Then it will fail if it fails, but broadcasting that like it’s a consequence is part of the overt manipulation that has been happening the last two days. It isn’t part of a discussion on improvements or changes, it’s a veiled threat if this group of people who want change don’t get exactly what they want. It’s cheapening the relationship between consumer and developer, and to me feels more like an attempt to be seen than address valid concerns.
The weapons of Keshik in Mongolia have been replaced, and initially they used European style LANCE like knights.
Of course, the current weapons are also wrong. The Mongols have never used Chinese halberds. In fact, the tassel spear in the historical campaign mode is the most suitable weapon.
From the documentary and unit icons, their artists should be very aware of this, but I am not sure why they are still going further and further on the wrong path.
3 Likes
Some users believe that protesting consists of annoying everyone who doesn’t have the same opinion as them, which is why they sometimes look for confrontations against people who only say general things like: “I like it” / “I can’t wait for the expansion to come out”, etc.
Usually on the premise of a general topic I only comment ONCE, and that’s it. Seeking to create 50 topics of the same thing, paraphrasing the same thing, or looking for problems with all the users who comment on the same thing, is taken as Spam in most forums, and even more so when the same topic consists of insults and repeated sarcasm, which are also hidden insults.
If they expect the developers to take them into account with that, they won’t even listen to them. For this reason, it is preferable to give your opinion once and only once on the topic in general, especially on a survey topic.
I know. If you notice, this topic is practically 7 or 8 users repeating messages to each other for more than 200 message chains. If they expect the developers to take them into account with that, they won’t even listen to them. For this reason, it is preferable to give your opinion ONCE and only once on the topic in general, especially on a survey topic. If there are enough “different” people commenting on the general topic, it will have weight, but if not it becomes a WhatsApp chat.
https://www.ageofempires.com/news/interview-anthony-brave
This interview details the induction of developers who pushed for change internally to see updates to the aoe 3 civs. It isn’t about fan input.
1 Like
Fellas, you learned about something and immediately are protesting it. The biggest reason why I see this an attempt to manipulate is none of you actually know the implementation or reasoning for the decisions. You’re all mad at names! Just wait for more information before making these arguments!
I want to say that I would much rather see these civilizations be based off real civilizations than made up countries, individuals or a vague concept of a group.
For example;
The Ayyubid Dynasty instead of the Sultan’s Army. It ties in with Saladin and is close enough to the Abbasids.
The Great Jin, Xia or Liao instead of Empire of Jade. I’ll reserve this for those who knows better.
Kingdom of Bohemia instead of Order of the Dragon. I don’t think they would make it a civilization, so this works. They also featured as a great part of the HRE, and despite not being an offshoot, had great individual significance.
Kingdom of Jerusalem instead of Jeanne d’Arc. I considered straight up the Kingdom of the Franks, but I think people want to include Crusaders in some way or another, without blurring it with the French which already exist as a civilization. This way it’d tie in with the expansion, despite the questionable name and fragile existence of the state.
Anyway, I don’t think these are the best suggestions ever. But, I would prefer a focus on actual real tangible groups than vague, inconsistent descriptions of people, or imaginary countries.
2 Likes
It has already announced, we know the fictional names of the variant civs and most of us don’t like it.
As simple as that. We want real civs.
1 Like
Because it’s the NAMES that are bad. It doesn’t matter how fun the civ is to play, or what it’s mechanics are, that’s not gonna change the fact the name is bad. Yes Joan of arc civ will have her as a hero, yes Sultan’s Army will have a Sultan as a hero, that still won’t justify the bad names. I hope Empire of Jade civ has nothing to do with the name because that would make it even worse. And since we know the names, why should we wait to criticize them?
2 Likes
You should wait because you don’t know how integral the names are to their gameplay. You should wait because it adds credibility to your complaint.
If you’ve ever been a part of a sizable game community before you know that fan input definitely causes changes. I could point out a ton of changes that Warhammer III has made to the game because of general community complaints or input. Most of those changes were thematic or aesthetic changes, not balance ones. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing something you clearly have an issue with, and it seems that an overwhelming 90% of the community agrees on this topic. I say let the sentiment snowball and we’ll get a better result.
2 Likes
I’m speaking out because I’m not a part of the nay sayers, and I find their conduct unproductive and detrimental to community health.
Imo each name ahould implicitly suggests that this faction is a derivative from the original AND that it is a subset. Order if the dragon IMO does this bc it was a subset faction part of a larger civilization. Joan of arch… not good bx it’s a singular person’s name and doesnt imply at all a group??? Jade empire… its bad bc its too BIG a name to fit under the concept of variant AS A SUBSET to a larger civilization.
2 Likes
they should make 3 civs instead of 2 plus 4 variants
2 Likes
They are trying to do what civ games does same nations with different leader and bonuses but this is aoe4 i dont think it will fit
2 Likes
I don’t think you understand. The gameplay Does. Not. Matter. Period. And this is a nonsensical argument anyway. Tell me what gameplay element could they possibly pick that would justify generic Disney-Aladdin-sounding ‘Sultan’s army’ over the real, and heavily requested, ‘Mamluk Sultanate’? How would ‘Duchy of Orleans’ be any worse-fitting to a ‘warrior maid’ inspired civ than ‘Jeanne d’Arc’. And God forbid the gameplay of Empire of Jade has anything to do with the name because then we’ll have completely gone off the deep end.
3 Likes
Aint you clever one why don’t you think about it. Already responded similar question and u can find the answer by browsing this post
Two possibilities:
- The “Empire of Jade” end up representing some real Chinese sub-faction and the gameplay has nothing to do with the name. Then the name is bad.
- The gameplay of the civ is indeed so strony associated with the name “Empire of Jade”, with the whole eco, unit looks, buildings, evolving around jade. Then the design must be bad for a historical game.
3 Likes
I guess not a single Chinese emperor was as Chinese and knowledgable as you to understand how important and pivotal jade is to Chinese culture, as none of them ever called their dynasties “Empire of Jade”.
Neither of us understand. That’s my entire point. Every single complaint or issue with the naming convention is based entirely on emotion and has no representative argument other than the developer not being historically accurate, and I don’t have time to get into how mind numbingly silly that is when you talk about everything from aoe1 to modern aoe. Just wait for more information, this entire discussion is happening in a way that delegitimizes any discussion on why the name should change. Unless you consider people not liking what they see a reason. It’s just not a compelling argument.
The historical inaccuracy of the names is a fact, not a feeling. It’s a historical game, so it has to stick to historical elements. The “Jade Empire” never existed, so it makes no sense to include it. Simple.
6 Likes