Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If they hadn't altered the other campaigns at all and just had this one remade campaign, the entire experience would have been way less jarring. Because when you've played this game before and you know someone is supposed to say something and it's either cut short, diced up, or omitted all together, it's a bit like fingernails on your brain because you know it's not right.
But yeah, Shadow, I liked it. Some of the voice acting did seem.....dull and unenthused, but it all pays off when Chatyon pulls his pistol on Holme and yes at him to walk away right now.
I will confess, I did spoil the cutscenes a little before proceeding for the sake of a review. Voice acting is fine minus the 'Uncle' in parts. Story is 'okay', kinda like the rest of the game (both original and DE) Though this one line made me cringe:
"I was thinking how you will be the butt of Indian jokes for years to come."
That felt WAY too modern and childish in my opinion. Should've just kept the anger and made a much harsher insult. Like some Lakota 'Shadow the Hedgehog'. I also dislike the fact that he kept that 'white man possibly evil' tone the whole time. Don't get me wrong, it's a fine tone for the story, but I would've preferred if he gradually got up to that. Might be a bit rose-tinted of the original though.
Why did they remove the fight with the Natives though? Isn't that what happened in the real events?
1. Again we have General Caster the villain. In the original, he seemed to be a man who wants to reach a question with the Indians in peace, but since Chayton arrives to him too late, he cannot do anything. The dialogue between him and Chayton is emphatically polite and respectful, and the phrase "you are for whites or for Indians" may sound rude, but it clearly emphasizes the main idea of the script.
In the remake, this is an evil American officer, to whom Chayton speaks as caustically as possible, and who literally sits and waits for the moment to shoot the Indians simply because he is "bad".
Caster in the original script is a little sorry and he died, on the whole, quite heroically. In the remake, he just dies and everyone is happy.
2. They removed Amelia from the script. On the one hand, I like that now she does not mention subsequent events during which she would have been over 100 years old. On the other hand, the dialogue between Amelia and Chayton seemed to me very important for understanding the protagonist. Anyway.
3. All the moments with "Uncle Frank" instead of the Wild Horse "or whatever he was called in the original" seem very superfluous and frankly unnecessary. In the original, Chayton tried to resolve the issue peacefully, the Indians did not look like good self-righteous people who just need to be kicked in the eye and more painfully in order to feel sympathy for them. The original is generally as neutral as possible in the conflict between the Americans and the Sioux, interceding for the latter only in the 4th mission, where Hill sends Chayton to kill civilians. Here, for some reason, the persona of the uncle is introduced, which looks as ridiculous and unnecessary as possible in this scenario.
4. Billy Holm, oh ... In the original, it was a greedy and rather plump guy who was trying to build his comfort zone and get rich. He is a scoundrel and a scoundrel, but his image is not brought to the very bottom. Yes, and the fact that he meets Chayton already during the campaign I like a little more, because in the remake this whole story with joint participation in the Civil War simply pulls the blanket over itself, which makes it seem that Chayton is friends with him ONLY because of the events of the past, and Holm is ready to sell his mother for the sake of gold. Although their relationship became more ambiguous, this is a plus, but it was possible to do without mentioning the stories with the golden teeth of the fallen soldiers, and the fact that in the 4th mission, Hill openly throws the hero, and not Chayton makes his choice.
But after going over to the Sioux side, Chayton kept his pants! At least something good).
Crazy Horse was his name, and he was a real historical figure in the American Souix War. I do dislike the lack of growth Cheyton has in it as well. The neutrality was a nice touch, or perhaps they could've went on something about evil on both sides for the new one. That would've been a nicer change. May just be parts of my cynical nature but I love grey morality in stories.
Damn, that just sounds... bad. It still surprises me that they so heavily focused on that
It be nice to find out how much the campaigns can be edited. Could possibly put back all the original stuff if someone had the time and patience to do it. I'd very much like to put back a lot of the censored lines at the least.
They act like the Lakota are just peaceful people who never looked for a fight. They had a warrior culture and had attacked settlers for entering their land. Not that the US is innocent, breaking the treaty establisted from Red Clouds War (a scenario which they completly rewrote to just be more outlaw fighting. neather side is pure and the campagin at like the Lakota did nothing wrong. The original was neutral and Cheyton only switched side when Billy pushed thing to far, even then he tried to go to Custer and talk him out of the fight.
I haven't played the original version, but replacing some of the Lakota enemies with bandits and rival miners makes a lot of sense. I was prompted to look up information about this era, and the original game really demonized the Lakota for defending their home. I do wonder why Crazy Horse was replaced by a fictional character, but I figure that Warbonnet is meant to replace Amelia as the family figure in the story.
Overall, Shadow was really fun. I almost wish it was a little longer so that it could be fleshed out more. (While Fire was not as fun for me, since the story felt contrived a lot of the time. Only Valley Forge really felt fun to me.)
As for "censored", what was censored in the other campaigns? Aside from Kanien's name and text replacements for Iroquois/Sioux, I didn't notice any changes.
Other censored in campaings? Not that much. They also removed Kanien's sister's name completly from dialogues for whatever reason. Also also, you've got "American general" instead of Andrew Jackson - yet "history" section in the game still talks about Jackson.
I appreciate your input. As someone who played the original, I disagree with a lot of it. However, I do appreciate you giving an opinion that is opposite of mine and the reasoning behind it.
A lot of original lines were removed from the original, such as the removal of harsh language which wasn't done very good. I am of the opinion that if they were ganna do that, they should've re-recorded all of it. It's rather baffling they didn't given that AOE2 was mostly revoiced in their campaigns. If you never played the original though, then you may only notice one or two chopped audio bits.
While fighting bandits is certainly fine, I miss being able to fight them originally and then suddenly join their side towards the middle like in the original.
They removed Crazy Horse for the reason of family privacy that "his modern family members never did give permission for the original to use his likeness" (that's me trying to paraphrase it). I didn't read that they upright denied it though, and it seems ironic then that they kept General Custer, assuming he still has family today.
A lot of Shadow is just the original campaign but with changed lines and voices. Original missions and cutscenes that they couldn't mold to fit the new story was removed. The original is longer, but the story is mostly different.
Looking up the dialogue of the original version, it kind of needed some work even if it kept the same plot. The story of missions 3 and 4 paint the Lakota as nasty savages, when it was US prospectors that broke the Fort Laramie Treaty to mine gold. By the time Chayton realizes how Holme and the US have demonized the Lakota, a lot of people might have already given up on the campaign assuming it was racist.
As for dialogue, I had thought it was better than the base game and Fire. Nathaniel kept bringing up his family fortune to explain away expensive things his army shouldn't have, while Chayton and Holme felt like they were in a Western TV series. And Custer giving Chayton a way to stop the war without directly saying so and risking loss of face was a really tense scene that wouldn't feel as serious if he just said "bring me X and we'll turn around".
Hah, whatever you say.
We've got different opinions I guess, which is fine.
It's been around for a decade and barely anyone made a fuss about it. And yes it did "depict" them as "savages" because it was seem from the perspective of the Falcon Company. That was until it was understood why they were fighting.
I get wanting to be a little less stereotypical since the original embraced stereotypes of all cultures (Europeans, Natives, Asians), though I believe it would've benefited more if they kept the original concept of Shadows, which was wanting to not have any conflicts between both sides but slowly realizing one must pick a side and he chose his. The new one just seems one sided out of the gate and the character barely grows at all. He wasn't even "Lakota" originally. They added that in to the new story.
As for Chayton's parentage, everything I've seen has him as half-Lakota in both versions. His Lakota dad seems to be implied to be dead in the new script, though, so he was probably not focused on in the original.
Ultimately, it seems the biggest differences between the versions, summarized, are:
- Original TWC: More focus on the native vs. US conflict, with the turning point being Chayton realizing his friend and the prospectors are racist. Chayton's native roots downplayed.
- Rewritten DE: More focus on establishing Chayton and his friend as old buddies, pointing out the racism earlier while Chayton tries to give the benefit of the doubt. Fewer native enemies, focusing on European-style enemies. Chayton's native roots played up via replacing Crazy Horse with Chayton's uncle.
So while the original focuses on Chayton deciding not to back the US encroachment on the Lakota after having been a big part of the problem, the rewrite is a more character-focused story where Chayton and the antagonist were better friends. I think this is why I like the new version so much, since the characters felt so secondary to the story in the base game and Fire. Two lines in the opening scene establishing that Chayton knew the antagonist before the story even began just feels more powerful than those first two missions being the friendship-building phase, as in the original.
Overall, I guess the quality is going to depend on whether the player wants a dramatization of history (like the AoE2 campaigns) or a more character-focused story based in history. AoE3 is primarily the latter, with the Asian campaigns probably being the best expression of that intent.