Unfortunately when they finally promise us one, what’s actually released is a thesaurus. If only we had a dictionary to know what a dictionary is.
2 Likes
We won’t know that until the DLC comes out, but on paper, and from the info we have, it’s not looking good. It has many issues like:
1-Depicts only the very beginning of the Three Kingdoms era, probably open-ended instead of having a definitive resolution.
2-It doesn’t even get to the point where the “Three Kingdoms” are actually formed. So technically, you are playing as the extremely short-lived Shu “civilization”, in a campaign before the Shu state actually exists…
3-All three campaigns are actually the same story, just from different points of view.
4-The final level is the same on all campaigns, again just controlling a different faction each.
If it has more problems, we’ll see soon…
World’s Edge and shills: words are a social construct, so I can say whatever I want and nobody can criticize me!!!
By fine i mean conceptually; It doesnt bother me nearly as much as the warlords masqarading as civs.
The campaign is by all accounts shockingly shorts and ends too early. That much is clear.
1 Like
I believe that we never have such campaign design like this?
Actually I find it interesting that someone say the DLC will be fine, even though forum and reddit have been getting bombarded with discontent, preceded only by V&V.
I remember that even return of Romans did not get 10+ posts complaining before release like this.
(Note: Romans is currently the second worst DLC in steam)
In general, I agree every point the OP made. At least if we have Jurchens campaign with Chinese point of view and vice versa, the campaigns will be way better than 3K with different points of view.
1 Like
I said the campaign will probably be fine. The DLC itself seems to be heading towards a poor direction, which is why i believe making our voices heard in the forum is important
1 Like
Many have crossovers and some overlap, but never a 100% overlap in the story, even sharing scenarios between them.
1 Like
and to be fair. minimal re-use can actually be really appreciated. Jerusalem in Barbarossa 6 is nearly identical (tho only part) to the jerusalem in Saladin 4. Samarkand is another great example.
El Cid 5 & 6…meh. longshanks 4 and 5…harder meh.
the example I like to use is if dos plias was actually two scenarios, but everything was the same, the only difference was which city you allied with. Yes technically, that’s two scenarios…but it’s obviously just one scenario.
Unfortunately, the Rome Return DLC and V&V DLC faced significant criticism, but the development team made no improvements. This Three Kingdoms DLC is likely to follow the same pattern and ignore player feedback.
I personally liked the RoR dlc minus the WRE being included in the main game. the campaigns are fun to play
V en V was meh. I would have more liked traditional campaigns for civs without those
I mean, (west) Romans was added to the ranked mode and RoR got a few new campaigns. Even V&V got an extra scenario. This was stuff that was requested by the community.
So i wouldnt say ‘‘no improvements’’ is correct here
4 Likes
Agree. I am afraid that this is true. So sad
They did after release for this one. So there is some hope of action.
Plus the rage against 3K is greater than against V&V.
2 Likes