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content ever since it was released, but after buying AOE, AOE DE and Return of Rome only to see them abandoned and superseded by replacements (RoR was released less than two years ago) I have been burnt too many times.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

[James3157]

Publicado originalmente por BirbNotBird:

Snip but I think it's worth to discuss about the price and content.

We have been so skeptical about recent DLCs. Not all of them sell well, bundled with the fact that each is 5$ more expensive. We are as a customers want to get more value out of the DLC than we did.

ROR is a self-contained project within AOE2. Till this post there's no way to interact between both games. People demanded crossplay, seperare purchase, and ROR should be more AOE2. This is not wrong as we are talking AOE2 fans here.

V&V rather disappointing when you know half of them are workshop recycled. Also nothing new plus scenario is just campaigns. Again, unique mechanism is great, but unfortunately like ROR, it's self contained.

This attributed to why the design of the DLC feels anarchic to me. Cross-plau with 2DE, new assets within 2DE. I can say that I'm satisfied at least knowing these contents won't get "abandoned" but rather integrated to a part of 2DE. I hope that Chronicles is more optional despite of being in 2DE dataset.

Will it get flop? Possibly given how diverse and demanding the fan base is. Arguably, they should release both new AOE2DE content and Chronicles content as the same time. Then again, even if this get flopped, I shall enjoy the content within it, just as I did with ROR.

I do not think that this dlc is going to flop as much as V&V or even RoR, but I could also be wrong if the campaigns are not as good as we are hoping them to be. All these campaigns are actually new as well contrary to V&V and the newest campaigns added to RoR. None of us have ever played them from any free campaign mods with this upcoming dlc.

[Quintem]

Publicado originalmente por K1tt3nM4ng0:

I would say your post is a lot of words for saying things that everyone here already knows and understands, even reiterating some actual points that I made in the post that you dissed for its length and not really making any new one of your own. I guess you like being meta.

Touché.

[BirbNotBird]

Publicado originalmente por James3157:

I do not think that this dlc is going to flop as much as V&V or even RoR, but I could also wrong if the campaigns are not as good as we are hoping them to be. All these campaigns are actually new as well contrary to V&V and the newest campaigns added to RoR. None of us have ever played them.

Not so sure, given I cannot understand all of the fanbase. I'm sure some of people definitely not enjoying the cross play thingy, despite it's on demand since ROR. And plus some people will go as far as buying the DLC and review bomb them.

Whether this DLC upsets whoever wants to keep 2DE being 2DE, I don't blame em, it's alright to be skeptical about something really new, especially it's not medieval (Looking at the Huns being classic guy in the room here). I think purists of AOE2 may kill one of the most innovative DLC so far.

I'm certain that 15$ of BfG is way better than 15$ spent on ROR or V&V. I will bundle in the future because it's fun for me, and I certainly don't care whether it's violating the hidden rule of timeline. The description of the DLC is clear and better, and not as muddy as ROR and V&V.

I believe a chance of this DLC will get flopped because it's too different from majority of players who are not its intended audience. But maybe I can be wrong.

[James3157]

Publicado originalmente por BirbNotBird:

Not so sure, given I cannot understand all of the fanbase. I'm sure some of people definitely not enjoying the cross play thingy, despite it's on demand since ROR. And plus some people will go as far as buying the DLC and review bomb them.

Whether this DLC upsets whoever wants to keep 2DE being 2DE, I don't blame em, it's alright to be skeptical about something really new, especially it's not medieval (Looking at the Huns being classic guy in the room here). I think purists of AOE2 may kill one of the most innovative DLC so far.

I'm certain that 15$ of BfG is way better than 15$ spent on ROR or V&V. I will bundle in the future because it's fun for me, and I certainly don't care whether it's violating the hidden rule of timeline. The description of the DLC is clear and better, and not as muddy as ROR and V&V.

I believe a chance of this DLC will get flopped because it's too different from majority of players who are not its intended audience. But maybe I can be wrong.

I think that we can agree in at least some ways. It would be sad to see this dlc flop because of it being "criminally underrated" by trolls who are not willing to give this dlc a chance even if it does have campaigns that are actually good and fun to play and even with CaptureAge working on this instead of Forgotten Empires that only give a negative review because of the timeline and not for the most important reason which are the campaigns. Purists are in other words people who are not willing to think outside of the "box" in other ways to play AoE II: DE besides the Middle Ages.

[BirbNotBird]

Agreed with what you said, noting that this DLC is worked on by different team.

FE is responsible for managing contents of 2DE and ROR. Admittedly that ROR was a mismatch, not a mistake, but marketing and content providing could be better. It's heavily depend on FE that whether ROR can get additional contents.

Chronicles is worked on by CaptureAge team. Again, likely that Forgotten Empire does not want others to involve in classic AOE2DE contents so CA team set on seperate series instead of new content for ROR. And beside, gameplay in the DLC is unique from ROR and 2DE

[K1tt3nM4ng0]

Publicado originalmente por James3157:

Publicado originalmente por K1tt3nM4ng0:

I certainly agree with OP and Crossil; this looks like another experimental DLC that might be abandoned soon after launch and that no one asked for, much like RoR was (certainly not how we got it), while very likely diverting resources from core AoE2:DE setting DLC. It really looks like what a lot of people thought RoR should have been, which is to say an antiquity-based game with AoE2:DE mechanics and engine.

I would argue that it was also poorly marketed as well, with stupid Achievement 319 probably tied to it and the DLC being announced just as it becomes available for pre-order instead of developers trying to hype it a bit beforehand. This looks like a marketing, and potentially commercial, flop in the making, and a self-fulfilling prophecy for its eventual abandonment by the devs.

That being said, it does feel like the devs are confronted to so many different expectations that it would be impossible at some point to really meet all of them. All other things being equal, I'm pretty much the kind of player this is aimed at (i.e. SP only, though I watch AoE2 tournaments), but even I am disappointed that these are not AoE2:DE campaigns we're getting, but really a soft RoR reboot that might go the same way.

Even then, I'll likely buy the DLC because I've abandoned all hope that AoE2:DE still is what it used to be and what drew me to it; that opting out of this new DLC isn't going to bring back the focus where I'd like it to be, that is SP AOE2:DE content; new DLCs adding civs like there was no tomorrow will certainly still be made; and, more positively, I expect that the quality of the gameplay will probably more or less justify the price.

I'd still wish that they'd just call the Persians Persians instead of 'Achaemenids', as as historically accurate as this might seem, this just sounds like a sort of killer plant I'd chase around with a silver sword in a Witcher game. Being historically accurate shouldn't necessarily mean being pedantic.

You have a right to be skeptical, but none of us know how good these campaigns are and they are actually new contrary to Victors and Vanquished where most of the so called campaigns (also known as custom scenarios/historical battles) are recycled. Meaning none of us have actually played them yet. If I were to decide whether I like this dlc or not only has to do with the quality of the campaigns mainly instead of its civs (although I am willing to admit that I like their tech tree's after I watched Ornlu the Wolf's video of them of YouTube) and time period they are based on. If the quality of the campaigns are overall good and fun instead of boring/disappointing then I think it will be an overall good dlc.

Again, I think you misread my post. I'm not skeptical, I'm downright critical of the way that this has been handled and how they're bundling this with AoE2:DE - even if this shares a lot of assets, this should be separate as game clients. I still understand that they're likely doing to this to ensure that people can play this interactively with more than 3 civs, so they can start small and hedge against the risk of spending too much up front, but then again that does tell you of a risk-averse strategy which could end up with this being another dead end.

And of course I understand that no one has played this yet, so we don't actually know whether or not it will be good. But the devs have a good track record with development campaigns and, while I understand that those are different people working on this, I trust that the devs responsible for the core game will do the requisite quality control before releasing this. Apart from a handful of missions on V&V that were stinkers, even those were playable and even good. (Yes, I'm even one of the few who enjoyed the Ragnar scenario.)

Publicado originalmente por BirbNotBird:

Publicado originalmente por K1tt3nM4ng0:

I certainly agree with OP and Crossil; this looks like another experimental DLC that might be abandoned soon after launch and that no one asked for, much like RoR was (certainly not how we got it), while very likely diverting resources from core AoE2:DE setting DLC. It really looks like what a lot of people thought RoR should have been, which is to say an antiquity-based game with AoE2:DE mechanics and engine.

Snip but I think it's worth to discuss about the price and content.

We have been so skeptical about recent DLCs. Not all of them sell well, bundled with the fact that each is 5$ more expensive. We are as a customers want to get more value out of the DLC than we did.

ROR is a self-contained project within AOE2. Till this post there's no way to interact between both games. People demanded crossplay, seperare purchase, and ROR should be more AOE2. This is not wrong as we are talking AOE2 fans here.

V&V rather disappointing when you know half of them are workshop recycled. Also nothing new plus scenario is just campaigns. Again, unique mechanism is great, but unfortunately like ROR, it's self contained.

This attributed to why the design of the DLC feels anarchic to me. Cross-plau with 2DE, new assets within 2DE. I can say that I'm satisfied at least knowing these contents won't get "abandoned" but rather integrated to a part of 2DE. I hope that Chronicles is more optional despite of being in 2DE dataset.

Will it get flop? Possibly given how diverse and demanding the fan base is. Arguably, they should release both new AOE2DE content and Chronicles content as the same time. Then again, even if this get flopped, I shall enjoy the content within it, just as I did with ROR.

I don't feel there's a lot there about pricing. My sense about pricing is that even if the increase we've seen was a bit steep, and that it feels even more so when we're also facing some shrinkflation (Mountain Royals didn't have any six-mission campaigns even if it could have used at least one if not two of them for storytelling; V&V - 'nuff said), this at least will feature a rethinking of the AoE2 system for Antiquity (so essentially an AoE1 remake), 3 new civs, and an all-new campaign with 21 missions with all the trimmings - as above, we obviously cannot know about quality before playing it, but the track record in this case is good. So I say the price of this DLC seems justified, regardless of what one thinks of how it fits in (or not) with AoE2:DE.

[Kiwichris]

Publicado originalmente por BirbNotBird:

... I think at the end we are responsible for buying and enjoying whatever products. No one should define what is fun for all fanbase of AOE2.

I completely agree, which is why I started the thread stating only why I don't like the looks of this and why I won't be getting it. For the people that do get it I hope they enjoy it.

[Skrain]

Why would I buy DLC for this trash when they still haven't fixed the pathfinding?

[Burak]

Also

I find really miserable and pathetic and in each and every patch the pathing is getting worse and worse and to make things even worst there is always some stupid bugs that are game breaking and are really easy to avoid if you simply test them with enough time

AOE is only live because of the nostalgia of 30+ old people, but each day i question why the ♥♥♥♥ im still playing when it is infuriating to see how lame the pathing is and how instead of improving is getting stupidly annoying

SO Microsoft is only worried to make a cash-grab DLC that no one asked and want quick buks for profits instead of trying to fix at least someting so simple as the pathfinding.
I mean, i ran a test, simply a long palisade wall with 1 tile open really far away, and i tell you villagers are getting so stupid that they are unable to walk a simply ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ straight line

[BirbNotBird]

Publicado originalmente por Kiwichris:

I completely agree, which is why I started the thread stating only why I don't like the looks of this and why I won't be getting it. For the people that do get it I hope they enjoy it.

And I think it's fine for you to believe like that. Microsoft, like other corpos, are designed to collect more money. Bindly put faith in them is bad, and criticize with lack of understanding just the same can of worm in other spectrum. Both actions kinda easily get muddy, and not healthy for the game imo.

Not even helping that a big corpo usually contain smaller teams. And it's a mess to support who and why. Some great games like Hi Fi Rush is from Bethesda, but then a cut is go to you know who. A customer's bargain power plays a huge advantage, although a lot of times fans argue on which direction is best for series. I think a compromise that ensure the quality of the game while not killing creativity is what we customers should agree on together.

At first my point was, why "FE" develop this DLC. I read it and oh, it was CA. It feels really weird for me to have a negative feeling on CA, when it should be FE. So this DLC is more like a side dish to me. I think this is a sign that two different studios work in a game, and I don't think it compromise the development. FE should be held accountable, which they stated their points in announcement so it's a temporary pass for me.

Another is that I see the quality of BfG caters more to what former experiment DLCs failed. I think a majority of us wants crossplay, and campaigns with good immersion. So BfG ticks another to me.

I still want more content for ROR and 2DE, and definitely more bug patching (it's becoming a festival at this point). I think the compromise of BfG is tempting for its intended audience. I hope this is not a way to say "We forgot ROR, get another antiquity" but more like "we have 1,ROR,2,3,4,myth,some2spinoffs".

Will having more contents dilute the game? I agree on that so despite being integrated into main game, spin offs DLC should have some sets of barriers, and BfG solved that already.

A new team with innovative approach and I am convinced to test this new and innovative DLC. It could be a real flop, but I certain I will have my fun with my and others money spent on it.

Thank you for your point of view though. I can't blame you due to the nature of corporate's game. I played an offline game that killed itself with bugs while creativity drain happened so clear, so I aware the risks of the future.

[wetbandit1986]

Looking forward to play new aoe2 dlc. Dont know why are so many ppl upset. Aoe2de is great and have new content. Even some more hated dlc have ben great for me and was good value. 15-20e in todays day and age is nothing coffee money

[jonoliveira12]

Publicado originalmente por wetbandit1986:

Looking forward to play new aoe2 dlc. Dont know why are so many ppl upset. Aoe2de is great and have new content. Even some more hated dlc have ben great for me and was good value. 15-20e in todays day and age is nothing coffee money

I can only hope they release anotehr 5 DLC like this, minimum.

Punic Wars, Alexander's Conquests, Rise of Neo Babylon, Unification of Maurya, Era of the Five Barbarians, Huns Migrations, Reign of the Goths, Nubian Egypt, Building of Carthage, Fall of Jerusalem...

So many events to choose from!

[Kiwichris]

Publicado originalmente por jonoliveira12:

I can only hope they release anotehr 5 DLC like this, minimum.

Punic Wars, Alexander's Conquests, Rise of Neo Babylon, Unification of Maurya, Era of the Five Barbarians, Huns Migrations, Reign of the Goths, Nubian Egypt, Building of Carthage, Fall of Jerusalem...

So many events to choose from!

I (mostly) agree with this, I would hasten to add however that amazing Ancient history themed DLCs covering these events could have been just added to Return of Rome and make it even better than it is. Creating a new module of AOE II would not be necessary.

[jonoliveira12]

Publicado originalmente por Kiwichris:

Publicado originalmente por jonoliveira12:

I can only hope they release anotehr 5 DLC like this, minimum.

Punic Wars, Alexander's Conquests, Rise of Neo Babylon, Unification of Maurya, Era of the Five Barbarians, Huns Migrations, Reign of the Goths, Nubian Egypt, Building of Carthage, Fall of Jerusalem...

So many events to choose from!

I (mostly) agree with this, I would hasten to add however that amazing Ancient history themed DLCs covering these events could have been just added to Return of Rome and make it even better than it is. Creating a new module of AOE II would not be necessary.

Except it could not, Rise of Rome was made to appeal to the vietnamese AoE1 purists, which is why the devs were so afraid of large changes. BfG is a lot more like AoE2, and even then it has deep changes too, when compared to RoR.

RoR is sadly, but rightfully, dead.

[Flakstruk]

This is it.

Not everyone want full conversion mods of game. Butbsome people do. They're at least trying to please an ever more dispirate community.