I see that different. But we probably both don’t know exactly how the ccp policies are there, because they also don’t make it public.Which makes it double hard for devs. Maybe there was a Tangut civ in development which just wasn’t allowed. We even have Tangut units in the game.
Ofc we will never exactly know. But all indicators including the still missing campaigns show that there is something hindering it - and I’m pretty sure the devs DON’T want to relase unfinished civs. It’s really odd, cause the campaigns were such an integral part of the previous dlcs, that them missing is a strong indicator that there was an external influence. We don’t know exactly who, and why but we all know where the tracks end.
What people do not like about this DLC is very clear (and I agree on most points) though at the end of the day I don’t see the point in repeating it over and over without actually doing anything, it feels a bit coward/mobby.
Also there’s this weird expectation which is as much consumerist as the people it opposes that Devs should give you what you want. Devs are people like you, dare I say “artists” in their own right, they may have different ideas on what they want to do and they possess the franchise anyway.
It would be like telling me I didn’t have to make a campaign about X because you wanted a campaign about Y which of course you can but I wonder where does that mentality lead practically. In the end I will always do what I want and I don’t think what I consider art should be just about executing what others want like Devs seem to be expected to do. That indeed feels very consumerist and not treating them like humans but just as machines giving services in exchange for money.
As someone said there was too much expectation built on this DLC, next time it would be wiser to not expect exactly what you had in mind to avoid being deluded. I remember people taking fun of me because I thought Ornlu was serious about the 3k “oh no it’s an April’s fish and you’re falling for it”. I mean if you reach this point of wishful thinking I wonder how can you even approach the harsh reality everyday.
To me personally the worst thing about the DLC is that it breaks the logic of how the game adds civs which is cultures, not single states. But it’s kinda petty when you think about it or at least it could be a bit close minded without judging the actual content to be against heroes for example. I realised the fanbase is quite conservative. Still I agree it’s something that feels extremely inconsistent on their side.
So I encourage people to try to see things in their complexity instead of picking a side or acting like an angry or not-angry mob. Also to follow words with actions if the issue is really so unbearable because for now it’s just preaching to the converted.
2 Likes
It works on a reporting system. Public report on something they think needs reporting on, and then it gets checked by a bunch of staff.
So enough people would have to be offended by the mere presence of acknowledgement that other ethnic groups exist in China. Which is fanciful.
There are video games in China showing Tibet and others as different playable factions within the Middle Ages context. It’s fine.
Hell, this game already lets you dogpile on China in the Genghis Khan campaign, and has them as the primary villains in the Le Loi one.
Oh I thought he was serious. I just thought it was such a stupid idea to make 3K that they wouldn’t have done it.
4 Likes
The thing about our “expectations” is not that we all collectively hallucinated the same exact ideas for some reason, and then threw a hissy fit because our made up thoughts didn’t become real. We were given very specific hints, that could very reasonably make people think the next DLC would include, specifically, Tibetans, Bai, Jurchens, Khitans and Tanguts. Why? Let’s make a list…
-
They announced 5 new civs, a DLC that follows the same line of thinking as Dynasties of India (AKA splitting an existing civilization), and that it’d be East Asian themed. Now, this alone could mean anything, but let’s keep looking at other points in the list.
-
Screenshots. They made images teasing a castle with Jurchen flags and a heavily armored horseman that looks like an Iron Pagoda. Clearly the Jurchens are in the game. Then there’s another image, with a castle built by the Tanguts, and a “camel catapult”, something used by the Tanguts. The “Liao Dao” unit is nowhere to be seen, so these must be the Tanguts. No, it was the Khitans all along, you’re so stupid for thinking it was the Tanguts? And there was also a soldier, in a tropical-ish city, wearing rattan armor. Could be the Bai, reasonably.
Ok, so they already teased, intentionally or not, Bai, Jurchens and Tangut. They didn’t show images of the Three Kingdoms units like Tiger cav or whatever. Even the “Bai” wonder wasn’t even from the 3K period, iirc.
- Cysion’s interview. There, he said many things that seemed to confirm what the people were already thinking. First of all, he said this wasn’t a “split” of the Chinese civilization. Now, what is a “split” in this context? It means taking an already existing civ, that covers a very broad number of peoples, and creating a new civilization that would have been covered by it beforehand. Example, we have Poles even though the Slavs are in the game. So, they are not splitting the “Chinese”, instead they would have to add their historical neighbours, makes sense. Then, Cysion confirmed exactly that: they’ll add civilizations from “around” China. Clearly, this has to mean it’s not “Chinese” civilizations, but ones that are “neighbours” to China, I don’t know how else to interpret it. And finally, he stated that very insignificant statelets like Liege wouldn’t be coming to the game, and the civs people wanted were not insingificant enough to have no source material.
Then, the day of the DLC reveal came. No Tanguts, they’re Khitanguts instead. 3 non-medieval civs in a medieval game, with poor attempts to justify their inclusion. Chinese civ split, despite stating that wouldn’t happen. The civs were not “all” from around China, most were from inside China. They added insignificant states despite stating they wouldn’t do that.
Now, the solution? Short-term, nothing can be done, people already pre-ordered. Long-term, maybe they can fix some things, maybe. Very long-term, stop doing these “experiments”, the people don’t like them. Go back to doing normal DLCs or things the people are asking for. Nobody wanted Three Kingdoms.
11 Likes
I understand you. I find it good you took you the time to enunciate your critic.
The communication wasn’t ideal - for some reason the devs like to tease the community and this time the community got the wrong image. Also - again - I think there was different things planned originally and the devs had to switch it up unfortunately. A lot of indictaion for that.
Maybe it’s not exactly what you craved for. But it is so bad you can’t find it enjoyable anymore? Isn’t there enough stuff in this massive DLC you actually like?
I agree that for some reason the last 3 DLCs were all a bit different. For no reason to me.
I am happy if a DLC brings 2 new civs and a campaign.
They could easily have added 2 African civs people asked for already a long time and everybody would have been happy.
I don’t think it’s too much of an upset, because the DLC will be massive - a lot of entertainment value for in my eyes a very fair price. Even if it’s nit exactly a “classic” dlc.
Yes the DLC is massive, but size is not equal to quality. If it was massive and stayed inside the community’s expectations, it could have been the best DLC since the Conquerors. But no, they decided to make it another of their experiments, damaging the thematics of the game, adding civilizations nobody wanted (because they’re not medieval), fusing Khitans and Tanguts together (who everyone wanted separate from day one).
Three Kingdoms is not a bad setting for an RTS mind you, there’s lots of units and campaign potential, but it’s just not something that should be added to a MEDIEVAL game.
And speaking of campaigns, those also have lots of issues we can see, before even getting to play them. They are very short (5 scenarios each), they tell the same story (beginning of 3K period) just from different POVs, they don’t even reach the point where the Three Kingdoms are actualyl founded, and they all have the exact same final level (battle of Red Cliffs).
Going back to Cysion’s interview, he also said he wanted to add 5 civilizations, because those would be necessary for the stories they wanted to tell. Turns out it wasn’t “stories” in plural, it was just one, all campaigns are the same story. And the Khitans and Jurchens didn’t even exist when 3K took place, so why are they added alongside the Three Kingdoms? Makes no sense, plus they’re not even telling stories of the Jurchens and Khitans, because they get no campaigns.
But sure, the DLC can be “good” in the eyes of a player that absolutely doesn’t care about a game’s indentity or thematic consistency. Just look at number go up, get excited and buy product.
7 Likes
Another indicator that this isn’t what the devs originally planned. it’s not 5 civs. It’s 3+2 who interact.
Pairde with the short campaigns only for 3K for me it more and more looks like they had to switch it up almost last minute.
You can say “he lied to us”. But I don’t think that’s true. It’s just an unfortunate reality that the released version isn’t fitting that narrative that was real for a different state of the development.
Probably, but the interview happened like a day before the reveal, so his statements didn’t align even with what they alread had in the works.
If he was proven wrong in like, three months in the future, then sure, he can’t lie about the DLC. But the day before? It’s just not possible to change anything. It was a lie, nothing he said there had anything to do with this DLC.
8 Likes
Yes. Exactly.
They reinforced each others ideas on what the DLC is about and dismissed all the hints pointing towards 3 Kingdoms.
There war even a popular content creator making a video about why he thought they will be adding the 3 Kingdoms based on the hints in the patch notes.
Technically yes. The community hyped up something that was not going to happen.
It’s not really the developers fault but it explains why people are so upset.
Alright, let me explain this.
If it was just Khitans, Jurchens and campaigns for them and the Chinese I would be happy. But the inclusion of the Three Kingdoms civs I find so against everything AoE2 has been since its original launch that I will not touch this.
I do want the Jurchens and a not-botched Khitans. But paying for things that I hate to simply get access to a pair of civs that don’t even have campaigns is a step too far.
Why do I personally not want the Three Kingdom civs?
-
Not civs
Civs in AoE2 have always been based on cultural/ethnic lines. These three are all Han Chinese states that lasted only 60 years. The Chinese civ already covers them pretty well. Especially since the Chinese UU is named after a Three Kingdoms character. -
Out of time frame.
These three are all gone 200 years before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the earliest civ in the time frame. They are quite clearly from the AoE1 time-frame, but are here instead.
If I wanted AoE1, I would play AoE1 or one of the Chronicles levels. I don’t want to encounter them either on multiplayer or staring at me from the select screen. -
Waste of space and geography
At some point there is a maximum number of civs. We don’t know what it is, but it exists. Now three slots have been wasted on civs that do not qualify as civs. So instead of the Sogdians, Tanguts, Thai, Kannadigas, Zimbabweans, Khazars, Telugus etc, actual major powers from the Middle Ages, we might have lost the opportunity to have them and play their campaigns. Which saddens me.
It saddens me more that we will likely never return to China/East Asia. So the opportunity to have Tanguts, Bai, Tibetans (civs I was the most excited for) has been almost certainly lost.
I cannot in good conscience pay money to endorse that. -
The civ designs are a chaotic mess
I honestly think the 3K civs feel like Chronicles civs. Tons of bizarre ideas thrown in, which while probably fun for single player, feel like a nightmare for ranked. -
I hate heroes
I don’t want them. I don’t want to even see them. If I want heroes that can fight off small armies by themselves, I would play AoM, which I do. -
Quality looks dodgy
I’ve explained the Khitanguts mess before. And honestly I am not sure how someone even makes that mistake. It looks rushed/cobbled together.
But the lack of voice-acting, recycled campaign maps, all do not excite me.
As a consumer I have the right to go “no. I won’t pay for this or endorse this”. And that line has finally been crossed for me.
11 Likes
Fair. An enunciate layout of your critic.
Something devs and other community members can work with at least.
Ofc you also need to see that you don’t have the right to enforce this, nobody has. But at least with this you have built a basis for a constructive reaction.
Of course. I have as much right as anyone else. Which is also the right to be heard, and the right to take my money elsewhere.
6 Likes
Exactly everything the community has to say about the DLC. Now it’s up to the devs/MS whether they accept the feedback or go ahead with everything as planned.
That we’ll get 3k as DLC is guaranteed, but changes aren’t out of the question. Especially with this massive backlash, which has never been this intense before.
Maybe we’ll achieve something after all. fingers crossed
5 Likes
this is not what I asked for and They won’t see a dime of my money until they go back to the old formula
5 Likes
More like two weeks but yeah. I doubt any plans changed in those two weeks.
Maaaaaaaaaybe something changed after the first two screenshots tho.
Changing tanguts in “into China” somehow that was too hard.
I find this disingenuous. Nothing from 3k was so clear cut that you couldn’t come to any other conclusion. It was very circumstantial. Not so with tanguts and jurchens. The clearest clues unambiguously directed us in one direction.
5 Likes
I misremembered then, but still 2 weeks is way too little to make such big changes, especially near the release date. This takes months in advance, so maybe Cysion wasn’t lying, he was just talking about the DLC’s first drafts back in 2024 xdd
2 Likes
Maybe, tho as far as I can tell, the GL podcast is recorded only days-ish in advance of release. they knew about the backlash to the 3k stuff.
Maybe, I suppose, he confused himself and he was thinking of an older version of the dlc, but yeah you really have to contort yourself to figure out how what he said many any sense.
5 Likes
Also: It’s just a podcast. It’s just wrong to assume you can get any implicit information out of that. That’s not what podcasts are for, They are for entertainment with a personal note.
I understand and agree with the inconsistency, time frame and waste of geographical area sentiment but the civ design is quite solid, cleanest and nothing chaotic from an RTS perspective and well suited for multiplayer more than single player gameplay.
Archer and siege civ gets a strong wood bonus ( a bonus that was suggested in the forums as a replacement for 200 wood per age to Dravidians), has faster moving siege and cheaper techs for archer line play. Scorpion replaced by a siege uu that can behave both like a scorpion and an organ gun. Cavalry is subpar but tanky uu de-mobilizes opponent’s fast moving units. Good archers, siege, infantry but mediocre cavalry, no gunpowder and weak monks. Great for semi open maps, average on closed, not the greatest for 1v1 open maps but solid for tg flank position.
Next the Cavalry civ has bonus to get extra vills and a very strong castle age gameplay. Crossbows and skirms have thumb ring, knight replacement gets extra hp, CA replacement seems quite good to mix against anti-cavalry units. UU is extremely good to use in late castle age. And as expected, monks are weak, no gunpowder and weaker imperial age tech tree. Needs to be played as a long castle age civ, great for open and semi-open maps but weak on closed.
And finally the first infantry and naval design since Malay that doesn’t make a civ almost unplayable on land maps. Good cavalry for a change, decent infantry. Early game bonus is a huge boost for faster fish production and up-time which is crucial for water maps while also favoring land aggression in hybrid maps to offer more possibilities. Tanky infantry uu in castle age that’s cheap on food and can fight both knights and skirms. Great monks but mediocre ranged units. This civ’s uu design is bad.
Except the fire archers, none of the civ designs nor uu are bad or random chaos for multiplayer. I just feel your hatred due to the other aspects is influencing the judgement of these civ designs from a multiplayer gameplay perspective.
Again Hero is just a fancy term. There are some uu which can fight multiple kinds of small armies by themselves. One of those heroes is an elite version of a warrior priest with Saracen UT. Other two are sort of like a Centurion. Having one of them after 50th min isn’t going to break multiplayer games. 70% of the games don’t even reach that stage. There just needs to be caution on how things work in team games when multiple heroes are used in the fighting area.
I don’t know about the campaigns but if its just recycled from existing ones that’s terrible.
Overall I’d say this dedicated for multiplayer community. Battle of Chronicles had good things for the campaign players and nothing for the multiplayer community while this seems to be the exact opposite of it.
1 Like