Brother please avoid saying words that offend others.
1 Like
So the newer content should be historical accurate 100% even though the old content was remastered 2 years ago (not in 1999) and not modified accordingly but kept intentionally intact from a historical point of view even if it was wrong.
You want a game that has max 10% of the content accurate to not bring romans cuz they are not accurateâŠ
I just think that you donât get it, you donât understand that this is not a 100% historical game but an entertaining game with just a little history in mind. You literally have 30+ civs and all of them have champions, knights and arbalests even if thy are from central America or Africa.
Is it not starcraft-ish already to play Aztecs with champions? Malians that were made in 2017 and not in 1999 have white workers and champions/ knights.
Fighting with any new civ vs Celts in 2023 will still be a nonsense and they wont be from the same historical era, but that is somehow ok for you, while romans not.
Wallachians have a campaign but not a civ in the game so you play that campaign with their rivals (Magyars and Turks), is that not hilarious?
Slavs were also not made in 1999 and they are a joke as a civ.
This game is not for you 
Insulting people wont help you either.
To conclude, I support Microsoft and I preordered the DLC. Iâm having fun with this game and any new content is welcome.
5 Likes
10 de 10 el comentario, le contesto al maleducado con palabras claras y sin insultos. buen trabajo
1 Like
i pre-ordered the DLC and in full support of their decision to add a WRE Civ in the game, because it cool and i love the roman empire. the same people who are upset about adding a roman civ are the very same ones who are ok with playing in multipleyer Aztacs vs Turks, berbers, Eiithipiens âŠetc. the Romans are not entirely inaccurate or strange to see in this time period, for god sake there is an entire campaign dictated for Huns, Goths who lacked any representation of WRE. Also, who cares about historical accuracyâs?? if you want that then download a documentary or hit your local library or watch the Kings and generals, Buzz battles, or the armchair historien channel on Youtube or skip it enterly and save up for the other DLCs. the point of the game is âjust as long as youâre having FUN then thatâs alrightâ.
you do not need to act like a toxic 10year old fan and be sour towards other peoples opinions it is immature and really just pathtic and sad
2 Likes
I think the core problem here is that you are trying to pretend to be smarter and better than everybody else and to try to prove it, you come to the forums of a videogame to cry about historical accuracy despite the game never being historically accurate in the first place.
Do you really believe the average consumer in 1999 or 2023 gives a flying pig about historical accuracy over fun? Do you think Call of Duty, God of War, or Super Mario are popular because they are accurate to history, myth, or Italy?
But I understand I am responding to somebody who has compared the game to ########## so I donât expect logic.
2 Likes
Do you really think historical standards in the entertainment world are higher now? I think you could even make the argument that they went backwards in some aspects. In any event, historical accuracy has never been the driving force in the entertainment worldâthen and now.
Besides, even historians argue about numerous points, so there is often not a consensus on historical events. One example is the fall of western half of the Roman empire. Many say that it occurred in 476 ACE, but others say the collapse did not occur until the 560âs or so. Pick an event, and you will usually find multiple, sometimes contradictory views. One exampleâdid soldiers in an ancient Greek phalanx hold their spears underarm, overarm, or in between? Many questions like that continue to be debated both in 1999 and in 2023. Historical methodology is not better now than it was in 1999.
However, none of the above really matters because we are talking about a game. One could go through countless current games and movies and find a ton of historical points that are blatantly incorrect. Every player of Age of Empires knows that the series is simply an entertaining RTS with historical flavor. It does not pretend to be the epitome of historical accuracy. Fans love their anachronistic and quirky AoE world.
Finally, I think your comments about higher standards in 2023 than in 1999 (and I mean historical standards) are insulting to historians and entertainment producers. For example, take a look at miniature war game rules from years prior to 2000, and you will see much scholarship and historical detail. The standards were just as high then.
6 Likes
Cant be bothered going back and forth since its already out. Just not gona buy it. But i only insulted him after his passive aggressive âwere all laughing at you you dont understandâ shit so dont pin that all on me. Echo chamber in here
1 Like
remember when they said that de is definitive and they wont add more civs. now we have 8 more civs after that statement that all actively ruin the state of the game and they even started to add civs out of the aoe2 timeframe⊠where is the product that got promised when i purchased it?
People can not buy the dlcs if they dont like new content noh?
1 Like
Lol, exactly right.
Haters: âI hate this DLC! It sucks and is a waste of development time!â
Me: âIf you donât like it, donât buy it.â
Haters: TRIGGERED
4 Likes
But where can i just get the old version of the game that was claimed to be definitive and without new civs ? That is what I bought and adding new broken civs takes away the value of the product and contract I signed
Steam & Microsoft store.
Steam
Microsoft store.
There are some DLCs in the store which you can skip to buy.
Why did you waste your money on dlcs that you dont enjoy?
You guys seem not to get it. I only bought the base game, which was promised to be definitive. Now I still encounter dlc civs on the ladder, despite the devs having said, they will not add new civs. This is not the promise I based my purchase decision for the base game on.
Your solution here is very simple: Donât play on the ladder.
I donât, and my experience is still very enjoyable.
But thats part of the game I bought ⊠It just shows, there is no solution to this, and if some people want romans on the ladder, but also the other 50% dont want, then why not add a menu setting where you can lock out crossplay for the RoR dlc. After all devs also thought that the civ will be to whacky and op to be able to compete with 42 other civs.
It sounds more like you would want a mode of ladder play that disables expansion civilizations.
Were entitled to voice our discontent just as much as you voice your love for itâŠits more like you stans getting triggered seeing some people not liking the shiny new thing. For the record i loved the dawn of the dukes and the lords of the west. Id rather have more dutchies from 1300s to 1500s than any civs from 400 AD. But thats my preference
And even when we dont buy the dlc, we still have to deal with 3 months of nerds and their âop new thingâ on the ladder along with a host of bugs probably
Oh well guess i have to go mass onagers vs these ballista boys for 3 months before they go back to franks
Youâre certainly entitled to your opinionâŠbut weâve seen nothing but constant hate for a month, and itâs really tiresome.
2 Likes
That is why I think we should leave them alone, arguing with them only makes the situation worse and this forum more toxic.
They certainly have the right to voice out, but at the same time they cannot stop people from getting the DLC. They need to learn to ignore it, if they canât, they may have to abandon this game. After all this is their decision, not ours.
This is also what we need to do now, ignore these threads. Actually I started to think these people are trolling, due to their repetitive arguments: âI donât like it, you cannot use itâ and slippery slope fallacy like: âThey add Rome now implies they can add robots laterâ.
2 Likes