Yeah I hadn’t noticed that article.
I guess it’d depend on the mix of standalone scenarios to campaigns, but I digress.
Getting to the actual article, it all sounds really cool. The scenarios seem out of the box and creative.
2 Likes
He has done quite a few multi-scenario campaigns for the DLCs (Francisco de Almeida, Bayinnaung, Ivaylo, Sforza, Prithviraj, and The Hautevilles). On contrast, his custom scenarios are often that just one (really big) scenario each, tho he does call them campagins on this forum
1 Like
Sorry. The design of some of the maps looks terrible.
For instance. What kind of garbage is this? Is this meant to be Paris?
1 Like
Why? What’s wrong with it?
2 Likes
This is such a basic map a 12 year old could make it. What a sham.
2 Likes
It’s a single frame…calm down.
3 Likes
Yes, and the historical battles of the Cristobal Da Gama expedition (1542) and Raid on the Caribbean (1586) in AoE 3 DE…
In theory, that image would be the Île de la Cité in the 10th century, since the river that surrounds it is the Seine that is seen there, and that in reality Paris was larger (as would be seen centuries later in the Burgundian and Joan campaigns)…
Nothing is wrong, if it was in a free scenario.
5 Likes
Gameplay > Graphics.
(Queue up: the age old debate 
)
Plus, not sure what is expected when those look like graphics from the game the scenarios are made in and designed for: AoE2. Are we supposed to be seeing graphics akin to what Ao5 might have or something?
1 Like
You need to do some basic course on what is eye candy scenarios to know what we are supposed to see.
And getting paid M$. What a Life…
1 Like
Or the cool eye candy apparently found in scenarios needs to be brought out into Random Map Skirmish land
Unfortunately it’s not as simple.
Much of scenario eye candy comes not from novel map objects, but from scenario creators’ human craft - deliberate, intelligent consideration of how to construct a holistic, thematically meaningful landscape using the placements of a few objects, textures, and buildings, while also taking account of gameplay practicality (from gameplay feel, to simply not messing up pathfinding through object clutter).
It’s not something easily recreated in random map scripts.
Why you separate graphic from gameplay? Isn’t graphic included in gameplay?
1 Like
exactly, it’s fine for a free campaign. I expect more from a paid dlc
2 Likes
More basic maps from the DLC page akin to what I used to make when I was 15 years old. Not even some new units or skins.
2 Likes
This is not really good faith…
1 Like
Why dont you make a better version then?
1 Like
Sure pay me for it. I expect more from this DLC, especially one by Filthydelphia. His free stuff is better than whatever we see in the shots.
2 Likes
Just curious what have you done for the community other than complain?
I don’t know about this. I added some visual appeal to some RMS maps years ago in HD by simply spending a few hours to see what options existed and tastefully added them. If I could do that in a small handful of hours in a day through trial and error with no prior experience, I think expert map makers who have spent months or years making maps or scenarios could easily do some amazing things in RMS maps.
It’s really not that hard to add some stuff only seen in campaigns into RMS for visual appeal or make the world seem more interesting, yet I never see it.
Have you considered applying to become an official campaign creator for the studio? Pretty serious question, if you’re good at creating cool looking maps/scenarios. Maybe you could play a big role in creating the ‘look’ of maps, while others can focus on creating cool stories or historical gameplay. That is, unless you can do all of that well, in which case, you work solo on that stuff. Either way, could be a big win for community. Unless you already release your maps, scenarios, or campaigns to public for free?
I didn’t separate them. “>” is the “greater than” symbol in math. In other words, “Good gameplay is greater than (more preferred) than good graphics.”
It’s an age old debate in gaming, which never works that well because it’s subjective… so I brought it up somewhat as a joke. Some people say Graphics > Gameplay.
- I guess there a lot of retro games that I don’t or wouldn’t give a chance because the graphics are so old looking, even if the gameplay is good.
Good graphics is still included, and can contribute a lot to the overall enjoyment of a game. I didn’t exclude graphics in my statement