How to solve a problem like the Three Kingdoms

[Darkillermon]

@WoeIsToWho

If you told me something like the Chinese government somehow had a hand in making the dev team not introduce certain civilizations into the game by name with the intent of minimization, or something of that nature, that’s clearly non-superficial. That’s a serious problem if any government would stick it’s hand into any game of mine with the intention of tainting it for some political reason

Another one who knows absolute nothign about chinese governement and thinks have lots of information about that. Chinese governement dont tell devs here and there what to do. Most games are not even really legal in mainland China as they are not released by a chinese partnership there. What does happen is devs censoring themselves afraid that they gamer gets an official ban or when theyu are afriad to put something that is offensive, or might be, to a part of its playerbase (like skelletons).

@WoeIsToWho

I’ve been serious about the discussions around this game since long before HD. I’m not among the trolls.

May I ask you serious about what? You seem to only care about gameplay. So, from what I understood, anything is “whatever” to you as long as it is cool. If devs do indeed change the DLC, but you still get five cool civs, does it matter to you?

@SchwarzeGarde49

if you think a camel somehow represents an entire people - then you’re surely arguing in bad faith yourself.

Imagine missing the entire point of a Unique Unit. Did you think some have a purple colour in the techtree just for fun? Because it looks more beautiful with them? Anyway, isnt the first time you act like you are either too dull to understand a phrase or too troll to have any serious conversation

[FlexedPigeon206]

Superficial is not unimportant.
You saying them being superficial is perceived as dismissive and somehow they are not important.

Game plays are important, and so are the flavor.

Many people have not one but a combination of the problems listed. Lots of steam reviews if you look closer, despite giving overall upvote, still took issues in one or two of them.

[WoeIsToWho]

@Darkillermon

May I ask you serious about what? You seem to only care about gameplay. So, from what I understood, anything is “whatever” to you as long as it is cool. If devs do indeed change the DLC, but you still get five cool civs, does it matter to you?

If they decided to “change” the DLC by seriously reworking the civs, or pulling them out of the playable online pool and restricting them to Chronicles? Yes, that matters to me. If it’s entirely aesthetic to make them potentially fit moreso into an acceptable mold for design of AOE civs that players are familiar with? Go ahead.

@Darkillermon

Another one who knows absolute nothign about chinese governement and thinks have lots of information about that.

If only you’d left this out of it, I might have liked your post. Taking a full, mad hypothetical and pushing it into “You believe this, you must be misinformed” means I’ve clearly not outlined the hypothetical strongly enough. Though if your native language isn’t english the mistake could also be made that way.

@FlexedPigeon206

Superficial is not unimportant.
You saying them being superficial is perceived as dismissive and somehow they are not important.

Game plays are important, and so are the flavor.

I would claim the superficial is important. It’s what turns a good thing into an amazing thing for sure. But as someone who wasn’t familiar with the hubbub and walked back into the forums after playing the DLC pretty well and having a good idea of what’s what, I was expecting anything else than the room on fire. I wanted to understand how what I’ve read as mainly superficial issues could cause all this backlash and I was assuming it was not.

[CitingOregano34]

@WoeIsToWho

I would claim the superficial is important. It’s what turns a good thing into an amazing thing for sure. But as someone who wasn’t familiar with the hubbub and walked back into the forums after playing the DLC pretty well and having a good idea of what’s what, I was expecting anything else than the room on fire. I wanted to understand how what I’ve read as mainly superficial issues could cause all this backlash and I was assuming it was not.

I don’t see what “superficial” issues would be greater than the ones we see right now.

[WoeIsToWho]

Okay, my question time. What is your hard limit for years in AoE2? How old are we allowed to go? How new are we allowed to go? Why those numbers, exactly?

[Darkillermon]

@WoeIsToWho

Taking a full, mad hypothetical and pushing it into “You believe this, you must be misinformed” means I’ve clearly not outlined the hypothetical strongly enough. Though if your native language isn’t english the mistake could also be made that way.

I’ve posted two researches one year ago (will need some time to find them again, if you want to read them) that shows up chinese governement doesnt censorship beforehand anything on games outside China, and what most see as done by them is actually just devs censoring themselves. Almost all the time someone brings the Ghost of Chinese Governement to a thread, it is because this wrong idea about games and the chinese governement. Thats why I assumed you believe they could change anything in AOE2.

@WoeIsToWho

If they decided to “change” the DLC by seriously reworking the civs, or pulling them out of the playable online pool and restricting them to Chronicles? Yes, that matters to me.

Did you check @Tyranno13 options to solve this DLC? One of them is more about small tweaks to make them proper medieval sinosphere civs.

[CitingOregano34]

Currently the timeframe goes from around 390 to circa 1580, going by the campaigns. If I had to stretch the timeframe, I’d make the hard limit go from 370 to 1648, as this would keep thematic cohesion somewhat intact and cover the intended time periods completely. So roughly, the game covers from the later years of Late Antiquity all the way to the Early Modern period, covering the Middle Ages entirely.

This is because while the game has a medieval focus, it also includes a few elements from surrounding periods. Late Antiquity because of the Huns, Romans, and Goths, and stretching it to 370 would make the timeline start with the arrival of the Huns in Europe, thus it wouldn’t break any cohesion with the rest of the timeframe.

Early Modern Period, because of gunpowder units, Turtle Ships, Conquistadors, etc. The style of warfare depicted in the game (melee infantry, ranged units, melee cavalry, some artillery) would end in Europe soon after the Thirty Years War, in 1648, so for the sake of consistency I think that last war can realistically be depicted too.

Three Kingdoms don’t fit that mold, they are too early in the timeframe, and if they’re accepted, then the Pandora’s Box would be opened. Some things like Parthians wouldn’t be out of timeframe anymore, and the game would cover the Classical Period too, even if it was never intended to do so in the first place. And if we accept the ficticious versions of the 3K as well, there’s no reason to reject made up civilizations like Camelot.

For these reasons, the Three Kingdoms do not fit the game’s identity, and their inclusion doesn’t respect it.

[FlexedPigeon206]

@WoeIsToWho

I would claim the superficial is important.

Okay good, so we agree on that.
A lot of players consume this game for many of these superficial elements. They give the game an element of dynamic culture that are vital for keeping the game alive. For one, it give us memes like: https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/1bgs7ww/magyar_huszars_are_hungry_too/

That is how many of us consume this game. Not 100% accurate, but at least be a bit more sensible with civ choice and level of accuracy to history or literature. This time the elements that feel off are just too many and too much for many people hence the protests.
For me the main one is 3K non-civs introduced into base game, though I can find other points being problematic, such as time period and Khitans.

I had such superficial complaints for LOTW, and Armenians civ focus in TMR, but they weren’t overwhelming like this time.

[WoeIsToWho]

I’ve read it. Had nothing to do with my questions in this thread thus far.

@CitingOregano34

This is because while the game has a medieval focus, it also includes a few elements from surrounding periods. Late Antiquity because of the Huns, Romans, and Goths, and stretching it to 370 would make the timeline start with the arrival of the Huns in Europe, thus it wouldn’t break any cohesion with the rest of the timeframe.

Are you insinuating that none of those civs had any meaningful history before that time that we might want to flesh out, ever? Because my assessment would be the opposite, I think it’s inevitable that the timeframe will be slowly stretched. I don’t like the condition that there could be a hard timeframe for that reason. We don’t disagree that these current iterations fall outside the current timeframe. But the idea that the timeframe may stretch 100 years? I think it’s a certainty and I think your hard no to such a suggestion is a little close-minded.

@FlexedPigeon206

That is how many of us consume this game. Not 100% accurate, but at least be a bit more sensible with civ choice and level of accuracy to history or literature. This time the elements that feel off are just too many and too much for many people hence the protests.

It’s understandable, just regrettable that the entirety of the gameplay that I find to be so engrossing is being overshadowed by aesthetics. It’s honestly a serious jolt to see.

[Darkillermon]

Between 4th and end of 16th century.
Those number are based on both the game campaigns (AOC goes back to 5th century, DE goes to 4th). Thats the game periodization, though there are indeed some mistakes here and there, like Woad Raiders and Gbetos.
Why stick to those numbers? They gave the game identity it has, before that things changes too much in one direction, after that in the other direction (society, weapons, etc). You need to be arbitrary and stop somewhere, otherwise the game risks to allienate itself trying to be everything at the same time.

@WoeIsToWho

I’ve read it. Had nothing to do with my questions in this thread thus far.

I mean on how to change them without scrapping them, as it is something you dont wish.

[SchwarzeGarde49]

@Darkillermon

Imagine missing the entire point of a Unique Unit

Oh yes my bad I’ll take it back - but only after you prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that

1. Franks invented throwing axes
2. Persians invented using elephants for war
3. Mameluks invented throwing scimitars
4. Koreans invented war wagons
5. Spanish invented Christian Missionaries on mules (kek good luck)
6. Inca invented slingers
7. Berbers pioneered genitours
8. Oragan guns were exclusive to Portugal
9. Konnik were exclusive to Bulgarians
10. Chakrams were exclusive to Gurjaras
11. Only Hindustani employed ghulam
12. Armenians invented the composite bow and warrior priests
13. Jurchens invented granadiers

Goodluck. You’ll need it!

[CitingOregano34]

@WoeIsToWho

Are you insinuating that none of those civs had any meaningful history before that time that we might want to flesh out, ever?

When did I even slightly imply that? They don’t fit the timeframe, they shouldn’t get in. If there was a game that accomodated their time period, then I have no issue with it because they would fit. I want the game’s thematics to be respected. If they added Thracians or Samnites I’d also dislike it, it has nothing to do with racism.

And not only do Wu, Shu and Wei not fit the timeline, the civs were also based on a fictional retelling of their real history, so in reality it’s the devs themselves, not me, who are not respecting their history and not wanting to flesh it out in a proper manner. Instead they are grabbing a popular IP (because that’s what it is: a novel, an IP) to get more sales. But what matters is that these civs are not based on reality, so they fit even less. It’s like if the Spartans in Chronicles were based off 300.

[Darkillermon]

Its not my fault you are unable to understand the concept of Unique Unit in the game ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Therefore, I dont need to prove anything to someone who is lacks too much any reading and comprehension ability. Have better thigns to do.

[SchwarzeGarde49]

I accept your concession.
Glad we agree that unique unit is marely something tied to gameplay, not historical or ethnic exclusivity.

[FlexedPigeon206]

@WoeIsToWho

It’s understandable, just regrettable that the entirety of the gameplay that I find to be so engrossing is being overshadowed by aesthetics. It’s honestly a serious jolt to see.

There are so many games that have very solid game play did not end up nearly as successful. Examples like AOE2 is few and far between. Those game soft powers are far more important than what gameplay-centric ones give credit for.

[SchwarzeGarde49]

hard limit

If they say anything other than 80 AD they’re purposely misguiding the discussion, because that’s when the Roman wonder ingame was constructed…

[TrustfulMango90]

@WoeIsToWho

Okay, I’ve basically got off the forums for a few months while DLC rollouts got slower and less impactful on multiplayer, so I have to ask: Why does an outspoken minority of players hate the Three Kingdoms? Is it just historical inaccuracy as far as timeframe is concerned? Aside from my usual “It’s way too soon to say anything about balance” routine, which clearly applies here - the civs are actually more differentiated from the rest of the cast than any from DLC’s of the past which will make balance insights even more imperfect… The civs play well in my humble opinion, and without getting myself soured on the forum, I can’t see where the issue lies.

Checking out the most upvoted negative reviews, or a few posts in here - even thread OPs - would answer all of these questions. From what I’ve seen, your posts feel like “quality post” wannabes with an attempt of “not to understand” criticism, while purposedly ignoring most of the points the critics have (i.e. calling them “superficial”), and instead focusing on nitpicking some of the more trivial details, such as here:

@WoeIsToWho

I mean, thanks for spoiling the campaigns I wasn’t going to play. I’d like them to feel fun and engrossing, though, so point 10 is a sad bit if your anecdotal experience is broadly held, so I’ll grant you that’s a negative for sure. I’d argue that I think 12, given what the civs are, is a thematic decision that makes sense, and is the only curiosity of the DLC campaigns that give me reason to look into them if I’m being totally honest. I read that point and I immediately nodded my head “Yep!” so I wouldn’t even call that a loss.

while the fantasy elements are just bad out of the principe, points 10, 11 and 12 are indeed very minor and individual, which you purposedly focused on, while ignoring the most important one of them: 13 - the lack of campaigns for new civs, and no new campaign for an existing civ.

[YangWenli33]

The Berbers/Arabs/Moors pioneered the Genitours, though. The Iberians later utilized them and called them Jinetes. Jurchens definitely used the thunder crash bombs, but if u ask my personal opinion, the grenadier should’ve been an East Asian hand cannoneer replacement since Song China and even Kamakura Japan utilized them. Jurchens may’ve gotten a bonus that may allow them to train their grenadiers in the castle age, similar to the position we’re in. Besides, it would make sense to call the Chinese a gunpowder civilization with this move. Don’t know about the Koreans or Vietnamese, but eh, why not? They can get them, too. We play a game with Huns using French Paladins. History should be the influence; we don’t need perfect accuracy. Otherwise, monks themselves don’t make any sense anyway, and that’s a basic unit.

[SchwarzeGarde49]

@YangWenli33

History should be the influence; we don’t need perfect accuracy

But that’s just my point.
The problem is the 3K haters put an impossibly high standard on the Khitan civ that would fail like at least a dozen established civs too. But they don’t care about applying the same principles equally, which is just called hypocrisy.

[YangWenli33]

@SchwarzeGarde49

But that’s just my point.
The problem is the 3K haters put an impossibly high standard on the Khitan civ that would fail like at least a dozen established civs too. But they don’t care about applying the same principles equally, which is just called hypocrisy.

Dude, many people here are delusional. We don’t even know whether this DLC is successful in sales numbers, yet from reviews of 500 people, with lots of positive reviews as well, many argue that this DLC is a flop. DLC may not have been successful, but it may’ve been successful as well. We don’t quite know it, yet. If you ask the folks around here, though, it’s definitely flopped. We still don’t know the sales numbers, and perhaps we’ll never know. This is the fact, but not for these people. Some even argue that just because people play with the Khitans more than the Wu and Shu, we should move these civilizations to the chronicles. This is the crowd you’re trying to reason with.

I understand their frustration with the DLC. I’m not a huge fan of this DLC either, and I’d have definitely preferred medieval civilizations. With that being said, they cannot even acknowledge that many bought this DLC under the premise that these civilizations will be in the ranked mode; so, no. They’ll remain, and moving them into Chronicles would create a huge backlash, even more than this one. Many people bought this DLC to play with those civilizations, in the end. Whether you like the DLC or not, don’t change anything in this position. This is just a basic observation that many cannot grasp, and it’s not like this is astrophysics. One even told me, “Do I have to like this DLC?” after pointing out such a simple and easy-to-understand situation. So, it’s better not to waste your time with these clowns.