Why I'm NOT buying Chronicles: Battle for Greece

[Kiwichris]

I love the ancient period and have been hoping for new Return of Rome content ever since it was released, but after buying AOE, AOE DE and Return of Rome only to see them abandoned and superseded by replacements (RoR was released less than two years ago) I have been burnt too many times.

I bought AOE DE only for it to be abandoned, in hindsight it was merely a test run for AOE II DE. I then bought RoR only for it to be abandoned a year-and-a-half later, realising only now it was just a cynical one-off cash grab as no new content for it has been released or is planned. I feel as if I pay for this DLC as well I am just incentivising this vicious cycle to continue, paying more money for half-regurgitated content again and again. The best response is to vote with my wallet and opt out.

[FloosWorld]

The only thing Chronicles and RoR have in common is their setting. Apart from that they're entirely separate

[Kiwichris]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

The only thing Chronicles and RoR have in common is their setting. Apart from that they're entirely separate

Exactly, they are creating a new game mode for the ancient setting, rather than improve one of the two that already exist.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

The only thing Chronicles and RoR have in common is their setting. Apart from that they're entirely separate

Not even. RoR goes back into teh Stone and Bronze Ages, Chronicles, at least thus far, is purely Iron Age and Antiquity.

That is why the Castle Age equivalent is called Classical Age. Classical Antiquity.

[BirbNotBird]

Originally posted by Kiwichris:

Exactly, they are creating a new game mode for the ancient setting, rather than improve one of the two that already exist.

And nothing wrong with taking extra directions and liberty? Why force one gameplay while you can innovate new ones without insulting the old?

Sure people mad when AOE4 released, but some of us are okay with it? It's not like one thing replace another thing totally. AOE4 is unique on its own.

Gameplays between ROR and Chronicles are different. I will totally buy it. Fun is all what matter.

Edit: ROR is still AOE1 despite of blatant cashgrab. Chronicles on the other hands are more like Rome At War, and I will enjoy it as it's a RaW, not AOE1 nor AOE2 content. Buy what you want to enjoy, not what force you to finish the achievement or something like a job.

[Whakahoatanga]

I'll do the same. I've bought AOE2 to get to play AOE2, not some Ancient Era mod. If I wanted to play that, there's AOE1 for that, though it is apparently abandoned. Shows you how much Forgotten Empires actually really cares about their games.

Still waiting for African/American/Oceanian content.

[Crossil]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

The only thing Chronicles and RoR have in common is their setting. Apart from that they're entirely separate

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Not even. RoR goes back into teh Stone and Bronze Ages, Chronicles, at least thus far, is purely Iron Age and Antiquity.

That changes what about his argument? The period meant to be depicted by AoE1 has another rebooted version to replace that which was before for the 3rd time in a row, instead of expanding on DE or RoR proper.

What guarantee is there that they won't abandon this project as well? It's reasonable to doubt their intentions.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Crossil:

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

The only thing Chronicles and RoR have in common is their setting. Apart from that they're entirely separate

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Not even. RoR goes back into teh Stone and Bronze Ages, Chronicles, at least thus far, is purely Iron Age and Antiquity.

That changes what about his argument? The period meant to be depicted by AoE1 has another rebooted version to replace that which was before for the 3rd time in a row, instead of expanding on DE or RoR proper.

What guarantee is there that they won't abandon this project as well? It's reasonable to doubt their intentions.

It changes evrything. Because Chronicles is set in Antiquity, you are unlikely to see many civs that went away with the Bronze Age, like Babylon or the Hittites.

It also mean actual Cavalry makes sense, and you could even see a Scythians or Xiognu civs with Cav Archers in Age 2. Neo Assyrians should definitely have Lancers in Age 2, they propelled Cavalry as an actual battlefield unit with their tactics and early adoption of Iron for weapons and armour (literally the first Iron Age civilization).

This means the Chronicles civ and unit roster will be MUCH different than AoE1's, and much closer to AoE2's. So will their mechanics, and abundance of unique techs and units.

That is something you can no longer compaginate with AoE1, because AoE1 civs in RoR would not be able to compete. They do not even have a Fort!

[FloosWorld]

Originally posted by Crossil:

What guarantee is there that they won't abandon this project as well? It's reasonable to doubt their intentions.

1) This DLC is not made by the "default" team at Forgotten but rather by CaptureAge
2) CaptureAge hired the team behind the Romae ad Bellum mod
3) The store page says Chronicles is the inaugural chapter of a multipart saga

I feel like people see Ancient soldiers and think "Yep, this must be AoE 1".

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Originally posted by Crossil:

What guarantee is there that they won't abandon this project as well? It's reasonable to doubt their intentions.

1) This DLC is not made by the "default" team at Forgotten but rather by CaptureAge
2) CaptureAge hired the team behind the Romae ad Bellum mod
3) The store page says Chronicles is the inaugural chapter of a multipart saga

The store page says a lot, but people will not read.

This is done by a mod team, not even teh primary AoE2De team, which just means it is extra content, on top of an already HUGE game.

Yet people complain...

If only they spent that time badgering the main team devs to get us Regional rosters, which would make developing new civs easier...

[KaRma]

RoR was the worst mistake in AoE2. I really hope they don't add more content of that 5h17 DLC.

[Crossil]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Crossil:

That changes what about his argument? The period meant to be depicted by AoE1 has another rebooted version to replace that which was before for the 3rd time in a row, instead of expanding on DE or RoR proper.

What guarantee is there that they won't abandon this project as well? It's reasonable to doubt their intentions.

It changes evrything. Because Chronicles is set in Antiquity, you are unlikely to see many civs that went away with the Bronze Age, like Babylon or the Hittites.

It also mean actual Cavalry makes sense, and you could even see a Scythians or Xiognu civs with Cav Archers in Age 2. Neo Assyrians should definitely have Lancers in Age 2, they propelled Cavalry as an actual battlefield unit with their tactics and early adoption of Iron for weapons and armour (literally the first Iron Age civilization).

This means the Chronicles civ and unit roster will be MUCH different than AoE1's, and much closer to AoE2's. So will their mechanics, and abundance of unique techs and units.

That is something you can no longer compaginate with AoE1, because AoE1 civs in RoR would not be able to compete. They do not even have a Fort!

You're as daft as always. Every single thing that you make up here could've as well have been imported into Return of Rome. It could have as well have been implemented in previous versions of AoE1, and they could have elevated RoR EVEN NOW AFTER ITS RELEASE to actually be up to date.

And again, nothing you say here absolves them of their past errors that they keep doing. Twice before they killed AoE1, by what metric if any can you guarantee that this one won't be another failed reboot?

Skepticism as stated by OP is fully justified.

Originally posted by FloosWorld:

Originally posted by Crossil:

What guarantee is there that they won't abandon this project as well? It's reasonable to doubt their intentions.

1) This DLC is not made by the "default" team at Forgotten but rather by CaptureAge
2) CaptureAge hired the team behind the Romae ad Bellum mod
3) The store page says Chronicles is the inaugural chapter of a multipart saga

I feel like people see Ancient soldiers and think "Yep, this must be AoE 1".

Which changes nothing about what he said.

A different team or a different game can as easily be abandoned as that which used to be. RoR was abandoned with nearly no support after its release. AoE1 has been killed off twice by now, rather than being reworked into a functional product, and each time they decided to reboot the game based in this time period.

By what criteria can you assure us that they won't reboot this again later? What prevents this from factually being a one-off that simply isn'r repeated after all, or for it to just be made obsolete by a different product that's in the same engine but as a separate product of its own?

AoE1 is dead, twice over, AoE4 is taking years to get individual new campaigns at best. AoE3 is experiencing quite a drought and is seeing almost no new campaign content. A different team made this, but what guarantee is there that this will continue? What guarantee is there that this is the factual final product?

[Scintilus]

All the new dlcs for AOE 2 are experimental so beware. I'll wait when they release new civs for multiplayer and ranked. The AOE 3 DLC has been delayed but instead we get this experimental DLC immediately for AOE 2 DE. This shows the priority of World's Edge for profit and cash grab instead of having something for the anniversary of AOE 3 DE instead we get a greeting in X.

[Quintem]

So much whining on the Steam forums about this. You look at YouTube comments and many people are happy and excited for this content.

Originally posted by Scintilus:

All the new dlcs for AOE 2 are experimental so beware. I'll wait when they release new civs for multiplayer and ranked. The AOE 3 DLC has been delayed but instead we get this experimental DLC immediately for AOE 2 DE. This shows the priority of World's Edge for profit and cash grab instead of having something for the anniversary of AOE 3 DE instead we get a greeting in X.

I really don't understand the logic of "Cash grab" when this is a 21 mission long campaign with lots of new custom assets, art, cinematics and a bunch of other things.

You want a "cash grab" look at the portraits not at a fully realised campaign than has a lot of people excited to play it.

Originally posted by Mu:

This should be a DLC for AoE1DE instead of diluting AoE2 even more but their market analysts probably said AoE1DE is dead or something in that sense.

Sometimes less is more, stop milking AoE2 you're ruining what was considered a great remake of a classic RTS.

So what try to create this in an older less feature rich, lower player base product. They're a business not a charity. Seriously I get it bashing corporations is fun, but they're not going make content that barely anyone will buy and will not reinforce stability of an existing product.

How the hell does this dilute AoE2?

Man you people confuse the heck out of me.

[Lilim]

Originally posted by Kiwichris:

Why I'm NOT buying Chronicles: Battle for Greece

I'm still undecided.

So far I've bought every DLC to support the game. I even bought those silly animated icons (I haven't looked at them once), but I think I'll skip C:BfG .

Originally posted by Whakahoatanga:

I've bought AOE2 to get to play AOE2, not some Ancient Era mod.

Me too.

I also feel sorry for achivement hunters, by the way. They have to buy the DLC if they want to get 100% again.

[kenntak7]

I am preording this. I think it is creative and will be done well. That's what I want in a DLC.