I agree with you on the concept of variants and the fact that it is simply a nomenclature, even more correct than Age of Empire 2, to clarify that it is a part of the same civilization in a specific period or in a precise geographical area. For this reason and also because people are not used to conceiving them in this way, perceiving them as minor factions and consequently attributing to them a lower perceived value that in any case harms you, wouldn’t it be better to improve this perception despite being the result of a bias?
Group all the factions under the heading “variants” or “factions” or any other nomenclature and make the “civilizations” a category. Eliminate the idea of a parent faction that serves as a reference and the variants, but put them all in the same reference civilization category.
Change the names of the current English, French, HRE, Chinese.. and use these names as a category
The point of the classification is not just to be quirky. Variants objectively take less development resources, and need to be distinctively pointed out for the people looking to purchase DLCs in relation to AoE4.
Not doing so is simply tricking customers. These ARE variants, they are LESSER than real civilizations and moreover, they are BAD products that water down the integrity of the game for the sake of cheap content which the game doesn’t need.
Don’t you think that the work behind the Templars’ models and mechanics is greater than that put into the English and the Holy Roman Empire? You cited AOE2 as an example elsewhere. Are you telling me that in AOE2, aside from using completely different civs by name, the difference in mechanics and models is greater between the Templars and the French? Do you think that the difference, both in terms of work and results, between the Lancastrians and the English is less than that between two base civs? Does it bother you that they aren’t working on other civs and do you have the preconception that the variants are simple reskins when they are not. And if you think so, the same could be said between China, the Holy Roman Empire, the French and the English. And even more so between the civs of AOE2. I’m sure that if they had released “Egypt” putting only new models (but basic units) and monuments with slightly different passives you wouldn’t be complaining.
“These ARE variants” shows your bias, regardless of the definition itself. No, they are different FACTIONS and each FACTION has a different work and effort behind it and, in addition to the effort (because it is their job to evaluate how much they worked on it), the player is interested in the result and how different these factions are. It is not your business how much they have recycled or not, but how much they seem and sound like new content to you, and you already start from the prejudice that everything is recycled regardless of the result.
And let’s stop creating partial concepts like “Not doing so is simply deceiving customers”. No, DLC and content are public, as long as the customer can see and know FACTUALLY what they are buying, there is no theft. Do you know where the “theft” and unethical marketing is?? Where the bias is, regardless of the content, so whether something has value or not based on whether it is a “variant” or “civilization”, without actually considering the content for what it is on its merits. it’s the same game as those who complain about what a DLC or an expansion is, without going into the merits of the value of that content
Long ass reads. But I will agree the devs set the standards and they’re the ones that made the definitions to an aoe4 civ so involved. So they’d be doing themselves a disservice if they lowered the bar moving forward.
The concept of variant civ allows them more creative liberty while sidestepping some of the self imposed rigor of new civ.
Personally in the case of ayyubids, HoL and esp KT they have done an amazing job!!!
Small addition: Total War taught us about recycling and the importance of the perception of what is considered “difficult” to produce and what is not. Total War: PHARAOH DYNASTYES is proof of how people simply wanted the immersion in a bigger map, regardless of whether it was actually new content in terms of quality and effort. As an expansion, it was essentially critically acclaimed simply because the map became huge using elements that they essentially already had. They filled the map with several similar factions, but with only a few different skill trees and added some interfaces that try to simulate the different mechanics, and that was enough to make it feel like a big expansion rather than a mod. Because there was actually their heart civilization with the little icon and the sovereign with the historical name
Not even close.
No, and never did I make such a claim. I bring up AoE2 in many scenarios, you probably picked something out of context.
Absolutely. It is UNQUESTIONABLE and if you think there is even a remote possibility, you might very well be one of those individuals that does not care about these things because you’ve clearly not noticed any of the differences.
It absolutely bothers me that they are trying to monetize variants instead of putting resources and time into finding ways of monetizing the development of proper civilizations.
“Simple reskins” I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I think that. They are copypasted civilizations with altered units and stats. You making the comparison that a variant is as different as China and French is, is completely absurd. Let me spell it for you since you clearly have no idea: MOST, overwhelmingly MOST of the cost in creating these civilizations goes to asset development–meaning 3D modelling, animations, VFX, voicelines, cinematics and graphics. Designing and putting together the code for civilizations is cheap and takes a very small portion of the overall cost.
Bias? It is literally fact, backed up by THE DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES.
I am a customer and it is ABSOLUTELY my business to criticize and point out these practices. I don’t start with any prejudice before analyzing things myself, and unlike you, I actually give a damn and look at the content at hand in-depth.
Calling an apple a orange will not make it an orange. These distinctions exist exactly BECAUSE variants are NOT regular civilizations.
"I’ll say it officially here, but the whole notion of “variants” is a failed concept. I know there are players who do not care that this is even a history game, and would’ve played with mods reducing buildings and NPCs to simple geometric shapes.
But, there ARE people who cares. I don’t like to bring up AoE2 as a point of comparison, but here is the main issue with variants: WHO CARES. AoE2’s format of reskinned buildings and units is mostly forgiven BECAUSE they are meant to represent a whole new identity, culture or peoples.
Who the hell cares about Lancaster? I’m not buying a game for that. AoE2 on the other hand will give you Berbers, Ethiopians, Koreans, Malay and a hundred more civilizations. The fantasy of representing those civilizations carries the whole notion of these copy-pasted reskinned civilizations."
-this is the context.
The Templars have all new models, both in units and buildings and you don’t notice it because of the prejudice that it is a variant. So the example of Egypt turned out to be true with you, because in the end you just want new models that make you perceive a new civilization and the name of a new civilization printed on them, regardless of how different they are mechanically and factually in game. I’m sure that if they had called the Templars “Kingdom of the Two Sicilies” and made the Italian civilization you would have been happier even if factually it would have been the same content
So I’m going to assume English is not your first language because the point I am making about AoE2 in the context you’ve quoted, is that the IDEA of the civilizations they are bringing into AoE2 are more interesting than whatever Variants have been trying to implement (such as OOTD, ZXL, JDA). For example, the IDEA of “Khitans” is infinitely more interesting than “Lancasters”. AoE2 and AoE4 are NOT the same games and I am NOT asking to bring AoE2 civilizations over to AoE4, and was merely making the comparison of what kinds of immersive historical groups they were including.
Templars have very few “new” models. You probably haven’t played the Sultan’s Ascend campaign because you seem to be under the belief that they made all of these assets for them. Almost every model for Templars were already in the game and editor since last year, and the few exceptions are simply repurposed existing models that got recoloured, put on a horse or given a different existing weapon. From what I have seen, only the Genitour is a new unit. Besides that, obviously the Fortress.
What you are completely forgetting is that voicelines are exactly the same, as existing ones for French, 3D models were simply recoloured and are the exact same models from French, all of their units are either from Sultan’s Ascend campaign, recoloured French units or kitbashed from existing assets.
All of this just means it is FAR from a “new” civilization. It might play different, but that simply is not the only criterea. So let me put this all in other words; you’ve already paid for the game 1 time. You’ve already bought the Sultan’s Ascend too, right? So why are they making “NEW” civilizations that use the exact same assets from what you already own?
That is my fundamental problem with “variants”. I don’t buy these DLCs “just” to experience a slightly different civilization’s gameplay mechanics. I want to immerse myself in the language, aesthetics, fantasy of NEW cultures, and that is what I’m paying for when I am buying a DLC. Putting aside the issue I have with reusing assets, the IDEA of variants are dogwater. “Lancaster”??? “Zhu Xi’s Legacy”?? These are awful ideas and there is nothing immersive or cultural about them.
I wanted to put it differently, but I see that it can’t be completely eliminated so I’ll leave the comment:
In my opinion, you are reinforcing and supporting what I have already thought and said about your opinion, so I have little to add, since I have already criticized this approach and the reasons why I do not agree with it. You were blaming the developers’ effort in devaluing the variants, although here you specify again that you are more interested in the idea of having other more iconic civilizations with geographically different populations. So the developers’ effort or the quality of what they develop is irrelevant when you want other populations regardless. You do not care about the result or how different it sounds in terms of gameplay, which are the aspects that matter for a new content, but the idea of playing with different populations regardless of how different they actually are. You also say that you are more interested in the “effort” you perceive from the developers without realizing how strange this reasoning is, because the player is interested in the result of the product and not in how much blood the developers have put into it. And even the example of the models already present reinforces this vague and “imprinted” approach by the idea of effort. You tell me that the models have less value precisely because they are already present rather than how they are functionally integrated. Changing the weapon and armor of a model in this case is recycling, while in another case changing a headdress and adding the word “Egypt” without deepening the gameplay in any way probably would not have been.
If you want to immerse yourself in the idea of playing new civilizations and don’t care if they mechanically sound different, fine, that’s a matter of taste. But don’t delegitimize a good work by trying to claim it’s trivial, when that’s not the point. You don’t like the variants because they represent the same culture, not because they’re done more superficially.
It is both. I both dislike variants and would rather not want them in the game, and also would prefer them to be more interesting if they are here to stay.
I care, it simply doesn’t make it any less of a variant. Templars is objectively a better, more fleshed out variant than the others. It tries to change the visual aesthetic of French, adds a new building and has the advantage of using units which most players haven’t seen (because they don’t play campaign). I’d much rather have that than for example JDA.
It isn’t about blood. I, personally, want to see NEW civilizations realized in fully fledged 3D. I’ve had my time with AoE2 and back then, I could pretend that a new civilization just having a different name was enough. But, AoE4 is suppoused to be an evolution of that–and it was for a long time. Each and every one of the 10 original civilizations were completely distinctive civilizations, modelled, voiced, designed to be visually representative of the historical real life versions. THAT is what I wanted, not some codemonkey’s orientalist bullshit ass Zhu Xi’s Legacy whose only purpose is to “add gameplay”. China already exists, by the way, so am I suppoused to clap for them adding “content” to China 2.0 instead of China, which I already paid for?
Dude. It matters that they are already present BECAUSE I ALREADY FRICKING PAID FOR IT. Why would I go “WOW OH MY GOD THEY ADDED THE CRUSADER UNITS TO A CIVILIZATION, EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY PAID FOR SULTAN’S ASCEND LAST YEAR!!”??
I can have my own taste and criticize where it matters. There is no delegitimatization in saying that they are variants, when they are, in fact, variants–as you can visually see with your two own eyeballs and as has been stated, and for good reason, by the very developers themselves.
It isn’t about representing the same culture. I dislike them for reusing assets and pretending to be fresh new content, and I would ALSO like a different culture to be represented instead of beating the same drum. In terms of gameplay, I care, but I’m not going into that discussion because that isn’t what I want to argue for or against.
I think the issue with the perception of variants is a user error. People not being used to something is normal when new ideas are introduced.
“Variants” is an accurate naming convention and assists in determining why factions smaller than a civilizations entire identity should exist in a historical setting. Variants are fun, creative, and in essence directly inherit most things from their parent civ.
By reducing the scope to a single figure, order, or dynasty we are adding a great level of detail to the identity of a civ. By exploring “what ifs” we can see alternate history versions of factions (Zhu Xi Legacy) that are still grounded in reality (concepts come from real events/people/places). On the gameplay side we are able to have a greater level of asymmetry, OOtD having 2pop units stands out when mixed with 15 other faction choices.
At the end of the day there’s always going to be naysayers. Sometimes these complaints can help understand deficiencies in new ideas. Sometimes nothing other than the complete obliteration of the concept will satisfy them. That will never happen, so just expect some level of unrest as some people will utterly refuse it no matter the implementation.
ThereThere is confusion because people talk about content as if sometimes it was content and sometimes not. Previously, you paid for purchased content, not for new content that represented the Chinese. Saying that you have already paid for the Chinese and therefore you should have new content that represents them is nonsense. You paid for the previous Chinese faction, not for a new Chinese faction; furthermore, you are free not to buy it if the mechanics or differences do not interest you. If in your fantasy the “Chinese” are always the “Chinese” despite the differences in fact, it makes no sense to change the subject and talk about quality, when they would be disqualified anyway. It is understandable that it is not considered a priority to deepen civilizations already present in the game, but the entire irrational narrative against variants is not shareable. Even more so when the depth of a new faction is prejudicially delegitimized, as if it were inferior just because it represents the same civilization or because it is conventionally defined as a “variant”. Because some of these “variants” sound much more different than some of the base civs can be, and this is also the result of different design and not just a superficial reworking. I dispute this narrative that makes no sense and was created only because of the name they wanted to give them. It seems like the discussion is based on whether or not they are more than simple variants, rather than understanding the quality of the new faction. It is incredible. There is no point in making a long tour of the quality of the variants and creating an irrational narrative about it, when the problem is not that, but the fact that you specifically want new more iconic civs with the same quality or the same effort.
Ok I’m done. I need to point out the irony if you persistently, repeatedly insisting that I’m attempting to delegitimize the game and that I have prejudice when all you do is try to invalidate any of my opinions. You clearly have no interest in trying to understand where I’m coming from and my opinion as a whole.
Everything I think is already laid out in this thread. Go actually digest them if you ever want to try to understand a point of view, instead of attack it blindly. Seeing as that isn’t your goal here, have fun pretending to discuss.
I’ll keep your bad faith in mind for the future.
Y’all write a whole lot of words ( yes I’m being hypocritical).
@Croissantini wishes more than not the devs would only add playable factions that matches the level of detail and intrigue as the standard civs (voice, models, skins, cultural references and mechanics and playstyle rooted in said factions). He believes the current efforts placed in the variant factions are just not enough and, to his point, dilutes the overall product given how often the assets are often repurposed.
Meanwhile the rest of us (tongue and cheek) don’t care as much about getting each new playable factions be each exceptionally unique in most aspects. As long as it embodies a relatable culture and has the appearance of “new” and different gimmick? We’re happy!!!
I love Templar yet I hate French. I love Ayyubids but not so much Abbasid. Devs do this more!!!
To be honest, I think the name Faction is a bad idea as a substitute for the term “variant”, mainly due to the very nature of the game.
-
Faction is a term used to refer to a group that opposes something. But the variants themselves weren’t always allies. The English and Lancaster couldn’t be a faction because they even tried to destroy each other in the Wars of the Roses (with the English representing the Yorkists).
-
Historically, in the Middle Ages, there were no permanent factions. One kingdom could easily betray another and become best friends within a few years. This isn’t Warcraft 3, where the orcs are allied with the tauren and the humans with the dwarves and wood elves.
-
The variant name isn’t the problem. There are many reasons why people despise variants, sometimes in general and sometimes specifically, but not because of the name Variants. This includes:
- Being improved versions of their parent civs, relegating them in the process.
- Saving resources, and that’s why they’re not sufficiently developed, which they would have been if they were independent civs.
- Non enough historical representative: Joan without a Flag Lady build. Ayyubid still lacks horse archers, while they do have them in the campaign.
- In fact, France and Joan had to go through three seasons to differentiate themselves “somewhat,” and it’s not even enough. And that’s even though people were encouraged by the idea of a Joan rework.
- Aesthetically, the name Variant sounds good. I like it, and I like the parent civ, child civ.
Anyway, I hope the term variant doesn’t change. Now, regarding future shared regional units for future civs (Italian condottieri, war elephants), that’s a different topic, and I don’t think variants should be included.