How to move on from V&V

[ArrivedLeader22]

@SamePorpoise303

they should get a job (in a world where people make money out of farts lol).

First artists and musicians sold their works.

Modders can also sell their works if they want to. Nobody is forcing them to do anything. They can choose to pay or not. These are all fair.

My point is: if you think you are not getting enough to make a living from your hobby (this premise is very important but you ignored it) then you should either find a job or quit your hobby.

@SamePorpoise303

I’m not talking about this dlc since 3 comments ago, you’re not even trying to follow the point, anyway it doesn’t matter.

You haven’t revoked the statement of “this dlc is the only way Filly can make a living” so I assume you still hold the opinion when talking about how modders can make a living,

And my point is this is NOT one of the options.
The right way to do this is the company hire modders and release quality contents that justify the price. Like how they turned FE from a mod into a dlc.

[Apocalypso4826]

@ArrivedLeader22

Modders can also sell their works if they want to.

I actually think they are legally not allowed to.

[ArrivedLeader22]

I mean opening a paetron or join the development team.

[Darkness01101]

@ArrivedLeader22

Only when you have dialogues and sufficient storytelling to make up for the loss of cutscenes, not one narrator reading few instructions with the same tone.

Good point. That would be an unfortunate difference/loss. Pros/cons to everything… and campaigns typically do have those cool cutscenes

@Quasibrodo

If an arbitrary sequence of actions, let say achieving objectives, can be considered a campaign, then could not one conceive of a scenario, that has multiple sequences of objectives unrelated to the other sequences, each sequence satisfying the definition of a campaign, therefore allowing a scenario to contain multiple campaigns?

I don’t think my words or the dictionary quote said or implied “arbitrary sequence of actions” (which implies no focus or goal or objective in mind), but I see what you’re asking. To which I answer, “Yes.” And that scenario would be able to sit under the “Campaigns” button and be referred to as campaign content… because it has, well, campaigns in it

I don’t claim to be a military expert, but I’m pretty sure there can also be multiple campaigns contributing to an overall, over-arching campaign, too. If Filthy’s scenarios ever sometimes do that, is that problematic to say, I wonder?

I mean, I know that’s problematic to you, so it’s slightly rhetorical, I guess – even though I don’t mean it to be. I know we disagree with how the definition is getting used for V&V content, so I’d understand if you think my words don’t make much logical sense, or if you feel they run against the grain of what the AoE has done or should do.

(Ahh, more info forthcoming in my next quote reply)

@Quasibrodo

then if a scenario contains two unrelated battles… should not Ghengis khan 4 be considered two campaigns?

Is the scenario about Ghengis Khan defeating them to complete an over-arching objective, goal, mission, scenario to become the ultimate winner or survivor of the map so you can at least exit the map and go back to the main menu knowing you 100% completed Filthy’s scenario? Then it’s a campaign. An over-arching campaign. And I, personally, have no issue with saying that over-arching campaign is completed by successfully completing multiple sub-campaigns. In game, I wouldn’t tend to call them sub-campaigns, personally – more like ‘objectives’ or whatever the game calls them – but to answer your question, I don’t think it’d be technically inaccurate to describe them that way if someone really wanted to.

@Quasibrodo

And this is what I was alluding to earlier with my flat earther analogy. The idea that campaign could equal a single scenario, does when making certain arguments, work well. It also at certain other times work extremely poorly. Conversely the “collection of scenarios” definition does tend to work well in the situations were “campaign = scenario” doesn’t work well, but itself also doesn’t work elsewhere. These are two mutually exclusive definitions, that you must invoke simultaneously to explain the totality of the evidence.

I didn’t really grasp the flat-earther analogy earlier, and kind of still don’t, I’m afraid. If my clarifying words in my post here and everything I’ve said before somehow makes it sound like I’m an AoE version of a flat-earther to you, then I guess I just have to accept that =

@Quasibrodo

It seems clear to me, what a campaign is, is extremely obvious.

I’m not a Lawyer, English major, or doctorate in Military History. If the definition or understanding for campaign I’ve learned and formed for years is inaccurate, or if they don’t align with your definitions or desired usages, then I’m okay with that. I can’t know everything, and everyone has opinions. I will try to sit back and learn more.

I already had an open mind to accept and adopt Filthy’s usage for his content, so I can sit back and absorb other thoughts, too. (His words aligned with my real world understanding of what campaigns are, so it worked for me. I just had to expand my thinking… went from “in game campaigns” definition to “real world campaigns” definition. Again, though, I know that may not make any sense to you, thus I’m relegated to )

@Quasibrodo

think about your own experience… someone told you differently. They didn’t explain why their definition was superior, you didn’t come to that realization by looking at the content itself, and from first principles reasoning what a campaign is.

They did tell me differently, with relation to AoE. It was a new usage that I hadn’t seen before in the context of the AoE game. However, their usage of the term made sense to me with how it works in the real world, so I had no problem applying it to the AoE game/menu/scenario world.

That’s probably the issue. In game, the word is famous for being used a certain way. But in the real world, I see the word used in ways that I can apply to Filthy’s scenarios.

Yes, my usage of the term campaign inside AoE was narrow before, now it is more broad. It was narrow before because I had tunnel vision born from only trying Joan of Arc and William Wallace type campaigns in past years. I was trained by those experiences on what the game wants me to think a campaign is. (Granted, I never tried Historical Battles and I don’t even know that I know those existed before. Had I tried those, then my in-game definition wouldn’t have been as narrow, and probably wouldn’t have second-guessed why I couldn’t go to the next scenario after completing one of Filthy’s scenarios)

A campaign in the real world is more than an AoE button or menu screen. It’s more than a Joan of Arc campaign comprised of six scenarios on a menu screen. Its real world meaning allows it to apply to Filthy’s in-game usage of the term, imo. If one of his scenarios has multiple objectives to reach the end/goal, then I struggle with ‘not’ allowing it to be defined as a campaign, due to my real world definition/usage of campaign. I’m pretty sure most or all of his scenarios have objectives to meet end goals (to get 100% completion), otherwise they’d just be sandboxes with no purpose… so, into the campaign realm his scenarios go as far as I’m concerned.

But, like I said, I’m okay with a new Scenarios button if desired to better fit the in-game usage of the word And/or sitting back and seeing if I need to re-configure my real world understanding of the term in case I’ve had a misunderstanding of its definition for years.

In the end, perhaps I also just need to allow tunnel vision to kick back in… and pretend Historical Battles and Filthy’s scenarios aren’t campaigns in the real world sense of the term… and accept that AoE is famous for campaigns in the ‘Joan of Arc’ sense of the word… and never accept scenarios being called campaigns in AoE again. (Insert my new Scenarios button here.)

[Quasibrodo]

@Darkness01101

So………….I’m going to be honest. I still 100% hold onto my convictions, but I think this topic is well beyond the point of fruitful discussion.

You and I have had comparatively fruitful exchanges and we’ve only needed numerous paragraphs to make any ground on the most peripheral of issues.

Personally I’m ready to agree to disagree.

[Darkness01101]

For sure! Me, too. Thanks for the discussion

[MatM1996]

@UpmostRook9474

Many battles of V&V are too long. Clearly they are worth splitting into 5 or 6 scenarios and making a standard campaign.

Vandals as a new civ with Gaiseric campaign, of course.
Roman campaign, yes.
Rather than introducing as many as 4 separated Vikings scenarios and making them such complexed, they could be simplified and compiled into a Viking campaign that is named “The Sagas”.

Yes, I agree; I think that at least a Barbarian Invasion dlc like above with Vandals could go well and you give Gaiseric’s campaign to them and Aetius to the Romans… it could be a dlc with Celts and Goths in RoR too, then you have 2 Barbaric campaigns in RoR and 2 in AoE 2 and everyone is happy and content…

@Darkness01101

Each scenario is a campaign, imo.

@Darkness01101

I consider each scenario a campaign

Yes, that is also what the AoE wikia considers it; both heroes campaigns per se and all historical battles from TC to VaV are considered campaigns…

@Darkness01101

Maybe if I had been paying attention to the V&V marketing as much as everyone else here, and had I been an avid campaign player, then, yes, hearing that the campaign content is only repurposed free scenarios would likely be a big let-down. If they were all brand new single-scenario campaigns, though, then probably no let-down. I feel fortunate I was a late-comer to the V&V marketing and discussions, and luckily didn’t have any preconceived expectations. Maybe if the DLC was for an area of the game I’m more passionate about (unranked Skirmishes) and DLC reality didn’t meet expectations, then I could relate more. For now, though, it’s still a little hard for me to see how campaign couldn’t or doesn’t apply to Filthy’s content I think hearing him classifying it as such must have expanded my horizons and biased me a little.

Yes, but hey, what’s done is done…

@Quasibrodo

If an arbitrary sequence of actions, let say achieving objectives, can be considered a campaign, then could not one conceive of a scenario, that has multiple sequences of objectives unrelated to the other sequences, each sequence satisfying the definition of a campaign, therefore allowing a scenario to contain multiple campaigns?

@Quasibrodo

And it otherwise stands that if a single scenario could be called a campaign, then shouldn’t Ghengis khan be considered 7 (or 8??) campaigns? one for each scenario (or two for ghengis khan 4) and one as the collective?

And this is what I was alluding to earlier with my flat earther analogy. The idea that campaign could equal a single scenario, does when making certain arguments, work well. It also at certain other times work extremely poorly. Conversely the “collection of scenarios” definition does tend to work well in the situations were “campaign = scenario” doesn’t work well, but itself also doesn’t work elsewhere. These are two mutually exclusive definitions, that you must invoke simultaneously to explain the totality of the evidence.

It seems clear to me, what a campaign is, is extremely obvious. The vast majority of the evidence draws one to the conclusion a campaign need be a collection of scenarios, intended to be played in a given sequence, telling a unified narrative. Trying to come up with alternative explanations there’s so many exceptions and inconsistencies, and you still end up largely coming to the conclusion that a campaign is a campaign because you believe it to be a campaign. The definition I put forth, which seems to be what most people intuited before this fiasco, is predictive and about as objective as one can get. Only because historical battles was wrongly called a campaign 20+ years ago presumably so it wouldn’t be confusing for people trying to find the content in the menu, now people have to try reverse engineering the requisite reality to support this erroneous classification, instead of the much easier thing of just acknowledging they were wrong.

@ArrivedLeader22

The right way to do this is the company hire modders and release quality contents that justify the price. Like how they turned FE from a mod into a dlc.

@Darkness01101

I mean, I know that’s problematic to you, so it’s slightly rhetorical, I guess – even though I don’t mean it to be. I know we disagree with how the definition is getting used for V&V content, so I’d understand if you think my words don’t make much logical sense, or if you feel they run against the grain of what the AoE has done or should do.

@Darkness01101

Is the scenario about Ghengis Khan defeating them to complete an over-arching objective, goal, mission, scenario to become the ultimate winner or survivor of the map so you can at least exit the map and go back to the main menu knowing you 100% completed Filthy’s scenario? Then it’s a campaign. An over-arching campaign. And I, personally, have no issue with saying that over-arching campaign is completed by successfully completing multiple sub-campaigns. In game, I wouldn’t tend to call them sub-campaigns, personally – more like ‘objectives’ or whatever the game calls them – but to answer your question, I don’t think it’d be technically inaccurate to describe them that way if someone really wanted to.

Of course, you are all right…

[Szaladon]

I don’t think such a negative reception is an aim for the devs. Except if they want to step down towards Paradox DLC levels where every single one feels half-baked rethreading the same ideas/regions over and over again. I wouldn’t support this.

[ArrivedLeader22]

What I mean is, if the decision makers interpret the bad reception of this “very low effort sp content” as a proof (or excuse) of “sp content in general do not sell”, it would be really bad…

[BASEDTeuton]

I 100% agree, and this is what I fear will happen. A similar situation is happening with the Total War series, if you are familiar with it.

[ArrivedLeader22]

@BASEDTeuton

happening with the Total War series

Yes I fear they have entered the vicious cycle of “lowering the investments on historical games” and “historical games do not sell”…

[AbuzzJam4677680]

I would rather them stop updating aoe2 then. Don’t ruin this franchise please.

[MatM1996]

@Szaladon

I don’t think such a negative reception is an aim for the devs. Except if they want to step down to the level of Paradox DLC levels where every single DLC feels half-baked rethreading the same ideas/regions over and over again. I wouldn’t support this.

@BASEDTeuton

I 100% agree, and this is what I fear will happen. A similar situation is happening with the Total War series, if you are familiar with it.

@ArrivedLeader22

Yes I fear they have entered the vicious cycle of “lowering the investments on historical games” and “historical games do not sell”…

Yes, I’m also afraid that they will copy the tricks of Paradox or Total War of releasing games and dlcs through a tube regardless of quality or historicity… I would add to the Civilization saga too…

@AbuzzJam4677680

I would rather them stop updating aoe2 then. Don’t ruin this franchise please.

Late…5 years late, we have already opened Pandora’s box…they are going to fill us with dlcs throughout the saga until they finally add a battle pass and there yes, goodbye forever to the saga that we knew…

[SamePorpoise303]

Then maybe try to support better content other than the official one? Or does economy works only your way?

[Szaladon]

New maps, new animals, new plants, new architecture/unit skins. “SP” DLCs which I’d support.

Those were part of former DLCs with civs.

SP DLCs are not the problem, cheapened DLCs are. I really feel they cheapened the DLCs since LotW while increasing the prize. Even DOI which is my fav DLC because it is the one the most effort went into it could have benefitted from new South Asian Sail models and Kings. Not to mention the unoriginal civ jingles feel really like a cheap move.

[CitingOregano34]

@Szaladon

Except if they want to step down towards Paradox DLC levels

@MatM1996

they are going to fill us with dlcs throughout the saga until they finally add a battle pass

I hope not. It would be incredibly stupid from their part. The “2 civs + 3 campaigns” template is tried and true, so there is no realistic reason to do something else. Hell I’d prefer 5 civs + 4 campaigns like before DE, but alas it seems we’re only getting smaller and smaller DLC. Worst part is the fanboys are very vocal, and will accept literally anything no matter it’s quality, just because it’s AoE2.

@Szaladon

I really feel they cheapened the DLCs since LotW while increasing the prize.

Tbh this has been the trend since Knights of the Mediterranean, where the Maltese have a ton of recycled content from the scenario editor. Then we got Return of Rome, with barely any new assets, the Centurion and Legionary were also upcycled from the scenario editor.

Later, the Mountain Royals with less content than DoI but more expensive, then Sultans Ascend came with “variant civs” , reusing assets in order to churn out more playable civs, and finally we have Victors and Vanquished, which was quite the big leap downwards…

[Apocalypso4826]

Perhaps I should expedite my self-training of game development so I can make my historically accurate medieval RTS or my sci-fi RPG set in various historical eras and regions of Georgia.

[MatM1996]

@SamePorpoise303

Then maybe try to support better content other than the official one? Or does economy works only your way?

@Szaladon

New maps, new animals, new plants, new architecture/unit skins. “SP” DLCs which I’d support.

Those were part of former DLCs with civs.

SP DLCs are not the problem, cheapened DLCs are. I really feel they cheapened the DLCs since LotW while increasing the prize. Even DOI which is my fav DLC because it is the one the most effort went into it could have benefitted from new South Asian Sail models and Kings. Not to mention the unoriginal civ jingles feel really like a cheap move.

@CitingOregano34

I hope not. It would be incredibly stupid from their part. The “2 civs + 3 campaigns” template is tried and true, so there is no realistic reason to do something else. Hell I’d prefer 5 civs + 4 campaigns like before DE, but alas it seems we’re only getting smaller and smaller DLC. Worst part is the fanboys are very vocal, and will accept literally anything no matter it’s quality, just because it’s AoE2.

Yes, that’s true… there are red flags that must not be allowed to pass or else the game (and the saga) will crash… remember how the dlcs began, as a joke armor for TES IV: Oblivion that came out 2 USD and now in the games they give you monthly battle passes that cost more than 100 USD…

@CitingOregano34

Tbh this has been the trend since Knights of the Mediterranean, where the Maltese have a ton of recycled content from the scenario editor.

Well KotM had a pass because it had 30 multiplayer maps (more than double that of TAD and more than triple that of TWC), 8 historical maps (in the absence of European campaigns), Tycoon mode and the return of diplomacy… then Malta was a nod to the Blood campaign, that’s why reused a lot of scenario content from there… for me “they crashed the Ferrari” in this dlc, because TMR is the typical regional dlc… we have to see if they raise it in the next dlc or They no longer know what to do with AoE 2…

@CitingOregano34

then Sultans Ascend came with “variant civs”

Well, AoE 4 is another story because it is developed by Relic and also brought its 2 civs, which were also the most requested like the Byzantines and the Japanese… I would have preferred 2 more campaigns (since it was about sultans, they were from Delhi and Ottomans, so you could also include the Byzantines in the Ottoman campaign) and then add the variants as updates within the same base civs…

[CitingOregano34]

Yes of course, KotM and Sultans Ascend have a lot of good things about them, and bring lots of new content. But what I’m trying to point out is this “downwards trend”, where they are recycling more and more content.

First, it’s a few units for a civ, as a nod to the campaign (KotM).Then, all the units in a new civ are recycled (RoR). Later, entire civs are recycled (TSA). And finally we reach V&V levels, where they upcycle mods and scenarios.

[MatM1996]

Yes, that’s true, they are getting more and more lazy… the next dlcs they will tell Relic to do and they will only see if it fits with AoE 2 and AoE 3…