in the post that supposedly disproves how my counter point was irrelevant.

@FloosWorld

it still is a campaign as the scenarios follow the same base idea

[RealMatrim2]

@Szaladon

V&V is a failed experiment.

Overall no. The new mechanics which added to the game, are very good and enrich the game. The fact, that you can now unlock several technologies in Wonder buildings and also be able, to finish the scenario, has not existed before, which is a very positive improvement. You can not expect in every new DLC new civs. The developers has improving the game itself and this has finally been done with the DLC Victors and Vanquished. A case, which was bad, was the initial high price for already existing scenarios, but this was subsequently significantly reduced after the complaints at the forum. The fact, that the developers announced new campaigns, but delivered singleplayer missions, was also bad. The DLC is still successful overall to see, when it comes to the game content.

@Szaladon

To fix V&V with staying true to the no-new civ formula,

Since we now have a total of 5 Viking scenarios and 4 Japanese scenarios, this would be enough, to pack these scenarios into 1 new campaign each of them.

@Szaladon

a patch including a Japanese, Viking and Chinese campaign with some price adjustment could probably fix the DLC,

Because you do not play campaigns anyway, I am wondering, why you are advocating for this? That does not make any sense… That also means, that you can not say anything about the content of the Victors and Vanquished DLC. But the fact, that you still criticize this DLC so massively, damages the reputation of this DLC.

[FloosWorld]

@CitingOregano34

@FloosWorld

Battles of the Conquerors is a campaign with a set of narrative-wise unrelated scenarios that overall follow the same idea - depicting Historic Battles from famous Conquerors such as William of Normady.

Fine, here is the entire quote. To me, this is a definition not fitting for the concept of “campaign”, only for Historical battles. Every other campaign depicts historical events and follows “the same idea”. However, there is a very big difference between HB and other campaigns.

And to me, it’s stimply stating how the things are ingame thus how the devs treat it.

@CitingOregano34

@FloosWorld

One campaign deviating from the 5-6 mission pattern with a narration and whatnot does not make it not a campaign.

Ok, so… Take everything away from a campaign, which makes it a campaign in the first place, and then you’re left with… something that is still a campaign? Right. Might as well say Greenland is in Europe because it’s controlled by Denmark, or something.

Not my point. Out of curiousity - would these missions suddenly become campaigns for you if they added an overarching documentary-type narration as it’s the case with AoE 4’s campaigns?

@CitingOregano34

@FloosWorld

Players expecting something and the game that has always handled Historic Battles as a campaign are therefore two contradictory things

Like I said: 97,5% vs 2,5%

And like I said: one campaign deviating from this pattern doesn’t make it not a campaign, like it or not.

@CitingOregano34

@FloosWorld

this doesn’t change that fact that both Historic Battles and V&V are campaigns.

And yet the Steam page doesn’t advertise V&V’s content as such. The only time it was called a campaign DLC was during it’s first announcement.

And ingame, it says “Victors and Vanquished Campaign”.

@CitingOregano34

@FloosWorld

When hovering over Historic Battles, the info box on the top right, says this:

Yes, my favorite campaign protagonist… The Conqueror. Such a campaign he had, where he conquered stuff with his buddy, The Forgotten. So sad that he was forgotten.

I feel like at this point you deliberately don’t want to understand me even if the game itself literally calls it a campaign.

@CitingOregano34

@FloosWorld

Where were the complaints back then?

There were none, because we got actual campaigns alongside these scenario collections. Nevermind the fact that the scenarios in question were new…

Or rather because sometimes people like to complain for the sake of complaining and making an issue out of a non-issue…? Also, you’re fine then with calling V&V and Historic Battles campaigns if they also add 5-6 mission spanning campaigns that have an overarching narration in another potential SP-focused DLC?

As said, I understand the disappointment with V&V and I also think it has issues such as reusing Workshop content (yet - fair enough - since console players only have access to official mods, they experience the vast majority of these scenarios now for the first time, so there’s also this that has to be taken into account which I think I also mentioned previously).

---

@Quasibrodo

Please elucidate to me how your point about scenarios following the same idea is unrelated to my counter point about hypothetical sets of scenarios that do and do not follow the…as you put it

Because these three things (LOTR, Terminator, Historic Battle) are nowhere near related to each other. Historical Battles such as Hastings, Noryang Point, Vinlandsaga etc. however are. They are all historic Battles (or in case of these three missions “Battles of the Conquerors”) that depict a historical event that happened IRL. Including something like the Battle of Helm’s Deep along these three missions would be absolutely out of place. I hope you eventually understand my point.

@Quasibrodo

You literally repeat this is the post that supposedly disproves how my counter point was irrelevant.

Because I somewhat feel like a broken record at this point.

[Quasibrodo]

@Quasibrodo

If I created a mod that had unrelated scenarios, one depicting a LOTR battle, one depicting a sci fi battle (let’s go with terminator cause why not), one depicting a historical battle (let’s go with cannae, and one that via copious triggers, recreated the game of monopoly, would that be a campaign simply because they’re in a set? If they were accessible via the campaign menu, would they now be a campaign?

It’s not a campaign but not because there isn’t a unifying theme but rather no organized course of action.

@FloosWorld

Because these three things (LOTR, Terminator, Historic Battle) are nowhere near related to each other. Historical Battles such as Hastings, Noryang Point, Vinlandsaga etc. however are. They are all historic Battles (or in case of these three missions “Battles of the Conquerors”) that depict a historical event that happened IRL. Including something like the Battle of Helm’s Deep along these three missions would be absolutely out of place. I hope you eventually understand my point.

We’re in agreement that wouldn’t be a campaign but we disagree as the reasons why. I establish this for my points later on. It’s not irrelevant as you claim.

@Quasibrodo

If instead I had a mod that recreated various board games as scenarios, thus having a unifying theme, would that be a campaign? If they were accessible via the campaign menu, would that be a campaign?

No, again not a campaign cause no organized course of action.

Now if I had a series of scenarios that replicated board games (hypothetically even the same board game repeatedly), but they were unlocked in order, and by defeating the opponent in every scenario completed some unifying goal (lets go with being crowned the “game king”), then yes that’d be a campaign. The dumbest campaign ever to have been conceived perhaps, but a campaign nonetheless.

Here I show two more sets of scenarios. One with only a unifiying theme, the next with a unifying theme and an organized course of action towards a common goal. Mind bogglingly convenient these arguments weren’t engaged with at all, rather you strawmanned my argument by taking the first example out of its greater context. It would seem again that evidence you like (completely unrelated scenarios) is good enough evidence to try to use against me but related scenarios (ones that replicate board games) isn’t good enough evidence to consider. And this is not the first time you’ve engaged in this type of behavior. Not how I’d conduct myself in a debate, but you do you.

@FloosWorld

Because I somewhat feel like a broken record at this point.

@FloosWorld

I hope you eventually understand my point.

Because repetition is the same as accuracy.

The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.
The sky is lime green.

Man I feel like a broken record. Anyone who disagrees with me must be unreasonable.

It seems your point is a collection of scenarios even w/o an organized course of action, is a campaign. If necessary, one can complete the scenarios in historical chronological order to satisfy the organized course of action. Could not one do the same with the board game example? Complete them in the order they were published? Monopoly was published in 1935, trouble published in 1965, and catan was published in 1995. If I had my set of board game scenarios, and beat the monopoly scenario first, then the trouble scenario second, and then the catan scenario third, presumably then that was a campaign. It has a unifying theme, and I have the ability to choose to complete them in some order, and then proceeded to complete the scenarios in that order. Even in the absence of a common goal that’d seem to satisfy your definition of a campaign. It wouldn’t satisfy mine, but it’d seem to satisfy yours.

Tangent, are the historical battles always a campaign because they CAN be beaten in any order or are they only a campaign when beaten in chronological order? Snark aside, i’m genuinely confused by this point you make, and would like clarification.

[Cordle42]

So many people have been negative about V and V when these are some of the best scenarios I’ve played. Even if 14 were remastered from mods, the 5 new scenarios alone are worth $12.99. We have really been spoiled by AoE 2 DLC’s being so cheap in the past. I feel like they could have easily charged more for most of them. I don’t mind paying $12.99 because these scenarios are amazing and Filthy deserves the compensation. The fact that we are even still getting DLC’s for a 25-year-old game is amazing. I am willing support the devs to help justify continued development.

Apology? For what? They didn’t lie to anyone. Even if you only consider the 5 new scenarios you are still getting around 10 hours of entertainment (possibly more). $2.60 per scenario. Thats a steal IMO and it takes a lot of time and effort to create them. I think most of the people that are unhappy have been spoiled by the earlier DLC’s and the prices. The prices on EVERYTHING have gone up. Don’t compare it to other DLC’s because V and V is unique. At face value do you not agree that the hours and hours of entertainment these 19 scenarios provide is worth the $12.99?

In summation I personally have no issue with V and V or the price change. As I said the other DLC’s were a bargain IMO. If you don’t like the DLC then don’t buy it, but don’t act like paying $12.99 for a weeks worth of entertainment is a rip off. Is this my favorite DLC? No, but I do appreciate the continued support for AoE 2 and I do think these scenarios are some of the best ever created. One thing I do agree with you on are the gameplay issues and the patch. Pathing etc. needs to be fixed and the devs first priority should be the bugs and gameplay issues. The gameplay should be smooth, and the bugs fixed before they even start to work on any more DLC.

[Quasibrodo]

@Cordle42

these are some of the best scenarios I’ve played.

Only gotten around to two so far. one was a DOA 1/10. The other was pretty good. 7-8/10.

@Cordle42

We have really been spoiled by AoE 2 DLC’s being so cheap in the past.

I actually agree with this. No one likes inflation. I’m not upset about the price. I think the value proposition of mostly recycled scenarios and no new assets is a bit steep, but that’s not really what I’m upset about personally.

@Cordle42

Apology? For what? They didn’t lie to anyone.

They said the DLC would be “campaign focused” then we found out it contained 0 campaigns. Also there were bugs from the original mods, and no new assets. Less polished and updated than we were led to believe.

[FloosWorld]

@Quasibrodo

@Quasibrodo

If instead I had a mod that recreated various board games as scenarios, thus having a unifying theme, would that be a campaign? If they were accessible via the campaign menu, would that be a campaign?

No, again not a campaign cause no organized course of action.

Now if I had a series of scenarios that replicated board games (hypothetically even the same board game repeatedly), but they were unlocked in order, and by defeating the opponent in every scenario completed some unifying goal (lets go with being crowned the “game king”), then yes that’d be a campaign. The dumbest campaign ever to have been conceived perhaps, but a campaign nonetheless.

Here I show two more sets of scenarios. One with only a unifiying theme, the next with a unifying theme and an organized course of action towards a common goal. Mind bogglingly convenient these arguments weren’t engaged with at all, rather you strawmanned my argument by taking the first example out of its greater context. It would seem again that evidence you like (completely unrelated scenarios) is good enough evidence to try to use against me but related scenarios (ones that replicate board games) isn’t good enough evidence to consider. And this is not the first time you’ve engaged in this type of behavior. Not how I’d conduct myself in a debate, but you do you.

I’m sorry, I saddly only scanned those lines, so if it was a strawman, it’s an unintended one.

Yes, your board game example is a campaign, however, this still does not change the fact that Historic Battles and V&V are also campaigns, even if they don’t follow the same pattern as the other campaigns.
For the probably millionth time: Historic Battles was split between Battles of the Conquerors and Battle of the Forgotten. Both had an overarching theme (but no narration accompaning them). Battles of the Conquerors depicted… well battles from famous conquerors. Battles of the Forgotten included rather obscure and almost forgotten battles, hence the name. All missions featured there follow the same theme which still is kept intact by merging them as “Historic Battles” in DE.

@Quasibrodo

The sky is lime green. [x15]

Man I feel like a broken record. Anyone who disagrees with me must be unreasonable.

This is not at all what I both meant and thought and to be honest, I’m a bit upset that I’m being accused of this way of thinking.

@Quasibrodo

It seems your point is a collection of scenarios even w/o an organized course of action, is a campaign. If necessary, one can complete the scenarios in historical chronological order to satisfy the organized course of action.

YES. This was my point the entire time. I am also just basing this entirely of how it’s called ingame, so I am not even making the rules, I’m just quoting how both Ensemble and Forgotten treat Historic Battles and V&V.

@Quasibrodo

Tangent, are the historical battles always a campaign because they CAN be beaten in any order or are they only a campaign when beaten in chronological order?

They are.
Otherwise we would have to exclude William Wallace (“Learning Campaign” as the game calls it) from campaigns as well because you can also play all missions in any order (given it’s the tutorial).
Replays of campaigns must then also be excluded, because missions that have already been unlocked remain permanently unlocked as you can play all missions in any order during a replay (even if it doesn’t make sense to start with anything else than the first mission). Strictly speaking, this would make the campaign into a non-campaign because it would be like Historic Battles where all missions are already unlocked.

[Quasibrodo]

@FloosWorld

I am also just basing this entirely of how it’s called ingame, so I am not even making the rules, I’m just quoting how both Ensemble and Forgotten treat Historic Battles and V&V.

Except in the aforementioned instances when they don’t.

@FloosWorld

For the probably millionth time:

For the probably millionth time:
Per the dictionary a campaign needs an “organized course of action to achieve a goal”.

You see how this “but I said it a bunch of times” is irrelevant?

@FloosWorld

Yes, your board game example is a campaign,

The first example with only a unifying theme, or the second with an intended progression?

@FloosWorld

Otherwise we would have to exclude William Wallace (“Learning Campaign” as the game calls it) from campaigns as well because you can also play all missions in any order (given it’s the tutorial).
Replays of campaigns must then also be excluded, because missions that have already been unlocked remain permanently unlocked as you can play all missions in any order during a replay (even if it doesn’t make sense to start with anything else than the first mission). Strictly speaking, this would make the campaign into a non-campaign because it would be like Historic Battles where all missions are already unlocked.

No, because there’s an intended organization to the course of action to achieve a goal. The historical battles have no intended organization, nor a common goal. If you choose to replay a campaign out of order, that is your business. Even if you want to argue the intended course of action for the historical battle is to complete chronologically and the goal is just to complete them all, then couldn’t any arbitrary set of scenarios be considered a campaign so long as the were played in historical chronological order? the completion of every scenario in this arbitrary set satisfying the common goal? If I played the first scenario in each campaign, in historical chronological order would not that be a campaign? It’d even have the unifying theme of telling the beginnings many historical figures. They’re all unlocked for everyone starting the game, and I played them in chronological order.

[Tyranno13]

Good lord I have seen semantics before…but this is on a whole different level. Stop. This isn’t healthy.

[CanineCrown7153]

@Tyranno13

Stop. This isn’t healthy.

With all the time invested here we all could have made a 6 scenarios campaign.

[CitingOregano34]

@FloosWorld

would these missions suddenly become campaigns for you if they added an overarching documentary-type narration as it’s the case with AoE 4’s campaigns?

Yes, that’s how campaigns work in AoE2, AoE4, any other AoE game, and any other RTS saga like Stronghold, Company of Heroes, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc…

Though not necessarily with a “documentary” style. All that is needed is a narrative tying the levels together, otherwise it’s a collection of random scenarios.

[Darkness01101]

Whoa, the campaign/scenario semantics disagreement is still going on? That’s too bad

                                                                      

@Quasibrodo

OMG that’s literally the entire point. Those campaigns have a unifying narrative that is told sequentially, satisfying the “organized course of action” requirement, as explained in the dictionary definition.

Still with the dictionary argument? It doesn’t hold much water when you cherry-pick one definition from one book publisher that supports your argument. Even if you cherry-picked two or more, it doesn’t matter. I could easily do the same:

campaign /kăm-pān′/

1. A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war.
2. An operation or series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose.

^{American Heritage Dictionary Entry: campaign}

I once played the Sir Francis Drake single-scenario campaign. It is clearly a series of military operations undertaken within the scenario to achieve a large-scale objective or purpose. I’m sitting there playing for an hour, completing multiple objectives or multiple operations in order to reach the end. So why can’t that and all the other scenarios like it be classified as campaigns? I don’t get your logic/reasoning. And so, we have semantics. You say tomato, I say tomato but in the different way.

@Quasibrodo

No, again not a campaign cause no organized course of action.

Yes, again, is a campaign because it is a series of military operations to achieve an objective or accomplish a purpose. Just because it is all-inclusive within one scenario and not scattered across 5 different scenarios, doesn’t mean your dictionary definition disqualifies it as a campaign.

@CitingOregano34

A campaign is supposed to have a cohesive story, a beginning and an end. A first level, and a final level.

Says… the dictionary? Or who?

                                                                      

The thread’s title is “How to move on from V&V”. It seems from an outsider’s perspective the only way is for the devs to cave to the cavalcade of boycotts, protests, venom, and pressure, and make a new button called “SCENARIOS” to appease all who semantically disagree or can’t live with some single-scenario campaigns living underneath a ‘Campaign’ button, because we all love more buttons – and so that future marketing efforts can clearly say the upcoming DLC is “Scenarios” and not “Campaigns” from Day 1.

Potential buyers will immediately know the content that will eventually be released will joyously exist under the brand new and giant “Scenarios” button smack dab in the middle of this popup – lovingly nestled between the Skirmish and Campaigns buttons. This is necessary because we, apparently, need a button to clearly classify that the content underneath the UI button is “Scenarios” and nothing else; lest that content gets extremely confused with the glorious and single-definition “Campaigns” monikered button. And also, when you finish a scenario, you will then be given the option to “Return to Scenarios” to help reinforce you are playing “Scenario” content and not “Campaign” content, in case there was any confusion.

                                                                      

@Quasibrodo

If ui dictates taxonomy then presumably the art of a war is a schroedinger’s campaign where it is a campaign if navigated to through the “campaign” menu, but not a campaign when navigated to through the main menu.

Menus are meant for navigation not classification.

We clearly need menus to act as classification in order to resolve this semantics issue. The menus need to act as navigation and classification. Therefore, I propose the above new “Scenarios” button, even though it complicates my personal user experience in the game. I’m willing to cave to the pressure, compromise, and vote for the implementation of this brand new button in order to resolve this semantics, navigational, and classification issue and disagreement once and for all. It’s clear to me many here do not want to click a “Campaigns” button in order to reach “Scenarios” content (or dare I say “Single-Scenario Campaign” content). So, let’s get this button added so the author of this thread can mark my post as having “Resolved” this issue once and for all

                                                                      

Of course there is also the matter of price. And to fully move on from V&V, those who disagree with the price of V&V should not purchase it and just wait for the next DLC, or wait for the Steam Summer or Winter sale. And then also hope the next DLC doesn’t suffer from as much shrinkflation as V&V did or is perceived to have had. If there is more substance for the price in the next DLC, then that’d be wonderful. Another green checkmark, and we can finally create a thread saying, “We have moved on from V&V”

[CitingOregano34]

@Darkness01101

Says… the dictionary? Or who?

Says the way they are structured in-game.

@Darkness01101

It seems from an outsider’s perspective the only way is for the devs to cave to the cavalcade of boycotts, protests, venom, and pressure, and make a new button called “SCENARIOS”

This entire point is a terrible exaggeration that treats critics as dumb. Let me make it very simple for you: if the devs promise a campaign, then they should deliver one. A collection of disconnected scenarios is not a campaign.

@Darkness01101

so that future marketing efforts can clearly say the upcoming DLC is “Scenarios” and not “Campaigns” from Day 1

Do you consider the Steam page as “marketing”? Because it doesn’t mention the word “campaign” even once.

@Darkness01101

I’m willing to cave to the pressure, compromise, and vote for the implementation of this brand new button in order to resolve this semantics, navigational, and classification issue and disagreement once and for all

What pressure? What boycotts and protests? We are not demanding any such change. Only that the devs communicate properly in the future.

@Darkness01101

It’s clear to me many here do not want to click a “Campaigns” button in order to reach “Scenarios” content (or dare I say “Single-Scenario Campaign” content).

In this instance, there actually is a specific button to reach the “scenario” content that V&V brings. It’s called the “mod browser”. I guess the devs were way ahead of you.

[Darkness01101]

@CitingOregano34

Says the way they are structured in-game.

Can’t be used as justification, since the game has structured them in-game under Campaigns for over 20 years

@CitingOregano34

if the devs promise a campaign, then they should deliver one. A collection of disconnected scenarios is not a campaign.

According to your personal definition and a cherry-picked dictionary definition, though, imo. Other than that, the in-game definition has considered them campaigns for years; and according to Filthydelphia for years he has considered his creations campaigns (with nobody having issues with it until V&V DLC); and according to dictionary definition I’ve seen and my own personal definition of campaigns… it works.

I don’t think critics are dumb. Seemingly unwilling to budge or compromise, or just accept this nuanced use of the word and move on, which seems odd and unfortunate to me, but not dumb. It’s like only one very narrow usage of the term “Campaign” is acceptable, when, for better or worse, I feel it’s a more nuanced word than that.

I dislike how sports commentators refer to game-ending homeruns as “walk-off home runs”, but I have to just accept and move on. Players sometimes trot off, jog off, or run off… so “walk-off” doesn’t always apply. (I mainly just dislike the phrase , but yeah, “walk-off” isn’t the best. Since language is sometimes nuanced, and not everyone has the exact same life history, vernaculars, colloquialisms, or definitions for every word, though, I won’t win every linguistic battle… I have to accept words can have multiple meanings to people and be okay with that because that’s reality. For campaigns, I feel like I know and can see multiple meanings and it works, but I just don’t know how to convey that in any way that others would agree with because they seem to only see one definition as possible. Don’t worry, though, I’m going to try my best to go back into hibernation on this topic

@CitingOregano34

Do you consider the Steam page as “marketing”? Because it doesn’t mention the word “campaign” even once.

Yeah, I do consider it part of their Marketing initiative. I was aware of this already. So they maybe used Campaigns and Scenarios interchangeably in their marketing, just as Filthydelphia has done with his content in the past, because they probably didn’t think anything of it. They didn’t know there would be an outcry of “campaign vs. scenario” because there has never been one to my knowledge or that anyone has brought up that I’ve seen. They probably innocently shifted between the two. Oh well. It is what it is. Hindsight is 20/20.

“Let me make it very simple for you: if the devs promise a campaign, then they should deliver one. A collection of disconnected scenarios is not a campaign.”

Thank you. I need to research what everyone is latching onto for this dev promise of a campaign. If you can link promotional materials to me, great. If not, don’t worry… when i get some time, I will try to locate. (And if I’ve already seen it or been pointed to it, my apologies.) All’s I know is that at least weeks before the DLC launched, it was pretty clear what V&V was because of the Marketing leading up to the launch.

@CitingOregano34

What pressure? What boycotts and protests? We are not demanding any such change. Only that the devs communicate properly in the future.

I remember a petition and calls to action. I remember a user saying they were going to buy it and return it just to leave a negative review (and judging by reviews I saw, I doubt they were the only one doing that.) I remember solidarity behind “let’s not buy so we can teach them a lesson and so they’re not encouraged to do this shrinkflation behavior again”. I’ve seen the forums leading up to V&V’s launch and after… there is obvious organized (by way of shared forum opinions lashing out at MS or devs) discontent. Etc. Any normal company would see that as pressure.

You might personally only be wanting proper communication in the future, but there are many posts hating the fact that V&V content is classified as Campaigns. And discontent over Campaigns vs. Scenarios nomenclature, in general. That is a present issue. Which could lead to a future issue. Nip it in the bud now, I begrudgingly propose, and create a brand new “Scenarios” button. Are you against the creation of that button? If so, why?

@CitingOregano34

In this instance, there actually is a specific button to reach the “scenario” content that V&V brings. It’s called the “mod browser”. I guess the devs were way ahead of you.

Hardly. It’s actually Mod Manager. And that addresses nothing. Just your attempt to distract from the Campaigns vs. Scenarios discussion that’s consistently been going on for over a month, and for several posts above ours here

[CitingOregano34]

@Darkness01101

Thank you. I need to research what everyone is latching onto for this dev promise of a campaign. If you can link promotional materials to me, great. If not, don’t worry… when i get some time, I will try to locate. (And if I’ve already seen it or been pointed to it, my apologies.) All’s I know is that at least weeks before the DLC launched, it was pretty clear what V&V was because of the Marketing leading up to the launch.

Here:

New Year, New Age Livestream Coming February 23rd - Age of Empires

@Darkness01101

Hardly. It’s actually Mod Manager. And that addresses nothing. Just your attempt to distract from the Campaigns vs. Scenarios discussion that’s consistently been going on for over a month, and for several posts above ours here

You didn’t get my joke

[Darkness01101]

Ahh, nice! I will look at that link later

@CitingOregano34

You didn’t get my joke

Wouldn’t be my first time. I sometimes struggle to see jokes/sarcasm in written form, unless it is completely obvious, or accompanied by a wink emoji, or I’m familiar with the person, or something I get it now

[CitingOregano34]

I see. Basically, I joked that most of the scenarios in the DLC were already available as free mods beforehand. (Which is honestly more egregious than the “campaign definition” debate)

[SamePorpoise303]

I didn’t read the whole semantic arguments but I repeat once again that I think it’s totally pointless to stuck on it. Language doesn’t work in a vacuum but in context and you’re disagreement comes from the simple fact you’re using different contexts. I mean use your logic.
The dictionary is a tool like a law code could be, it’s not reality itself, it’s a tool to give context. And in the same way the UI is another context… Both are based on a social accord rather than logic.
So, if the social accord the two speakers use is different, all this discussion is futile, it’s magical thinking to be able to assess the meaning of something as abstract and contextual as a “campaign” outside of any shared accord, we’re not talking about a cat or a dog.

I personally believe it is more constructive to look at something substantial and not “formal” like pure semantics and that means the actual game time you need to complete these scenarios and the enjoyment you get out of it.
It’s up to taste since filthydelphia has a particular style but at the same time I think it’s quite obvious that there’s a lot of content in those terms, way more than any 6 scenario campaign, even more than 2 or 3 maybe…

So I think the dlc is actually good? No because even with all this it’s still for the most part free content sold by Microsoft. Still I could justify this because as I already said sooner or later modders will have to be revenued for what they do, it is simply unfair at a certain point.
So is this enough to save the DLC, because it sets a good precedent? No again lol.
Because no new assets, no new art for slides, no new units, maps, anything, not even the shield for the DLC itself is enough to say that this DLC simply doesn’t offer enough for the price it asks.
This is a substantial argument and not one based on pure logic which alone is totally circular reasoning. Believe me I say this from experience ahah
But the issue is not if this qualify as a campaign or not because even if you call it “bugauba” instead of campaign or scenarios or disagree with the semantics, the main point is that yes it offers hours of fun (or not if you dislike philtydelphia but that’s your business) however the lack of any other meaningful addition would have justified a price of no more than 5 dollars probably.

[CitingOregano34]

@SamePorpoise303

Still I could justify this because as I already said sooner or later modders will have to be revenued for what they do, it is simply unfair at a certain point.

Depends on how they are revenued…

I feel like the best way is that Microsoft hires modders to make new content. That way, everyone is beneffited. Microsoft gets sales, modders get money and recognition, and players get brand-new content to enjoy.

However, going the V&V route benefits only Microsoft and the modders, while the playerbase gets nothing new in return. Just rehashed and overpriced content, something that shouldn’t be tolerated, and instead we should be demanding a bit more respect.