There’s gotta be one “genius” dev with a massive ego

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Let’s be honest — the AoE2:DE fandom is one of the most loyal in gaming.
People here literally buy every DLC with a smile.
We’ve been thankful for years that the franchise even got resurrected from the grave.

But this year? Things started to get… weird.
I’m talking about the twin disasters: V&V and 3K.
No need to add more hate — plenty of posts have done that already.

The thing is, both of them feel like FilthyDelphia’s mod scenarios — and not in a good way.
If a good campaign builds on AoE2’s solid data, tech trees, and strategy flow,
these new ones rely on bloated triggers and forced gimmicks that ignore what makes AoE2 fun.

Take the Attila campaign. Even today, that one’s still a masterpiece.
The first three missions use triggers just enough to create immersion,
and the later ones strip them down for pure RTS combat —
you scout, tech up, boom, fight hard — that’s AoE2’s core fun.
It’s about using your knowledge of the game —
“Oh, the enemy’s infantry-heavy, better tech to archers,”
“Enemy’s far away, let’s boom with a TC” — that kind of natural flow.

But some of these new campaigns?
They just scream “Look what I can do!” instead of “Have fun playing.”
Every map feels like a modder showing off a half-broken script.

V&V and 3K completely ignore the fundamentals of RTS and just show what the creator wants to show:

“I wanna make a Viking exploration!” → painful click-fest Viking missions.

“I wanna do naval transitions!” → Drake’s campaign feels like a test map.

“I liked Dynasty Origins!” → let’s shove fantasy hero units into AoE2!

If this were a mod, fine. Subscribe if you like it, ignore if you don’t.
But this is paid content — official canon, even. That’s where it crosses the line.

I’ve made campaigns myself. I know how tempting it is to add new features just because you can.
But you eventually learn that doing what you want is not making it fun for players.
Apparently, someone on the dev team hasn’t learned that lesson.

And don’t even get me started on 3K’s gimmicks.
They break AoE2’s UI logic entirely — like Liao Dao.
AoE2’s interface wasn’t built to show DPS or flashy buffs.
There’s no buff icon, no damage meter.
Yet they tried to turn it into some pseudo-MOBA hybrid.

When I see “Cao Cao” and “Liu Bei” on the AoE2 tech tree website,
a small part of me dies inside.

If 3K had been released as a Chronicle, I’d still dislike it,
but at least it wouldn’t feel this disrespectful.

It all feels selfish and immature —
no respect for a 20-year-old masterpiece,
just ego-driven “I can do better” experiments shoved into official content.

And that’s why I’m worried.

26 Likes
2

I think that would be more disrespectful.

Chronicles is made by Capture Age while the 3 Kingdom civs where made by Forgotten Empires. Chronicles is not a dumpster for civs you don’t like.

The best solution would be to make a new Spinoff called “Legends” which mildly fantastic factions. We could get additional ones like King Arthur there in the future for example.

15 Likes
3

You’re right. I was disrespectful to CaptureAge. I was careless. Legends idea sounds legit.

5 Likes
4

Not my idea:

What if : AOE2DE: Legend of Three Kingdoms

5 Likes
5

Filthyadelphia’s last Sicilian campaign is a masterpiece for me.

2 Likes
6

Sometimes I wonder who chooses the civs. That person given the mere job of saying “go make this civ with these bonuses, chop chop!”

As someone not blessed with code skills I wish that were me

2 Likes
7

Yes I’m that guy.

It’s a matter of philosophy and ambitions, you either wanna create art or you create something just for fun with many shades in the middle. I agree that it’s often funnier for me to play brain-dead boom and destroy on autopilot but it’s not fun to design them so there’s space for both.

And arguably the best campaign in game Jadwiga found the optimal spot but at the same time you need to be in the mind of an artist: an artist rarely like to repete themselves, specially when it would be easier and convenient to do so.

Big ego? Maybe, but that’s what art is about. It can be an enjoyable product, it cannot, it’s a risk. And the artist is in control of that, not trying to please the public necessarily.

Then there’s the part when you just want a corporation to deliver the product for the consumer to obtain fun in exchange of money and that’s another discussion.

If really what makes Attila great is the fact that it’s a simple build and destroy then what would be the problem in replicating it as libitum and making money endlessly with the same formula?

In a way Devs are taking risks and consumers are asking them to not do that. It’s like the roles reverted, usually the public is more demanding while corporations are afraid of losing terrain but maybe times have changed.

I personally think the issue with the game is not in the fact they’re willing to try new things, but rather that they’re not doing it good or that it doesn’t feel sincere. Still I wouldn’t ask for a game to try to be more mediocre and tame than it is, going back to a 25 year old way of designing with all limitations of the case. The direction is right imo, it’s the aim that needs to be improved (heroes are a bad idea, 3k is wrong, ror is pointless, certain gimmicks are inelegant, v&v isn’t going anywhere, chronicles is just a reskin etc).

1 Like
8

I agree but it’s not just V&V and 3K – we’ve had this kind of overdesign for a while, especially in Battle for Greece and The Hautevilles. (And presumably Alexander, but I haven’t played that.) Some people seem to really like this approach, but I’m not keen on it personally – it reminds me of the trigger-heavy RPG-style of the old Forgotten campaigns.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to get at here, but I find this idea – that if something is more complicated then it is more artistic – utterly absurd. And that seems to be the basis of your argument: if you don’t find the new campaigns fun, you just don’t understand the devs’ art! Utterly ridiculous melodramatic nonsense… So I really hope I’ve misunderstood you.

2 Likes
9

Tbh, Chronicles overdesign isnt an issue, because its explicitely not base AoE2

The other overdesigned civs just need to live with base game basic mechanics, and they just dont fit in that well. Same happens with stuff like adding charge attacks for fires, it just feels so odd when it could just be extra attack (Im fine with the explosions tbh), and I hate when they add pointless gimmicks to old units like Jags and Samurais

6 Likes
10

I partly agree and partly disagree.

Modding is another way to enjoy the game.
Creating something new is genuinely fun — it’s an artistic process in its own way.
When you make something because you enjoy it and hope others will too, that’s the beauty of modding: it’s free, creative, and personal.

But official content doesn’t get that freedom.
Official campaigns are supposed to follow tradition because they need to appeal to as many players as possible.

That’s why when I start a campaign, I hit F2, check the tech tree, read the hints, and think:
“What’s my civ good at? What’s the enemy strong in?”

But when triggers and gimmicks take over, pressing F2 means nothing.
The extra buildings are filled with random techs from other civilizations,
and suddenly I don’t even know if I’m playing Vikings or Aztecs anymore.
If the game rules I expect don’t match the rules the game actually gives me, that’s not creative — that’s bad design.

Official content should be like a good restaurant.
You go there often because they make amazing beef steak.
Sure, people want new dishes — maybe a chicken steak one day.
And finally, the chef announced that he will grill chicken steak.
But then the chef says, “Let’s innovate!” and sprinkles Cheetos powder on your $30 chicken steak.

If my roommate did that, fine — I’d take a bite, say “Not bad,” or roast him for being weird.
But if a professional restaurant did that after I paid for it?
Yeah, that’s something worth worrying about.

Official content can be boring, fundamental, and repetitive.
That’s the nature of the job — it’s not always “fun” to make, and that’s exactly why it’s paid work.

Here’s what players actually expect from official DLCs and its campaign:

  1. Beautiful new architecture.
    From Forgotten to Southeast Asia, Africa, and DE, every era brought fresh building sets.
    That’s where artistic sense belongs — in design and atmosphere, not in weird trigger experiments.

  2. New voice sets and cultural flavor.
    Each civ should sound distinct and feel alive through its audio identity.

  3. Fresh gameplay through familiar systems.
    Use the existing tech tree, but give each civ unique bonuses that make it play differently.
    That’s enough to make even a standard “build and destroy” mission genuinely fun.

TMR didn’t have a great first impression.
Georgia and Armenia? Not exactly the most hyped picks at first glance.
The campaign structure was also pretty simple — nothing groundbreaking.
But the new voice sets and the nicely reworked Persia pulled people in.
It wasn’t flashy, but it felt authentic, and players actually got immersed.

But recent DLCs?
They ignore all three of those core ideas and instead focus on:

A) Complicating missions with excessive restrictions and convoluted triggers.
B) Slapping random gimmicks onto “special units” just to look innovative.

That’s fine for mods — something people play once, clap, and move on.
But for official content carrying the franchise name? That’s not the place for it.

I replayed the Vietnam campaign recently, and honestly —
just adding the Fire Lancer made it feel like a completely new experience.
That’s the kind of subtle but powerful design change that official content should aim for in my opinion.

7 Likes
11

Interesting analysis and presentation of info. Thanks for succinctly breaking things down for us

2 Likes
12

What I meant is you do you. An artist is free to pursue their vision unless we’re under a regime. You’re free to buy or not, like or not and that’s it, but it’s not written anywhere that someone must be condescending to your or other tastes. You chose with your wallet and that’s already a huge power you have (since many artists starve or can’t find a public, also because they try to remain loyal to themselves first).

So even if I dislike what the Devs are doing in many ways they are free to take the route they prefer as I’m free to criticise them. If I don’t like it I can complain, even vehemently, not buy it but I can’t force them to work according to my taste or even the tastes of the majority, that I don’t feel it’s a very liberal mentality.

Ok so here’s the point I think… if they promise you something and deliver another thing AFTER you paid it, then it’s a scam.

But in that case you can simply stop purchasing the product (unless it’s a drug I guess) and encourage everyone you know to not to (boycott), that’s fair.

But I was talking about something less specific and more general which is people are free, artists are free and that’s it. Hate it or love it, that never stop anyone with visions and ideas to do their thing, unless one is starving I guess and here we come to the point I personally care for the most…

To me it’s important that the artist remains independent from their public, not because I’m snotty (I mean maybe, but it doesn’t change anything), but because the opposite of that is fanbases dictating their tastes to the man who’s actually in charge and WORKING for that. And that’s simply not fair.

I mean it’s already like you said in 90% of the things of this world, everything is a product before being art, do you really want this to be the case for the game you love too? To be just another itch to scratch from your back? To be just another hamburger to consume without having anyone around trying to do something a bit “different”? To be just another entertainment product? I’m quite this is not something Sandy Petersen and other original Devs had in mind at the beginning (to make something fun and easy to sell it’s more often a preoccupation the publisher could have) and you mentioned Attila for a reason, but making something like Attila or Jadwiga today wouldn’t be the same exactly because they already exist and they are their own little masterpieces exactly because they’re unparalleled. You don’t make something that good simply by repeating the formula that worked in the first place 25 or 5 years later. In fact if you ask sandy Petersen now he would do something completely different from then… that’s because he’s an artist, he’s always looking forward, not to please consumers. I think you see a designer at his best when he’s free of preoccupations related to marketing or that are not artistic (if it becomes a masterpiece it happens by accident and not because you try to fit to something or calculate the outcome, it’s not a case you will hear many artists wanting to be left in control of their art, crazy idea), in fact I imagine you wouldn’t say that adding Koreans or any other content (3k) because of an economical calculation is something to be proud about. Or it is only in certain cases?

Of course something artistic in intentions can just turn to shitt more often than something mediocre and following a formula but I mean that’s fair, they’re not gods, at least they’re trying to do something different, even when they could just interpret their work as a 24/7 job in an office and get the same if not more money out of it. There are many things I don’t like about filthydelphia design but I can at least recognise he’s trying. Designing one of his scenarios take as much time as designing an entire build and destroy focused DLC.

So I think we agree about the problem existing but we disagree about the solution.

I more or less agree on the rest of the things you said.

13

I understand your point well. Thank you for your illustration. I appreciate it. It seems our difference lies in the direction we want the series to take. I see — it’s a matter of taste.

I admit I’m on the conservative side.
To me, art only has value when it delivers satisfaction grounded in context and tradition
(That’s probably why I’ve never been a fan of contemporary art.)

I believe a great work doesn’t lose its value through repetition.
If the story, characters, and narrative immersion are solid, an Attila campaign released in 2026 could still be a masterpiece. Timeless quality doesn’t age.

That said, you’re right — developers have the freedom to pursue whatever direction they want, since they’re the ones investing time and resources.
As players, our choices are limited to not buying or leaving a negative review.
But I think the reason fans are angry isn’t entitlement — it’s love.
We care about this franchise and its tradition enough to get upset when it feels disrespected.

As for 3K, do you really see it as the result of economic calculation?
I see the opposite. To me, it’s the outcome of artistic self-indulgence, not business logic.
The developer behind it had already been making Three Kingdoms–themed mods on the Workshop long before this, and it’s clear they genuinely love the Dynasty Warriors / Koei style of storytelling.
That’s exactly why the campaign feels so much like a Koei game — their team color, character flair, and civilization identity.

It is my rough guess but the devs don’t have much love for the Khitan or Jurchen ever.
Even on the Forgotten team some of them have been experimenting with Three Kingdoms–themed maps ever since the old AoE2 Heaven days.
I don’t recall them ever creating anything centered on the Khitan or Jurchen.
Those have been something the community kept asking for — not something the devs themselves were ever passionate about. Honestly, the Khitan and Jurchen feel like a token gesture — a piece of candy to calm the community down rather than a real creative choice.

5 Likes
14

I think campaigns are a good field to do experiments and “what ifs”, and I enjoy the variety and novelty that comes with this approach:

What if there was a loyalty system that rewarded being a good Byzantine emperor?

What if gold wasn’t available except through pillaging central Asian trade routes?

What if my longboats cannot survive the open ocean yet winter forces me to find more resources?

These are the questions that I consider fun in scenarios and which are only implementable through triggers. On the other hand, if I wanted a simple skirmish without any triggers - why not just…play skirmish mode?

5 Likes
15

I suppose the one good thing about this, if it is indeed the case, is that it means that 3k was more likely a one-off passion project for that setting, and its less likely to be DLCs for other settings in that style…so at least we’ve got that going for us I guess.

16

It is not bad that devs try new things. But I believe that devs could have listened to the community before they tried. No one prefer 3K but devs released them instead of other civs.

2 Likes
17

I actually dislike it as well and don’t consider it art actually (followed a course on aesthetics at uni and kinda hated it) so on this I agree although probably for different reasons than conservatism. I actually think contemporary art is extremely conservative and tame in 2025 (that’s why I say many aspects are contextual, yes Attila is timeless but mostly because of the circumstances and aspects that do not necessarily have to do with the design itself, it’s good DESPITE its simplicity imo, not because of it) but that’s a discussion that would take us ot.

Yeah I understand, it’s ok as long as you don’t argue about Devs following your orders.

I agree on the 3k, I don’t think I will ever buy it. And to me it seems more about business logic anyway since Devs (or publishers) seem to think Chinese only like that so they thought of doing something marketable (while actually making the most tame and obvious move as 3k are already everywhere).

I think art is always about self indulgence in a way, I mean what is the point of poetry? It’s always a way to show that you’re apart from others, that you have a privileged access to something others don’t get etc. That’s where you get the trope of the snobby artist but art is aristocratic in nature (the aura of Benjamin). The rest is products of consumption and it’s fine although not art.

I personally love to play linear campaigns sometimes like the ones of the winged hussar to take a pause between long and tiresome designing sessions. Although the fact that you play more of that than let’s say Manu or filthydelphia who makes more complex stuff doesn’t mean that you necessarily like the simpler one more. It’s just that a complex scenario requires more effort from both sides to be enjoyed. It’s the difference between an hamburger when you’re hungry and do not have time and something more refined that you don’t eat so often. It’s like when you have to be in the mood for listening to certain genres of music but you can listen to something more pop and easy almost all the time, that doesn’t mean that you appreciate the latter more imo although that’s what the Spotify algorithm would think lol.

Anyway thanks for keeping it polite, I almost forgot we were on the internet ahah

1 Like
18

Ok… so this I agree with and it seems like a less melodramatic way of framing your position.

That said, since we’re talking about expansions to an existing game, some of what you said doesn’t really apply here. Someone who bought AoE2DE in 2019 could have been completely happy with the product they bought then, but since then, as a result of changes made due to expansions (e.g. Indians split; reworks of Persians, Chinese, Koreans; changes to campaign scenarios; etc.), might be dissatisfied with it now. The “if you don’t like it don’t buy it” argument doesn’t really work in that case.

This is interesting, because I hadn’t interpreted it that way at all. I’d assumed (and I think a lot of other players had too) that Three Kingdoms was chosen (by managers rather than developers) because it was seen as a profitable choice with a good chance of being successful in China. I’ve played both Battle for Greece and Three Kingdoms, and while I’m not keen on either of them personally, I felt the enthusiasm and passion behind the former but not the latter.

5 Likes
19

That’s a problem due to the fact that we’re old enough to remember when you used to buy a game that was a finished product like the original aoe2. Now games resemble more mods constantly under work in progress and by paying you chose to “support” their efforts even if you don’t really know what they could do tomorrow.

A simple solution could be that you can chose which patch to play with, even going back to the original DE release and balance. Then again one may like the new balance but not the new additions (civs, mechanics etc)… I guess you can’t make everyone happy and at a certain point one needs to accept certain small things they don’t like, like in everything in life I guess.

But to be able to select the patch you’re playing with would be very useful for modders too because of not having to constantly update their mods which is one hell of a job and contrary to Devs they’re not payed anything. The general tendency I notice in gaming though it’s that the borders between mods and official content gets blurry which has, like everything in this world, its ups and downs.

Even if people say they’re not ready to pay for mods Chronicles is basically a payed mod but it has “official” written on it so customers feel more at ease spending money on it. At the same time more “official” content like recent dlcs are lackluster and the game often introduced more bugs than it resolve (some mods are very polished and professional and more often updated), contributing to blur even more the line with amatorial content.

In short I think it’s an old mentality in 2025 to still neatly divide between indie and official (not only in gaming but in many artistic aspects like in music, oh definitely in music). World is changing, technology, AI… from one hand “art” is becoming more and more a simple commodity, from another big corporations don’t own anymore the means of production on exclusive terms (they actually do but that’s really the last legal barrier to “everyone makes their own art”, that and mods entering the market) but actually encourages you to create your own version of the game. Why? Because it’s free, it creates engagement at almost zero cost (we live in an economy of attention, not an industrial one anymore as we live in constant surplus where supply clearly overcome demand) and because you basically work for them for free. Many ideas were low-key taken from mods of the past or videos of fans of YouTube. Again the line is very blurry but I expect at a certain point it will disappear (although there could be resistance from both corporations and players, the former doesn’t want to lose their legal holding, the latter don’t want to pay for something they can have for free).

1 Like
20

No. You don’t understand. They have a long-term vision. They have a story to tell. They are building a lore, a saga, an epic, a whole new world with an immersive narrative that connects Attila to Star Wars. They want to convey the “impermanence” aesthetics of the East Asia with their (seemingly) inconsistent small experiments for this East Asia themed year.

They are artists. They are a small indie. They are misunderstood. They hate money. They are oppressed. They cannot afford breakfast cereal. They need our protection. They need our money.

IMG_1942
IMG_1942692×500 73.9 KB

/s

5 Likes