I’ve never really understood why people think that new civs is new content. Years ago when map packs would release on halo it just got old after a while. People want new game mechanics and game modes.
At some point we have to move on from new civs and starting exploring new game modes.
Imagine a game a mode where you progress from aoe 1 stone age through aoe 2 imperial.
Now before you all freak out about balance and ruining the game, i’m talking about a game mode, not changing the core of the game.
People keep asking for new content, well lets brain storm beyond just “new civs”. New civs isn’t new content.
Updating the editor UI and adding new triggers and eye candy is new content. New campaigns is kinda new content but that gets old after awhile.
I’m just asking the question, what new content do we really want beyond “new civs”.
Halo master chief collection is great example because they kinda put everything into one soup of halo goodness. A lot of power of game modes and mechanics. To me thats what we need moving forward for aoe 2.
To answer the OP, I don’t think DLCs that just contain a game mode sell very well, and implementing game modes are I think a little bit harder than just adding a new civ.
The game is also not that popular where having loads of different game modes would be beneficial. There’s already minor splinters between clown gamers, CBA players, the RF community, and very strict 1v1 Arabia players. Only CBA is a mod that sees some popularity, likely Rome at War was popular as well (which is why I think Rome DLC was made), however the implementation of it has been less than satisfactory, seeing how many bugs were introduced.
I know each DLC tends to bring a plethora of bugs with them, but most are pertaining to civs themselves that are usually easier to fix. Game modes would become too noisy for the game and I feel like would be too much effort for what its worth - I don’t expect that to be great in both sales and gameplay.
Just because people buy them doesn’t mean that they are meaningful. Again it’s like, at 42 civs at some point it began the question of what do people really want out of aoe 2 de? I’m sure most people haven’t even played all 42 civs. I think it invites creativity to go a new direction. I don’t think people care about have 10 new civs that all feel mostly the same but different bonuses and tech lines.
the dlcs are there to maintain support. Without money, the support would have ended long ago. the developers also need to be busy. patches alone don’t get aoe2 into the news. a dlc also produces advertising. It shows that the game is alive. It enhances the gaming experience by bringing a breath of fresh air into the game. You can also offer campaign or unit reskins as dlc. people still want new civs as a priority. The backlash because the western Romans were only for sp. Has shown this very well.
It’s so heartwarming to notice nowadays that everyone talk for me before of me myself. It’s like people became so deeply empathetic and emotionally intelligent that they don’t even need to know you in person to say what you need the most right now in life. If you’re black then you surely need what any other black guy need, if you’re gay you want guy stuff of course and if you’re into aoe2 you definitely don’t want more civs ahah!
I know it takes guts in life to say “I me personally don’t like this”, specially when in contrast to a majority (you’re not mad for having a controversial opinion, it’s just about being human I guess), and it’s better to hide behind a group of reference to legitimate a personal ##### ### we’re getting to a whole new level at this rate. I dream of a world where anyone could speak for himself only (call me an idealist, call me liberal lol).
Imagine a world where people can discuss ideas without having to gaslight everyone they disagree with it. Its just a conversation folks. I don’t think we need new civs. Your welcome to disagree. Doesn’t change how i sleep at night.
If you read carefully you can see that I didn’t attack you or your opinion specifically, but rather your attempt to put words in the mouth of others.
My advice is to take responsibility for your opinions (which means making arguments to prove them) and do not address others unless there’s someone willing to be (also because “people say” is often not a good argument).
I think there are basically two possibilities. Either (a) they have a broader definition of ‘content’ than you do, or (b) they want new civs and don’t care about what ‘content’ means at all (many posts asking for/proposing new civs don’t mention the word ‘content’). Probably a mix of both, in most cases.
To be honest, I’ve read through your post a few times, and I can’t figure out how you’re deciding what does and doesn’t count as content. You say that game modes, triggers, eye candy, and the editor UI all count as content, but civilisations don’t and campaigns only kind of do. I can’t think of a definition of ‘content’ that’s consistent with that – so what do you think ‘content’ actually means?
Some people do, I’m sure, but we’ve had several of those over the last few years, and they seem to me to have been less well received than the new civs have. Many people dislike new mechanics, especially those they see as gimmicky, and I don’t think Empire Wars or Battle Royale are especially popular.
I can imagine it, but if I take it literally, there’d be no reason to advance from Iron Age to Dark Age, so you’d just have AoE1. It would require major changes to the AoE2 ages, and most 1v1 games would probably end in the Bronze Age anyway.
I don’t know much about Halo. How is this relevant to the rest of your post? I looked it up, and it just seems to be a bundle of Halo games.
Empire Earth 2 and 3 where very different games by different developers.
The real successor to Empire Earth was “Empires: Dawn of the Modern World”.
And maybe in some way “Rise and Fall: Civilisations at War” which was also made by Stainless Steel Studios.
The original Empire Earth was kind of what AoE1 was “supposed” to be.
Some parts of the AoE1 team had greater ambition so they made their own studio to develop Empire Earth.
And Empire Earth was very ambitious.
The two games they made after Empire Earth both had a smaller focus.
The other two Empire Earth games were very different and just not AoE like anymore.
There are many things that would complicate that but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
AoE1 units have different stats then AoE2 units.
Dark Age and Feudal Age would be a massive downgrade from Iron Age.
The list of civilisations that could be compatible with this mode is not that long (but that might be a good thing)
Technologies would have to be changed, you can’t research Ballistics twice and no one want’s to research 6 technologies in a row at the blacksmith.
The scale of buildings is very different between AoE1 and AoE2 so you can’t reuse assets from both games.
Natural resources expire half way thought the game.
All problems that can be solved but it would require a lot or redesigns.
This topic is definitely worth it’s own thread if people are actually interested in the idea.
Some possible was to solve those problems:
AoE1 unit upgrades have to be tuned down so Iron Age units don’t have so hight stats. AoE2 units must be buffed up to be an upgrade from AoE1 units.
Dark Age is replaced by Late Antiquity (all super units like Legionary or Centurion are moved to this age) and Feudal Age is reworked to allow to still train some AoE1 units. Some Castle Age and Imperial Age units might have to be moved down. Like Knight in Feudal, Cavalier in Castle and Paladin in Imperial Age.
Just have a small selection of civilisations for this mode, makes it easier to develop.
Technologies between Government centre and University need to be redistributed an spread out.
All the AoE1 buildings have to be remodelled to be AoE2 style.
There has to be technologies that reveal more natural resources like mines and fish. Wood just has to last longer.
It’s not a bad idea tbh. but it would require a lot of changes.