aoe1:DE on steam has currently 753 players(almost 1 year low). on saturday when you posted this there were over 1000 players(just like most of time for last year). Then there is MS store and games pass. Then we got thousands players in vietnam.they saw the little interest in that tiny copy and paste dlc called return of rome, lets not pretend that aoe1 is a popular game as an aoe1 de owner it barely peaks 50 players online
Important to remember that Vietnam does not play the DE version of AoE1aoe1:DE on steam has currently 753 players(almost 1 year low). on saturday when you posted this there were over 1000 players(just like most of time for last year). Then there is MS store and games pass. Then we got thousands players in vietnam.
I meant the guys browsing for MP games are always around 50, basically 950+ are players doing SP stuff which is fine but they do not help MP at all.aoe1:DE on steam has currently 753 players(almost 1 year low). on saturday when you posted this there were over 1000 players(just like most of time for last year). Then there is MS store and games pass. Then we got thousands players in vietnam.
Interesting take on a video game. I suppose you think that pixels are historically inaccurate and so are "rally points". Well, you are right. There are some concessions to make so that aoe2 is a game and not a 1000 page history book.It might be controversial but I'm saying this: AoE2 (or maybe the whole AoE franchise) never had anything to do with historical accuracy. Romans don't fit into the medieval timeline and we already have Byz, sure, so what about Goths with gunpowder? Yeah sure they were meant to also represent the Christian kingdoms on Iberia since they were descends of Visigoths, so why add Spanish in AoC? How do you justify the addition of Huns, a people that only existed for like 100 years and went out even before Western Romans? How do you justify adding meso civs who were laughably easy to conquer in real history (no offense to any indigenous Americans out there) but somehow super strong in game with all the blacksmith techs they weren't supposed to have? Why is the name of the Japanese unique tech a Japanese reading of the English word "catapult"? Why does every AoE game freaking love repeating crossbows so much when they were never actually relevant in ancient Chinese warfare? Why does the Genghis Khan campaign come from an alternate universe where Genghis Khan lived to his eighties and the Mongols reached Atlantic? And why do universal units look freaking exactly the same while they are supposed to come from every corner of the world? Just AoE2 things we all know and love, I guess.
TLDR: People really shouldn't be expecting historical accuracy from AoE2. The game have had terrible historical accuracy since 1999 and I never saw people clamoring "delete Huns".
You are comparing different genres here: Star Craft is science fiction, or shall we say straight-up fantasy. It's never supposed to represent things that actually existed, events that actually happened. AoE on the other hand is supposed to be based in real history, to reenact real historical events to some degree. Of course it can never reach 100% percent faithfulness, no game can ever do that. But it is apparent to me that the devs weren't even all that interested in crafting a reasonably faithful historical experience from the very beginning. Perhaps to ordinary western people who never cared much about history anyways the game can look pretty "authentic", but history enthusiasts should know better. In AoE2, anything that in some ways accurately represent real history should only be considered a nice bonus, not something that the devs are supposed to do.Interesting take on a video game. I suppose you think that pixels are historically inaccurate and so are "rally points". Well, you are right. There are some concessions to make so that aoe2 is a game and not a 1000 page history book.
As a video game compared to video games, aoe2 is very historically accurate, though. Take StarCraft 2. It's a game with space humans, alien bugs, and high tech aliens. I'd say it's a fair bit less historically accurate than Age of Empires 2. For instance, you can select units which are pretty similar to real life units that were fielded in battles on Earth in the past -- like knights and archers.
You can also play with civilizations that generally fell in the "middle ages", with an emphasis on those more familiar to Europeans. mayans are not well suited to that time, but as a small non European civilization I think we can give the devs some slack there. Similar with the huns -- it's a relatively unknown "civilization" that has some basis in sacks of Rome iirc. Romans, on the other hand, cut across the exact boundary given by the game devs for aoe2 originally. When they died out, age of empires 2 began (in Europe at least). This carries for about, what, 35 civilizations in the game at least? Adding romans in kinda sends even a casual enjoyed of age of empires into confusion -- "what? Aren't romans kind of antique?"
It doesn't matter as long as the game is fun, of course, but it is a move by the devs that starts to make you think the game is gonna have glowing fireball throwing mages (with magic like the centurion auras they're adding) and a new civ such as the Soviet Union -- because why not.
No game will ever be historically accurate. Otherwise, it would not be a game but rather medieval life simulator, which would not bo enjoyable to play. This, however, does not give you right to add anything to the game just because there is popular demand. Every good media has something called internal logic/internal consistency. Example: Some people think you can write anything as long as you are writing fantasy. Well, you can not. If, for example GRR Martin established in his ASOIAF book, that dead people can be ressurected but they will lose part of their humanity, he must obey this rule till the end of his books/story. If he does not, it is considered bad writing, plot hole, etc. Same thing apply here; if game design establish that game begins after fall of the Roman empire and continues through middle ages, then it has to obey this established rule. Conquerors expansion already broke that rule and yes, people DID criticize AoC back then, just not as much we do today.Seriously though, adding Romans is indeed ridiculous but this game has always been ridiculous history-wise. There must have been a time where the devs of AoK thought the game’s main historical period should be around the fall of Rome and the Early Middle Ages, hence “Goths” “Franks” “Britons” “Teutons”. However nowadays we all thought the game’s mainly about High Middle Ages, and Jeanne d’Arc being a “Frank” is probably the funniest thing ever. Bash the OP new civ and money grabbing DLC however you want but the game has had confusing civ choices from the very beginning. People on this forum never seemed to mind that until now, which is strange to me.
In case I was not being clear enough, I wasn't trying to justify Microsoft's decision to release this DLC and the Roman civ. Saying AoE2 has been highly historical inaccurate from the start isn't defending Microsoft, since the game was also released by Microsoft back then. However this doesn't mean I can't question the validity of the "Romans aren't historically relevant enough" argument. I don't have a problem with criticizing the corporate money grabbing scheme or the bad civ design, I just don't think criticizing it from a historical point of view is a good approach.No game will ever be historically accurate. Otherwise, it would not be a game but rather medieval life simulator, which would not bo enjoyable to play. This, however, does not give you right to add anything to the game just because there is popular demand. Every good media has something called internal logic/internal consistency. Example: Some people think you can write anything as long as you are writing fantasy. Well, you can not. If, for example GRR Martin established in his ASOIAF book, that dead people can be ressurected but they will lose part of their humanity, he must obey this rule till the end of his books/story. If he does not, it is considered bad writing, plot hole, etc. Same thing apply here; if game design establish that game begins after fall of the Roman empire and continues through middle ages, then it has to obey this established rule. Conquerors expansion already broke that rule and yes, people DID criticize AoC back then, just not as much we do today.
All this "AoE2 is not historically accurate, hence we can add stuff, that clearly does not follow internal consistency of game" is tiring. Guess what! Historical books are not 100% historically accurate either. They are nothing but generalization of past events based on handful of intentionally chosen historical records which has been interpreted by historian influenced by his own worldiview and beliefs. There were milions of things happening in past, many of which might or might not have had profound influence on historical process and we may or may not know about it, depednging whetver or not they left any trace that we could notice. Does that mean you can write history book about medieval period and add chapter about ancient Rome? No, you can't. You have established that subject of your research is medieval period and even though you can never achieve 100% accuracy or objectivity, this does not give you right to abandon your carefully defined subject.
PS: Apart from inability to achieve complete historical accuracy, there are other reasons why AoE2 was lacking accuracy. Such as: a) artistic licesne, which is nothing but deviaton from fact in order to achieve artistic purpose, in our case enjoyable gameplay; b) insufficient technological leve of early 2000's; c) perhaps lack of historical knowledge among game developers; etecera... None of this reasons give you right to blatantly violate obvious design of internal logic/consistency/coherence. That is also reason why I always opposed adding new dumbass civilizations with gimmick mechanics.
You are mixing internal consistency with historical accuracy. These are two different things. Internal consistency is given by game design, not neccessarily by history itself. But in order to make game appealing, there is a degree of familiarity implemented, such as medieval theme. So, some parts of game design is in accord with history, such as timeline, while others are not. However, both historically accurate and historically inaccurate parts are part of game design and its internal consistency/logic.The underlying problem, I think, is already mentioned in your post. The AoK devs already included many historical inaccurate things in the original game for reasons good or bad, which means the internal logic of the game itself has been highly historical inaccurate from the very start. Medieval people typically didn't use javelin throwers with a shield to counter enemy archers, crossbow wasn't an upgraded version of a bow, two handed sword wasn't an upgraded version of a single handed sword plus a shield, and Jeanne d'Arc wasn't a Frank. AoK devs established these things as the game's norm, as the game's identity, which in turn meant the game would forever remain highly historically inaccurate. Similarly, AoC devs added Meso civs, Spanish and Huns and ultimately got away with it, which in turn meant any other ridiculous civ (like Romans) could be added into the game. Their predecessors have already done it before, after all. Isn't this also a part of the game's internal logic?
My point is historical inaccurate stuff has always been a part of the game's internal logic and core identity, whatever the reason. Every civ has access to trebuchets even when they shouldn't according to history records and findings, because the gameplay requires so. Crossbowmen will always be an ungraded version of archers even when in real warfare they served different purposes, because the game has always been like this. Adding strange civs like Romans will always be okay with lots of, if not most players even when they don't really fit in historically speaking, because civs like Huns and Mayans already don't fit in historically speaking. Even if AoK had a solid internal logic in its civ choosing (and like I said, I personally think the AoK devs were already confused about the game's time period), AoC had already expanded, or ruined said logic. The addition of Romans is just the natural sequel of the addition of Huns, a civ that stopped being relevant even before the fall of Western Roman Empire.You are mixing internal consistency with historical accuracy. These are two different things. Internal consistency is given by game design, not neccessarily by history itself. But in order to make game appealing, there is a degree of familiarity implemented, such as medieval theme. So, some parts of game design is in accord with history, such as timeline, while others are not. However, both historically accurate and historically inaccurate parts are part of game design and its internal consistency/logic.
I personally always enjoy sorting out my thoughts with a needlessly serious discussion, though it is indeed quite time consuming. Have a nice day.Ah, you know what? You are right. Let them add anything they wish. I do not even play this game anymore and I certainly will not spend my days discussing this trivial stuff.
If you own HD, a bundle of HD + DE is an extra discount on DE for you, which is nice if you consider DE the.. 3rd? version of aoe2 to buy. Of course if you are a new player and think you need both, you are screwed.The fact that bundle sales also often include the original AoE I - H.D. Edition which is then going to be removed from support offers nothing except any platform/Microsoft getting money for no reason.
It's about 20 CAD. Which is 16 USD I think for me. But that's the way game purchases work, you can sort of FENCE games by buying them in certain countries/areas. But overall combine this cost with paying for High Definition version because you wanted bundles... Why not just allow people who have codes for all of the H.D. version & who have AoE II get this version for free? Or just make the Romans another free Civilisation... I just think it's hitting from two fronts here where 1 was bad enough, but they're double-dipping!new DLC is not expensive at all, 112 mxn (~6 usd) is very affordable, even here, I spend more on beer.
If you bought aoe1 DE on its release your critical thinking was already done to begin with.
Who is the guy who's milking us? He must know some aoe adepts will buy the game no matter what and guarantees that payroll from MicrosofttIt's about 20 CAD. Which is 16 USD I think for me. But that's the way game purchases work, you can sort of FENCE games by buying them in certain countries/areas. But overall combine this cost with paying for High Definition version because you wanted bundles... Why not just allow people who have codes for all of the H.D. version & who have AoE II get this version for free? Or just make the Romans another free Civilisation... I just think it's hitting from two fronts here where 1 was bad enough, but they're double-dipping!
Who is the guy who's milking us? He must know some aoe adepts will buy the game no matter what and guarantees that payroll from Microsoftt
Boom you got it.We are from different times, when this game was about love to play. Rayne made good points already. It is impossible to get where we were back then. AoE2 has been "hijacked" by people who made living off the game. Hence they will welcome all kind of content, good or bad. Anything to create fake hype and earn attention of young people.
As for Romans themselves, they are so out of place it is ridiculous. There are some people who argue that since we have huns and goths, Romans are fine as well. Well Huns were added in Conquerors expension which obviously went overboard with new civs such as "Spanish" or "Korea" so that is bad argument. Goths on the other hand peaked at the beginning of middle ages, fourth to fifth century with their kingdoms lasting few centuries later and crieman goths living well into medieval ages. Teutons is just cheese name for germanic people, akin to Franks. Teut (tout) is old germanic word which meant "all of us", "ours". It was basically "etnonym" in opposition to non-germanic people.
Historicity aside (it is game duh) AoE2 was very clearly designed as game revolving around middle ages which (more or less) has began with fall of (western) Roman Empire. Eastern Roman Empire continued all the way until 1453 and its people called and considered themselves true and only Romans out there. So AoE2 already had "Romans", they are just labeled Byznatines due to contemporary practice of calling it Byzantine empire, despite the fact, that it was Roman empire. Inhabitants of this political entity labeled themselves Rhomaioi, not Byzantines.
The DLC "Romans" are clearly meant to represent Roman empire from antiquity, whose existence began before Christ or before current era. It peaked at the beginning of 2nd century AD and quickly detteriorated from then. "Roman empire" of DLC as well as its predecessor Roman republic fits right into AoE1 timeline, since it was game that focused on antiquity.
The fact that AoE DE now contain Byzantines, Italians (which were unified in 19th! century) as well as Romans from antiquity is clear sign that "developers" are out of their minds. And let's not start talking about their OP civ bonuses or fact, that almost all of them are just copypaste of already existing bonuses of other civilizations. Summa summarun, AoE2 has been butchered for sole purpose of milking money of old beloved game. Sad to watch to happen, honestly...