I don’t think this had a real impact on RoR sales either. RoR was bought by people that like AoE1 and want to have decent path finding and quality of life features.
Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that there aren’t enough people out there that do.
You don’t need to find “evil” reasons of why the DLC sold.
Remember that there are always more people playing Fortnite then all RTS combined. Being popular doesn’t equal good, so something can sell well to genuin customers even if it’s not according to my or your taste.
Sure, but among that group there are also those who buy anything because they think they are supporting the game. Not realizing that instead they are lowering the standards as well.
Don’t know how accurate this is but if the pre-sales are really that good its great for the eSports future. Glad that there are more people excited about this DLC.
Since you don’t recognize him, I assume you don’t watch tournaments like Nobles Apartment Cup. Masmorra, the guy on the left in that video, is a gamerlegion member and they have very strong connections with World’s edge. He already knew about the upcoming DLC, teased it a bit in the podcast after Nobles Apartment Cup. Current world’s edge tournament co-ordinator, Nili, is also a former Gamerlegion member. So news from them is definitely not some random gossip.
Second, he says the pre-sales numbers is not an official statement but just a random talk with his source (most likely in World’s edge).
I believe he’s talking about steam reviews. All civ DLCs have positive reviews, slightly negative for ROR and extremely negative only for V&V.
And this is the reason why stuff like V&V and V&V2 are tolerated. The unparalleled mental gymnastics just to not criticize aoe2.
Viper wasn’t wrong, he simply meant a metric he didn’t say, of a subset of dlc’s he didn’t specify.
What even is the point of using words anymore.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Congratulations everyone, you’ve just read the best, well constructed argument ever known to man. If you disagree it’s just because you don’t understand the context, or I made a mis-statement, or you mis-understood but rest assured, it’s the smartest thing you or anyone that’s ever existed has or ever will read. And if you disagree you’re just a hater. You’re welcome.
Nobody here does, so we can only judge what we can see. For example, V&V has terrible reviews, Return of Rome failed in it’s attempt to get Vietnamese players to AoE2 and it’s ranked mode is dead. On a smaller scale, LotW was criticised for it’s gimmicky mechanics and choice of civs, and Mountain Royals for it’s price. Seeing what I can see, I can’t say that 0% of DLCs have done badly.
He’s being vague, but Mountain Royals has mixed reviews, so it’s likely he was talking about sales. Outside of sales, his statement is not true, like I mentioned before.
What can I say, except Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. Try to refute that!
At this point we have seen more communication about the dlc on the gamerlegion channel than on the official channel. And still no trailer. What’s even their strategy? Release a great free patch, show a terrible paid dlc and don’t put much effort into selling it?
Many people simply do not do as much research before they buy. As I said, the final test will be the quality of the campaigns. If it is mediocre to poor, even the average person will be disappointed.
Meanwhile, I think I need to step away from all this, at least for a while. I think I’ll make a separate thread for all the balance changes that the devs still haven’t implemented on the current civs in the game (as much as the infantry changes were spot on, you have to give them credit for that).
feel like there are some assumptions on what different scenarios of the same battle from different perspectives could mean. Battle of grunwald has a polish and bohemian perspective, Siege of Compiègne has it from the French and Burgundian perspective (albiet the french blended the siege of Paris into it). We’ve had the Third Crusade from Saladin/Fredrick. The only one that wasn’t good (at least in my opinion) was the Siege of constantinople from V&V.
It can work just fine as long as they put in some effort to make it play differently.
Except those scenarios have different layouts, unlike the SIege of Constantinople from both sides, where the map is copied an pasted. And I’m assuming this will be the case, again.
again, thats an assumption, it could just as easilly not be copy and pasted.
even if it is the same map, there are still ways you can make it an interesting scenario, siege was boring because (at least to me) not enough effort was put into the difference.
Battle for greece has multiple scenarios that use the exact same map (7 and 14, 15 and 21). obviously its not just a perspective swap, but it shows you can take the exact same tileset and make it play differently.
