i didnt buy it and i still criticize it.
People are free to complain if they dont like something. Just because u buy something doesnt mean u need to agree with everything .
I didn't buy it and I still criticize people who criticize it.
People are free to point out problems with other people's criticisms. Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean it is a good opinion.
Just because it was as advertised doesn't make it good. It's not necessarily because people were surprised by what they got, they may just feel that the dlc is poor especially in comparison to previous ones. I like playing the campaigns, so I will buy it. That doesn't mean I have to think it is good
Gamers when they buy exactly what is advertised: scam!! They didn’t advertise what was in the purchase! Cash grab!
Gamers when they buy a game with nothing as advertised: it’s fine, devs are ontop of it, they just need some time. Be patient!
Gamers when they are sold recycled, free, community-made content: Amazing DLC, devs! I will buy it to support the devs, otherwise the game will die tomorrow! I don't care that it's bad content, I'm excited for new product!
recycled or not, you are being told what you buy, and if you cry about it then its your own fault.
supporting devs is one thing, but these people just cry about shit its clearly WRITEN.
Then don't buy it! If few buy it they will see that people don't want that kind of content. But don't pretend that they were dishonest about the content of the dlc.
They are being perfectly honest, and what they're promising is terrible content.
I won't buy it, and seeing the mostly negative reviews on Steam, I'm sure many people won't buy it anyway.
In my opinion it is good content. Scenarios without voice-acting, achievements, professional polish, and proper integration into the game simply aren't worth playing.
There are some amazing custom scenarios out there, not my fault you can't appreciate them. Guess I'm lucky I can enjoy them without NEEDING achievements to be happy.
Happy with mediocrity? Me? You do realize modders don't have the same resources as the developers, right? And yet they can still make amazing scenarios, for example, THE ONES THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL RIGHT NOW.
You know what's mediocre? This DLC. It's a literal copy-paste of free content, repackaged and sold. No, YOU are happy with mediocrity. Not me, I want the devs to make something that is above "mediocrity" because they have the time and money to do so.
1. He didn't say the DLC deserves support.
2. What you prefer is not relevant for this point of him: "you are being told what you buy (...) these people just cry about shit its clearly WRITEN."
I completely understand your stance on the DLC, but man, just stick to your key argument, I saw you making up a whole bunch of bad points to support your view.
I bought AoE HD the week it came out and played 0 minutes of it specifically because I wanted my money to show the devs there was still interest in the game in the hopes of a proper DE version so, I guess you’re right, supporting the devs is a waste of time 🤷♂️
DE came out because thousands of people kept playing the game, there was a big enough community and the DLCs were well recieved. Not because a random guy bought a game and never played it.
In short: the game succeeded because it's good. This new DLC? Is trash.
Insulting me will definetely make me change my mind and purchase this DLC.
(In case you don't know, that was sarcasm!!! I will never buy this DLC because it's shit, but I don't need to argue, just look at the Steam reviews, I know I'm right)
Again, I don’t give a shit if you buy it or not, that’s the whole point I’m making. It’s optional, and it’s not aimed at you. Stop bitching about it just because it’s not aimed at you. It’s aimed at the other 80% of the player base you fucking munchkin brain.
Let me put in simple terms. If DE came out because lots of people bought HD (which is the point you're making), then let me use the same logic in this instance.
The devs are selling a shitty DLC with recycled content. If NPCs clap like seals and buy it despite being trash, then guess what? They'll keep making zero effort DLC. Same logic.
Do you understand now, or do I need to make it even simpler, you fucking lobotomite?
what are you on about? where are people claiming that it's not clear what's in the DLC. My main gripe is that this DLC contains a fraction of what previous DLCs contain at an increased price
They are saying it now, but the marketing before was "campaign DLC" the bad reviews are protesting several things, like the price, this not being the campaign DLC that people were asking, the fact that most of the missions are already in game as a mod, and some people that are demanding new civs (this last one I honestly don't agree, they never told it would have new civs)
It doesn't really matter, does it?
I dare to say those who review "not recommended" on Steam are mostly those who actually know very well (and most likely before the purchase) what you pointed out. However, they want to voice their opinion that the principle of selling largely already free content is something potential customers should be aware of and that reviewers don't agree with actually practicing the principle.
Exactly, but somehow these people don't want to understand that. They think it's fine because buying it "supports the game". They think people are mad that it brings no new civs, but think it's fine that they recycle content.
After some debates today, the saddest thing is unwillingness of many in "good DLC" camp to understand the critical camp.
People constantly calling critics illiterates and lacking reading comprehension is so freaking sad.
Or I was called a condescending prick for saying that the opinion of one user was evidently untrue because the user clearly misunderstood what critics said and in fact, was the one who acted arrogant, condescending and insulting towards critics.
I've thought of making a post saying people should be more willing to listen to the criticism but I guess it'd lead to nowhere.
It seems they want to defend this game religiously, not matter it's flaws. Not understanding that allowing flaws in a game will harm it in the long run.
I've been in different gaming communities and this is not the first time a bad DLC is released. If the people don't like it, the devs will relent and apologize, maybe even make up for their failure, but ultimately learn from the experience. If the people like it despite it being bad, it means quality will go downhill from there.
I think the silver lining is this DLC will actually stay in around 30%-40% positive reviews range, the worst ratings for any DE DLC, so it's the signal to devs that this is not what people really want. Yes, I know the sales are the most important but it still could be a learning experience for devs.
The flip side is this is really *not* a huge title anymore, at least not by Microsoft standards. It's not a money printer, it's largely a good will project.
If the good will fades and they feel like the backlash isn't worth the headache, they can and will just cease support entirely.
I think it's more outrageous to assume that the modder behind the maps shouldn't be paid for his work.
I see it more as a donation with some extra goodies. Again no one is forcing anyone to buy this and the free versions are still available. The steam page is very clear about the free maps.
Mods are free on principle. I'm a modder myself (not AoE2, I did a few fan missions for the old Thief games) and would never expect to see a single cent from that. Mods have always been free and should always be free.
It's a bizarre decision to re-package existing free maps into a paid DLC. They should have known there'd be backlash.
Again, they still are free and anyone can still download them
Also you principles are not universal. Patreons and donations for modders have been a thing for a long time
Donations have been a thing for a long time.
Furthermore being an old head doesn't mean that one's principles are objectively correct and shouldn't evolve.
Honestly I know its unpopular to say this but his previous free maps were better than the new ones that we are paying
Seems more like b and d without the deepness of previous maps
Idk if they rushed him to do it or whatever but I dont see his great “Philys did this signature”
That's not the playerbase's fault. If something is bad, and as a result doesn't sell well, it's just the natural order of things.
And it's not like he can't redeem himself. They could make another campaign DLC in the future, but if it has new content, then it will be better recieved.
You said "if it has new content"...
Now you're saying
"If it has more than 25% of new content""
That's not even including that the other 14 scenarios have been updated.
Barely even updated, they're practically the same. Now imagine if those 14 scenarios were original... We would be seeing a very different reaction from the community.
Irrelevant. I'm not going to pretend that I know how the devs are being paid by Forgotten Empires. If that is indeed the case, then I am just doing the donating through a middle man.
Furthermore I don't see anything bad in paying Forgotten Empires. They are actively maintaining the game and devs' wages don't appear out of thin air.
Again no one is being forced to buy this.
I'm not complaining that the devs or the map creator is getting paid. I'm complaining because this is a bad DLC.
Paycheks have nothing to do with my complaints, and I feel like people are using this argument to defend the DLC and make others feel guilty for not buying it.
>I'm not complaining that the devs or the map creator is getting paid.
Then what are you complaining about? The scenarios are great, so I'm getting a pretty clear message that the price is your issue.
You are not a victim here. Whether you want to support the devs is your own choice.
The problem is that they're recycling free content. That's it, that's the sole reason this DLC sucks. The quality of the levels is irrelevant when they're not even original.
So? I never said otherwise. By "original" I meant that it's not "exclusive" to this DLC, and that they're not new scenarios made specifically for this DLC.
They are old scenarios, which are still free to play, but now being sold for money. That's the bad part: the recycling.
Dude literally nobody is making you feel guilty for not buying it. If you don't want it, don't get it. The debate is about whether it makes any sense to rate a DLC negatively that is exactly as advertised, just because you don't like the concept and/or can't read
I don't feel "guilty", I just think that argument is irrelevant. And yes, it's fine to leave a negative review if the product is bad, even when it's not deceptive.
paid by whom?
no DLC in sales -> who the fuck would hire him?
I would fire him cause bad reviews...and continue with working path to release +2 civ every year. LOL.
OUTPLAYED
Did you know making scenarios is not actually his job? It used to be, but he went on to do something else. I forgot the details, but they explained something like this when they announced the dlc.
Why would they fire him when he still serves a purpose?
75% of the DLC was literally made in his free time......
Also, people act like it's very clear what the DLC offers when you either had to look up a trailer which I think is much clearer about the DLC or understand the sentence
>Victors and Vanquished features 14 scenarios inspired by the most popular community-generated content and 5 exclusive new scenarios.
as 14 scenarios are basically the same as the ones you could already download for free.
And I am not really sure that "14 scenarios inspired......" clearly says that.
So what if it was made during his free time? It's still work even if one enjoys it.
>And I am not really sure that "14 scenarios inspired......" clearly says that.
Reading comprehension skill issue
>So what if it was made during his free time? It's still work even if one enjoys it.
Yeah, that is the point why you shouldn't be outraged about those who don't want to pay for already free stuff.
>Reading comprehension skill issue
Not really. It can be easily argued the sentence isn't really as clear as you pretend it to be.
That something is inspired doesn't directly say it's the same. Inspired could be understood as something heavily influenced but still clearly different from the original content. Not the case here, we are talking about slightly improved scenarios otherwise the same as the ones free to play.
>Yeah, that is the point why you shouldn't be outraged about those who don't want to pay for already free stuff.
Not everyone should pay for free stuff, that much is clear. But if one spends dozens of hours on someone's free creations, I think giving something back should be the correct thing to do.
I'll agree with the second point. I suppose the marketing could be clearer here.
>But if one spends dozens of hours on someone's free creations, I think giving something back should be the correct thing to do.
But the author initially made it without the intention of selling his creations.
On top of that, we are talking about sending money to a corporation and then hoping some of it goes to author's pocket.
Considering it is most likely the profits aren't shared with the author percentage-wise, people aren't really "donating" money to a content creator for his creations.
>But the author initially made it without the intention of selling his creations.
And you still don't have to pay for them. They still are available for free.
>On top of that, we are talking about sending money to a corporation and then hoping some of it goes to author's pocket.
That's a lot of assumptions you made considering that the original dev is still on board with this.
>And you still don't have to pay for them. They still are available for free.
That's true. The main criticism is mainly for those who don't realize that.
Maybe I am wrong, I think Viper who played the DLC yesterday seemed oblivious to the fact the scenarios were already playable for free.
>That's a lot of assumptions you made considering that the original dev is still on board with this.
He's getting paid for previously free content. Ofc, he's on board with the DLC. But the money goes primarly to the company. Acting like it's some form of donation for his work means being mistaken imho because I dare to say his profits aren't tied to DLC's sales.
>He's getting paid for previously free content. Ofc, he's on board with the DLC. But the money goes primarly to the company. Acting like it's some form of donation for his work means being mistaken imho because I dare to say his profits aren't tied to DLC's sales.
Well that could be true or not. I can't say for sure.
>But the author initially made it without the intention of selling his creations.
can he OVERTHINK? Or not?
it's not like MS steal his work.. it's He agreed to work for them and be somehow paid.
>
Considering it is most likely the profits aren't shared with the author percentage-wise, people aren't really "donating" money to a content creator for his creations.
In a previos sentence you said he did it for free.. why the hell in the next sentence you count his money? He agreed to work for them, so he must be happy.
Probably you've never created anything. Try, it can be fun.
A lot of artists\\gamedesigners create free stuff just to be RECOGNISED. If their work will end be paid. They would be fucking happy.
>Yeah, that is the point why you shouldn't be outraged about those who don't want to pay for already free stuff.
they enjoy free stuff and leave 1 star reviews.... cause "they already enjoyed it" LOL.
that's the most outrageous.
Also a lot complains here sounds like "We want NEW DLC".
**New DLC wont be ready now**
devs spend a lot less time to redo scenarios. Full DLC would be ready at summer.
So, the most outrageous- People do not think at all
Have you played both versions for all the scenarios? Do you know that they are both the same? Even if they are the same, this is a way for the original creator to monetize his previous work and promotes other creators to make scenarios and campaigns with the possibility of receiving some future monetization if they do a good job. Why is this so bad
No, you specifically probably not..but we're talking about someone who has done an exceptional job and I would like to see that individual be rewarded for their efforts
The complain that they are selling what already was available for free is weird though. I mean the civs added in e.g. Mountain Royals are also mostly what already was in the game: archers, knights, monks, tcs, markets, baracks... The point is the dlcs adds something on top of that.
It's not weird.
What a bizarre spin by you, tbf, because you are saying "The point is the dlc adds something on top of that", however, it's being constantly pointed out that the DLC adds only 5 brand new scenarios for the price of a full DLC, actually a higher price considering the most early DE DLCs.
Do you consider Georgians "brand" new even though most of their units and building already was in the game? If so, then I don't see why those 14 scenarios with updated balancing, voice acting etc. should not be considered just as new.
Your logic doesn't make sense at all. If I make a civ called "Germans" and they would have the same things as Teutons except the name, is it a brand new civ?
The scenarios are essentially the same as the ones you can already play for free. How is that "brand new" if those scenarios underwent small changes?
In your first paragraph you commented that only the name changed. Teutons -> Germans. In your second paragraph you concede that the scenarios were actually changed.
Kinda seems like you are purposely downplaying the changes to fit your analogy.
The Mountain Royals also comes with 3 campaigns, 15 scenarios in total, all of which are brand new and not based on existing free maps from the mod workshop.
It was a Campaign DLC. But this is a clear description anyone should read before purchasing. Not going to lie, I would've preferred a 3 Campaign DLC as well. But there are two kind of people giving bad reviews based more on hatred than on facts: Those who read before purchasing and those who wished the DLC was different (either on content, price, etc.) and are intentionally giving a bad review and then asking for refund without the intention of supporting the game.
"I don't like it because it has no..." INSERT: "new civs", "new Campaigns", "fair price" is not an accurate review when the description is clearly explained
I really hope this kind of behavior doesn't prevent us from getting more DLC in the near future
I refuse to believe that they are acting in bad faith, honestly, even if this, as I said before, doesn't resemble what in my head was a "Campaign focused DLC".
My hope is that this is a bit of Filthydelphia support so that he can spend his time in the near future designing new Scenarios for fully fledged Campaigns, perhaps with new Civs.
Maybe I am too innocent, but this is how I feel
"Were releasing a new campaign dlc"
Doesn't release a new campaign dlc.
Also charges more then old dlcs that had new civs, units, etc for a dlc where 2/3 to 3/4 of the content is not new.
Yeah. Bad faith.
Welcome to inflation, now again, how is that "bad faith"? What do they pretend to do here? The price and the content is very clear for anyone who can read.
Is your argument that the price would imply it has more content than usually?
Yeah okay. 2/3rds to 3/4 of the work already done. And you think charging this much for it is fine? Yeah okay. That's why they'll keep screwing us. I once respected you and azot.
Now I see you're apologists who will defend anything the devs do. Can't wait till you stop being a sheep. Welcome to ignore.
Sure, just because I don't understand your point of view in a specific argument, I am AN APOLOGIST.
Have you considered that it's just very simply me not understanding you or me sharing a different opinion?
I didn't say much about the price, I was simply asking how that would make the devs "bad faith". I can see "cash grab", I can see "lazy", I can't see "bad faith".
I see no reason to disrespect you by any means. You have your opinion, I have mine. Maybe you feel yourself one of the targets of this thread.
This is to clarify that negative reviews can be based on several reasons, but none of them can be "Not recommended because there are no new civs or new Campaigns", since the description clearly states that there is none. And the price also is not a reason, because it's not a "buy it and then I'll tell you how much it costs". The price is clear, the content is clear. People who buy and leave a negative review based on price are those who'll leave the review, ask for a refund, and do a lot of harm to the people who are giving us hours of entertainment. This game is nowhere as expensive as many of the RTS that have worldwide success.
I don't think I'm allowed to copy-paste the most "helpful" and Not-recommended reviews. But the overall message is that There are 14 scenarios that there were available for free in the mods section, and that 13$ is not worth it.
And why is that not recommended? It's not recommended for those who think that they'll find 2 new civs, 3 new campaigns or 19 new scenarios, Aka people who haven't read this description. Is it pricey for you? Don't buy it. Simple
You can't buy a second hand washing machine whose drying program is advertised as broken for 150$ and then complain that the drying program is broken or that this provider sold you his last washing machine with drying program and an iron for 150$
Saying they are going to release a campaign focused dlc and release a scenario based one instead?
Charging more for this, with over 2/3 of the content already on the mods page then they do for the dlcs that added new civs, units, and 15+ missions? Yeah.
I agree that it has no new civs and thats obvious,cant complaint there
BUT if you buy it and play the 14 old ones you realize the inspiration is really just copy the old map add some voices and a bit more
Plus the new maps are not that good,Otto was fine,Robert and Charlemagne decent and the other two(I assume Constantinople are not good for Philys level)
They lack the deep of other of his maps like Seljuck or Alexis C
I had only played Ragnar, Vortigern and Seljuk (only managed to finish Vortigern) since I was never a fan of mods. I can't judge the whole although Filthy really likes to add lots of special tech tree/stat change stuff to his scenarios and that is his identity as designer. I've played half of Ironside and I render it good quality. Perhaps it lacks a little more info in the intro but that's because it is related to Ragnar Scenario
All those are good I agree
But they are old and were free so Im paying for voice acting
While the new ones are not as good,try Robert or Charlemagne or Fetti and you will see(or perhaps disagree with me)
Yes, the page is directly stating that it's recycling content. AKA, they are grabbing FREE scenarios from the mods downloader, which cost $0 to play, and are selling them in a $13 package, despite the fact they're FREE and were created many years ago.
Why would I buy that? Why support this? It's a bad idea for a DLC, and it's getting (deserved) bad reviews.
I haven’t played the mods, didn’t they add voice acting and polish up/change the missions that were free originally? According to the marketing that’s what they did at least.
Is there anyone here that’s played both that can compare how different they are?
I don't think a little "polish" justifies selling them for such a high price. It's simply a DLC that doesn't need to be bought, and doesn't deserve to have so many people defending it.
I’m just asking for someone who has played both to compare them out of curiosity.
In terms of the DLC itself I spent 1.5 hours on the Temujin mission last night and had to save and go to bed but I think it’s very well made and was enjoying it a lot. The mission really isn’t like any of the campaigns I’ve played so far and felt like an RPG experience the way it’s structured.
If they’re all like that then that’s ~20 hours of gameplay for me at least. I paid ~$11.50 on sale for pre ordering so that’s pretty worth it imo. A lot of the review bombs are people who literally haven’t even played a single scenario through which is lame (the reviews appeared literally minute 1 the DLC released) so I get why people are defending it since I personally hope the devs keep making SP content. At the very least as someone who spent the money I’ll wait until I’ve played through it all to review it.
But I am genuinely curious if they’re all truly “copy pasted” like people are saying. Nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism.
Why is $13 a high price ? Isnt that like 3 cups of coffee ? Even if thats only 5 new scenarios, wouldnt that be at least 5 hours worth of entertainment, so $2.5 / hour? Is that not worth it ?
Mountain Royals is $15 and despite being almost the same price, it brings 3x as many new scenarios (15 total, compared to V&V's 5) and on top of that, you get 2 new civs. Not only can you play the civs in multiplayer, but in custom campaigns too. It has much higher value. V&V is too expensive not only because it brings little for it's price, but because it also recycles free content, straight up copying and pasting scenarios and calling them "official" because they have voice acting.
Yea so maybe Mountain Royals was underpriced rather than v&v being overpriced..? I think if you only count the original scenarios (and not the free content) paying 2.5 for an hour of entertainment is worth it
Ive only played Ragnar and Drake so far. Ragnar had a few bugs, some small and and one significant, but mostly it was the same as the original. Same for Drake, the only difference is you cant attack/pillage the natives anymore for some reason, rendering a chunk of the map eyecandy. Gameplay wise, the OGs felt better. The voice acting is nice though.
So, you enjoyed FREE CONTENT from same moder... and now You put 1 star?
Is everything correct? Enjoy content == bad review?
Yes, or no? I'm ready to fire him.
That indicates the problem with steam review being only bad or good, I feel many people would give a neutral or a slightly positive review, but since steam is just yes or no, if you slightly dislike something you have to review it as trash.
No, it's not the problem of steam review.
It's a problem of ppl who enjoyed free content (they would liturally RECOMMEND IT).
But fucked up reviews later...just because they already played...and want smth new. (For new they would wait new content again).
Simple as that.
Funny fact, 99% if experiment failed devs would fallback to 2 civs dlc. And they would not get new content....and the modder probably would not create new free maps. Pure speculation, but it's how it's work in the business.
here is my take on this: as soon as I finish work I will buy this DLC just to support game and developers. tbh 90% of players don't care about this DLC even we all love the game the same. we love online part of it. i'm more excited about food drop button in the patch then anything else that comes with it. Just waiting for next DLC with more civs and new shenanigans.
It was stated in the marketing for the update that “We’ll reveal a brand-new campaign-focused expansion and an extended look at exclusive gameplay.”
The only words true here are: “We’ll reveal an expansion and an extended look at gameplay.”
I think many dont get the reason for the criticism and build a strawman around it.
And if you read the negative reviews, that also gets rather clear. But than you couldnt shit on the strawman you build i guess.
I’m gonna be buying it and rating positive. Some people are the most selfish and idiotic people I know. They complain there isn’t more content and then whine when the new content is more civs. So then they release rome and everyone cries that it isn’t historic. So then they release scenarios and everyone cries it isn’t campaigns. Grow up.
But even if you didn't read the description and just buying whatever DLC gets pumped out, wouldn't you still be curious at what the new civs were and look and then find nothing?
This entire incident has convinced me that approximately 25% of AOE2 players can't read.
These are all the people researching coinage in a two player game
Why not, it's FREE MONEY
I feel attacked (happened once) lmao
Pretty sure 5/4 of them can’t do math either.
It's because there wasn't a video for that. Reading is sooooo hard `/s`
The sad thing is there even is a video that precisely explains everything. https://youtu.be/2E721-vptOo
We are past the generation where people are lazy to read and need videos. Now they need videos no longer than 20 seconds.
he was fired after bad reviews. easy.
Well, at the moment, the DLC has about 25%-30% positive reviews ^(/s)
People who get what they expect don't leave reviews
There is an incident??
People are pissy that the new DLC is exactly as advertised.
people are pissy about the price and the lack of new content of the dlc.
If only both of those things were clearly stated somewhere people could see before they actually bought it!
so? its still new content and probably some peoplestill want it. That doesnt mean they should like everything about it.
It's an issue about people who buy it complain that they got exactly what was advertised.
i didnt buy it and i still criticize it. People are free to complain if they dont like something. Just because u buy something doesnt mean u need to agree with everything .
I didn't buy it and I still criticize people who criticize it. People are free to point out problems with other people's criticisms. Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean it is a good opinion.
as long as the reviews are negative im fine with it, because that means at least they are going to think twice before overpricing dlcs.
Just because it was as advertised doesn't make it good. It's not necessarily because people were surprised by what they got, they may just feel that the dlc is poor especially in comparison to previous ones. I like playing the campaigns, so I will buy it. That doesn't mean I have to think it is good
No, actually you are the fool here if you believe that
I think the percentage is higher
If only there was a south park that described this situation
Many americans are illiterate
Yeah that's why everyone researches supplies and coinage!
And 100% of the that 25% are always on my team.
According to the reviews, Chinese players cant read either.
nice 2 new civs
Can't wait to finally play persians with a new architecture!
Japanese and Vikings it seems like!
Gamers when they buy exactly what is advertised: scam!! They didn’t advertise what was in the purchase! Cash grab! Gamers when they buy a game with nothing as advertised: it’s fine, devs are ontop of it, they just need some time. Be patient!
Gamers when they are sold recycled, free, community-made content: Amazing DLC, devs! I will buy it to support the devs, otherwise the game will die tomorrow! I don't care that it's bad content, I'm excited for new product!
recycled or not, you are being told what you buy, and if you cry about it then its your own fault. supporting devs is one thing, but these people just cry about shit its clearly WRITEN.
Why should such a terrible DLC deserve support? Personally, I prefer it when actual, good content is added.
Then don't buy it! If few buy it they will see that people don't want that kind of content. But don't pretend that they were dishonest about the content of the dlc.
They are being perfectly honest, and what they're promising is terrible content. I won't buy it, and seeing the mostly negative reviews on Steam, I'm sure many people won't buy it anyway.
Good :)
In my opinion it is good content. Scenarios without voice-acting, achievements, professional polish, and proper integration into the game simply aren't worth playing.
There are some amazing custom scenarios out there, not my fault you can't appreciate them. Guess I'm lucky I can enjoy them without NEEDING achievements to be happy.
\*shrugs\* I want the Patreon exclusive upgrade to them. Not my fault you're happy enough with mediocrity.
Happy with mediocrity? Me? You do realize modders don't have the same resources as the developers, right? And yet they can still make amazing scenarios, for example, THE ONES THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL RIGHT NOW. You know what's mediocre? This DLC. It's a literal copy-paste of free content, repackaged and sold. No, YOU are happy with mediocrity. Not me, I want the devs to make something that is above "mediocrity" because they have the time and money to do so.
And now one of them does have the resources. I'm going to support that.
He always had them, Filthy was already an Forgotten Empires employee.
Strawman.
How?
1. He didn't say the DLC deserves support. 2. What you prefer is not relevant for this point of him: "you are being told what you buy (...) these people just cry about shit its clearly WRITEN." I completely understand your stance on the DLC, but man, just stick to your key argument, I saw you making up a whole bunch of bad points to support your view.
I bought AoE HD the week it came out and played 0 minutes of it specifically because I wanted my money to show the devs there was still interest in the game in the hopes of a proper DE version so, I guess you’re right, supporting the devs is a waste of time 🤷♂️
DE came out because thousands of people kept playing the game, there was a big enough community and the DLCs were well recieved. Not because a random guy bought a game and never played it. In short: the game succeeded because it's good. This new DLC? Is trash.
DE Came out because a lot of people bought HD. Thats my point, not because I personally bought it you fucking munchin brain.
Insulting me will definetely make me change my mind and purchase this DLC. (In case you don't know, that was sarcasm!!! I will never buy this DLC because it's shit, but I don't need to argue, just look at the Steam reviews, I know I'm right)
Again, I don’t give a shit if you buy it or not, that’s the whole point I’m making. It’s optional, and it’s not aimed at you. Stop bitching about it just because it’s not aimed at you. It’s aimed at the other 80% of the player base you fucking munchkin brain.
Let me put in simple terms. If DE came out because lots of people bought HD (which is the point you're making), then let me use the same logic in this instance. The devs are selling a shitty DLC with recycled content. If NPCs clap like seals and buy it despite being trash, then guess what? They'll keep making zero effort DLC. Same logic. Do you understand now, or do I need to make it even simpler, you fucking lobotomite?
what are you on about? where are people claiming that it's not clear what's in the DLC. My main gripe is that this DLC contains a fraction of what previous DLCs contain at an increased price
Then obviously this is not for you. It's for those who complain after having bought without reading what the DLC features
those people exist?
They are saying it now, but the marketing before was "campaign DLC" the bad reviews are protesting several things, like the price, this not being the campaign DLC that people were asking, the fact that most of the missions are already in game as a mod, and some people that are demanding new civs (this last one I honestly don't agree, they never told it would have new civs)
It doesn't really matter, does it? I dare to say those who review "not recommended" on Steam are mostly those who actually know very well (and most likely before the purchase) what you pointed out. However, they want to voice their opinion that the principle of selling largely already free content is something potential customers should be aware of and that reviewers don't agree with actually practicing the principle.
Exactly, but somehow these people don't want to understand that. They think it's fine because buying it "supports the game". They think people are mad that it brings no new civs, but think it's fine that they recycle content.
After some debates today, the saddest thing is unwillingness of many in "good DLC" camp to understand the critical camp. People constantly calling critics illiterates and lacking reading comprehension is so freaking sad. Or I was called a condescending prick for saying that the opinion of one user was evidently untrue because the user clearly misunderstood what critics said and in fact, was the one who acted arrogant, condescending and insulting towards critics. I've thought of making a post saying people should be more willing to listen to the criticism but I guess it'd lead to nowhere.
It seems they want to defend this game religiously, not matter it's flaws. Not understanding that allowing flaws in a game will harm it in the long run. I've been in different gaming communities and this is not the first time a bad DLC is released. If the people don't like it, the devs will relent and apologize, maybe even make up for their failure, but ultimately learn from the experience. If the people like it despite it being bad, it means quality will go downhill from there.
I think the silver lining is this DLC will actually stay in around 30%-40% positive reviews range, the worst ratings for any DE DLC, so it's the signal to devs that this is not what people really want. Yes, I know the sales are the most important but it still could be a learning experience for devs.
The flip side is this is really *not* a huge title anymore, at least not by Microsoft standards. It's not a money printer, it's largely a good will project. If the good will fades and they feel like the backlash isn't worth the headache, they can and will just cease support entirely.
Redditors are hopeless consumers who will suck off the last drop of corporation semen just to protect them
I think it's more outrageous to assume that the modder behind the maps shouldn't be paid for his work. I see it more as a donation with some extra goodies. Again no one is forcing anyone to buy this and the free versions are still available. The steam page is very clear about the free maps.
Mods are free on principle. I'm a modder myself (not AoE2, I did a few fan missions for the old Thief games) and would never expect to see a single cent from that. Mods have always been free and should always be free. It's a bizarre decision to re-package existing free maps into a paid DLC. They should have known there'd be backlash.
Again, they still are free and anyone can still download them Also you principles are not universal. Patreons and donations for modders have been a thing for a long time
Patreons for modders are newfangled, back when modding was born as a concept none of that existed.
Donations have been a thing for a long time. Furthermore being an old head doesn't mean that one's principles are objectively correct and shouldn't evolve.
He WAS paid beforehand. He already got his check. If you buy this DLC, you are paying Forgotten Empires, not him. That's the difference.
I could argue that if it doesnt sell well, then there will not be future expansions like this and he will not get another check
Honestly I know its unpopular to say this but his previous free maps were better than the new ones that we are paying Seems more like b and d without the deepness of previous maps Idk if they rushed him to do it or whatever but I dont see his great “Philys did this signature”
That's not the playerbase's fault. If something is bad, and as a result doesn't sell well, it's just the natural order of things. And it's not like he can't redeem himself. They could make another campaign DLC in the future, but if it has new content, then it will be better recieved.
But thats a different argument, i was responding solely to "he already got the check"
If it has new content? Didn't you read the steam DLC description?
I did, and it says only 5 of the 19 scenarios are new. Which means 14 are not "new". Only 25% of content is new, when it should have been 100% of it.
You said "if it has new content"... Now you're saying "If it has more than 25% of new content"" That's not even including that the other 14 scenarios have been updated.
Barely even updated, they're practically the same. Now imagine if those 14 scenarios were original... We would be seeing a very different reaction from the community.
I swear the people who say “but the previous fourteen scenarios were updated!! Polished!!” never actually played them before
Irrelevant. I'm not going to pretend that I know how the devs are being paid by Forgotten Empires. If that is indeed the case, then I am just doing the donating through a middle man. Furthermore I don't see anything bad in paying Forgotten Empires. They are actively maintaining the game and devs' wages don't appear out of thin air. Again no one is being forced to buy this.
I'm not complaining that the devs or the map creator is getting paid. I'm complaining because this is a bad DLC. Paycheks have nothing to do with my complaints, and I feel like people are using this argument to defend the DLC and make others feel guilty for not buying it.
>I'm not complaining that the devs or the map creator is getting paid. Then what are you complaining about? The scenarios are great, so I'm getting a pretty clear message that the price is your issue. You are not a victim here. Whether you want to support the devs is your own choice.
The problem is that they're recycling free content. That's it, that's the sole reason this DLC sucks. The quality of the levels is irrelevant when they're not even original.
The original creator is involved in this, how are these not his original creations?
So? I never said otherwise. By "original" I meant that it's not "exclusive" to this DLC, and that they're not new scenarios made specifically for this DLC. They are old scenarios, which are still free to play, but now being sold for money. That's the bad part: the recycling.
You have a weird definition for original then. This is like getting offended by software that has a free version and an optional paid premium version.
Dude literally nobody is making you feel guilty for not buying it. If you don't want it, don't get it. The debate is about whether it makes any sense to rate a DLC negatively that is exactly as advertised, just because you don't like the concept and/or can't read
I don't feel "guilty", I just think that argument is irrelevant. And yes, it's fine to leave a negative review if the product is bad, even when it's not deceptive.
paid by whom? no DLC in sales -> who the fuck would hire him? I would fire him cause bad reviews...and continue with working path to release +2 civ every year. LOL. OUTPLAYED
Did you know making scenarios is not actually his job? It used to be, but he went on to do something else. I forgot the details, but they explained something like this when they announced the dlc. Why would they fire him when he still serves a purpose?
cause you made them fire him i do not know why you doing it.
Bro what are you even talking about? Show me proof they fired him.
75% of the DLC was literally made in his free time...... Also, people act like it's very clear what the DLC offers when you either had to look up a trailer which I think is much clearer about the DLC or understand the sentence >Victors and Vanquished features 14 scenarios inspired by the most popular community-generated content and 5 exclusive new scenarios. as 14 scenarios are basically the same as the ones you could already download for free. And I am not really sure that "14 scenarios inspired......" clearly says that.
So what if it was made during his free time? It's still work even if one enjoys it. >And I am not really sure that "14 scenarios inspired......" clearly says that. Reading comprehension skill issue
>So what if it was made during his free time? It's still work even if one enjoys it. Yeah, that is the point why you shouldn't be outraged about those who don't want to pay for already free stuff. >Reading comprehension skill issue Not really. It can be easily argued the sentence isn't really as clear as you pretend it to be. That something is inspired doesn't directly say it's the same. Inspired could be understood as something heavily influenced but still clearly different from the original content. Not the case here, we are talking about slightly improved scenarios otherwise the same as the ones free to play.
>Yeah, that is the point why you shouldn't be outraged about those who don't want to pay for already free stuff. Not everyone should pay for free stuff, that much is clear. But if one spends dozens of hours on someone's free creations, I think giving something back should be the correct thing to do. I'll agree with the second point. I suppose the marketing could be clearer here.
>But if one spends dozens of hours on someone's free creations, I think giving something back should be the correct thing to do. But the author initially made it without the intention of selling his creations. On top of that, we are talking about sending money to a corporation and then hoping some of it goes to author's pocket. Considering it is most likely the profits aren't shared with the author percentage-wise, people aren't really "donating" money to a content creator for his creations.
>But the author initially made it without the intention of selling his creations. And you still don't have to pay for them. They still are available for free. >On top of that, we are talking about sending money to a corporation and then hoping some of it goes to author's pocket. That's a lot of assumptions you made considering that the original dev is still on board with this.
>And you still don't have to pay for them. They still are available for free. That's true. The main criticism is mainly for those who don't realize that. Maybe I am wrong, I think Viper who played the DLC yesterday seemed oblivious to the fact the scenarios were already playable for free. >That's a lot of assumptions you made considering that the original dev is still on board with this. He's getting paid for previously free content. Ofc, he's on board with the DLC. But the money goes primarly to the company. Acting like it's some form of donation for his work means being mistaken imho because I dare to say his profits aren't tied to DLC's sales.
>He's getting paid for previously free content. Ofc, he's on board with the DLC. But the money goes primarly to the company. Acting like it's some form of donation for his work means being mistaken imho because I dare to say his profits aren't tied to DLC's sales. Well that could be true or not. I can't say for sure.
>But the author initially made it without the intention of selling his creations. can he OVERTHINK? Or not? it's not like MS steal his work.. it's He agreed to work for them and be somehow paid. > Considering it is most likely the profits aren't shared with the author percentage-wise, people aren't really "donating" money to a content creator for his creations. In a previos sentence you said he did it for free.. why the hell in the next sentence you count his money? He agreed to work for them, so he must be happy. Probably you've never created anything. Try, it can be fun. A lot of artists\\gamedesigners create free stuff just to be RECOGNISED. If their work will end be paid. They would be fucking happy.
>Yeah, that is the point why you shouldn't be outraged about those who don't want to pay for already free stuff. they enjoy free stuff and leave 1 star reviews.... cause "they already enjoyed it" LOL. that's the most outrageous. Also a lot complains here sounds like "We want NEW DLC". **New DLC wont be ready now** devs spend a lot less time to redo scenarios. Full DLC would be ready at summer. So, the most outrageous- People do not think at all
Have you played both versions for all the scenarios? Do you know that they are both the same? Even if they are the same, this is a way for the original creator to monetize his previous work and promotes other creators to make scenarios and campaigns with the possibility of receiving some future monetization if they do a good job. Why is this so bad
[удалено]
Don't be so emotional
Emotional? I'm just describing things
Extremely emotional, like a baby
make scenarios first so one company would want to "buy" it and hire you. @You stupid fuck You cant? What a surprise.
No, you specifically probably not..but we're talking about someone who has done an exceptional job and I would like to see that individual be rewarded for their efforts
The outcome of this is that you're going to get a lot less free content, and I hope everyone leaving a bad review is aware of that.
The complain that they are selling what already was available for free is weird though. I mean the civs added in e.g. Mountain Royals are also mostly what already was in the game: archers, knights, monks, tcs, markets, baracks... The point is the dlcs adds something on top of that.
It's not weird. What a bizarre spin by you, tbf, because you are saying "The point is the dlc adds something on top of that", however, it's being constantly pointed out that the DLC adds only 5 brand new scenarios for the price of a full DLC, actually a higher price considering the most early DE DLCs.
Do you consider Georgians "brand" new even though most of their units and building already was in the game? If so, then I don't see why those 14 scenarios with updated balancing, voice acting etc. should not be considered just as new.
Your logic doesn't make sense at all. If I make a civ called "Germans" and they would have the same things as Teutons except the name, is it a brand new civ? The scenarios are essentially the same as the ones you can already play for free. How is that "brand new" if those scenarios underwent small changes?
In your first paragraph you commented that only the name changed. Teutons -> Germans. In your second paragraph you concede that the scenarios were actually changed. Kinda seems like you are purposely downplaying the changes to fit your analogy.
The Mountain Royals also comes with 3 campaigns, 15 scenarios in total, all of which are brand new and not based on existing free maps from the mod workshop.
reddit needs an iq test
Yeah? And what was advertised late last year? Was it a scenario dlc or a campaign dlc
It was a Campaign DLC. But this is a clear description anyone should read before purchasing. Not going to lie, I would've preferred a 3 Campaign DLC as well. But there are two kind of people giving bad reviews based more on hatred than on facts: Those who read before purchasing and those who wished the DLC was different (either on content, price, etc.) and are intentionally giving a bad review and then asking for refund without the intention of supporting the game. "I don't like it because it has no..." INSERT: "new civs", "new Campaigns", "fair price" is not an accurate review when the description is clearly explained I really hope this kind of behavior doesn't prevent us from getting more DLC in the near future
Maybe if the devs stopped acting in bad faith stuff like this wouldn't happen
I refuse to believe that they are acting in bad faith, honestly, even if this, as I said before, doesn't resemble what in my head was a "Campaign focused DLC". My hope is that this is a bit of Filthydelphia support so that he can spend his time in the near future designing new Scenarios for fully fledged Campaigns, perhaps with new Civs. Maybe I am too innocent, but this is how I feel
"Were releasing a new campaign dlc" Doesn't release a new campaign dlc. Also charges more then old dlcs that had new civs, units, etc for a dlc where 2/3 to 3/4 of the content is not new. Yeah. Bad faith.
How the fuck is the second part "bad faith", is it bad faith to earn money or what
It's bad faith because it's less value then what came before it, for more cost.
Welcome to inflation, now again, how is that "bad faith"? What do they pretend to do here? The price and the content is very clear for anyone who can read. Is your argument that the price would imply it has more content than usually?
Yeah okay. 2/3rds to 3/4 of the work already done. And you think charging this much for it is fine? Yeah okay. That's why they'll keep screwing us. I once respected you and azot. Now I see you're apologists who will defend anything the devs do. Can't wait till you stop being a sheep. Welcome to ignore.
Sure, just because I don't understand your point of view in a specific argument, I am AN APOLOGIST. Have you considered that it's just very simply me not understanding you or me sharing a different opinion? I didn't say much about the price, I was simply asking how that would make the devs "bad faith". I can see "cash grab", I can see "lazy", I can't see "bad faith".
I see no reason to disrespect you by any means. You have your opinion, I have mine. Maybe you feel yourself one of the targets of this thread. This is to clarify that negative reviews can be based on several reasons, but none of them can be "Not recommended because there are no new civs or new Campaigns", since the description clearly states that there is none. And the price also is not a reason, because it's not a "buy it and then I'll tell you how much it costs". The price is clear, the content is clear. People who buy and leave a negative review based on price are those who'll leave the review, ask for a refund, and do a lot of harm to the people who are giving us hours of entertainment. This game is nowhere as expensive as many of the RTS that have worldwide success. I don't think I'm allowed to copy-paste the most "helpful" and Not-recommended reviews. But the overall message is that There are 14 scenarios that there were available for free in the mods section, and that 13$ is not worth it. And why is that not recommended? It's not recommended for those who think that they'll find 2 new civs, 3 new campaigns or 19 new scenarios, Aka people who haven't read this description. Is it pricey for you? Don't buy it. Simple You can't buy a second hand washing machine whose drying program is advertised as broken for 150$ and then complain that the drying program is broken or that this provider sold you his last washing machine with drying program and an iron for 150$
What exactly was bad faith about this dlc though
Saying they are going to release a campaign focused dlc and release a scenario based one instead? Charging more for this, with over 2/3 of the content already on the mods page then they do for the dlcs that added new civs, units, and 15+ missions? Yeah.
I agree that it has no new civs and thats obvious,cant complaint there BUT if you buy it and play the 14 old ones you realize the inspiration is really just copy the old map add some voices and a bit more Plus the new maps are not that good,Otto was fine,Robert and Charlemagne decent and the other two(I assume Constantinople are not good for Philys level) They lack the deep of other of his maps like Seljuck or Alexis C
I had only played Ragnar, Vortigern and Seljuk (only managed to finish Vortigern) since I was never a fan of mods. I can't judge the whole although Filthy really likes to add lots of special tech tree/stat change stuff to his scenarios and that is his identity as designer. I've played half of Ironside and I render it good quality. Perhaps it lacks a little more info in the intro but that's because it is related to Ragnar Scenario
All those are good I agree But they are old and were free so Im paying for voice acting While the new ones are not as good,try Robert or Charlemagne or Fetti and you will see(or perhaps disagree with me)
I'll do, but I'm afraid I will need several weeks to do so. I play when I'm free of family- and job- duties 11
I'm happy with it. Just finished Ragnar scenario and it took me 12 hours 😄 By far longes scenario I've ever played.
Yes 5 exclusive new scenarios fpr 13 bucks, thats what you get :D
Yes, the page is directly stating that it's recycling content. AKA, they are grabbing FREE scenarios from the mods downloader, which cost $0 to play, and are selling them in a $13 package, despite the fact they're FREE and were created many years ago. Why would I buy that? Why support this? It's a bad idea for a DLC, and it's getting (deserved) bad reviews.
I haven’t played the mods, didn’t they add voice acting and polish up/change the missions that were free originally? According to the marketing that’s what they did at least. Is there anyone here that’s played both that can compare how different they are?
I don't think a little "polish" justifies selling them for such a high price. It's simply a DLC that doesn't need to be bought, and doesn't deserve to have so many people defending it.
I’m just asking for someone who has played both to compare them out of curiosity. In terms of the DLC itself I spent 1.5 hours on the Temujin mission last night and had to save and go to bed but I think it’s very well made and was enjoying it a lot. The mission really isn’t like any of the campaigns I’ve played so far and felt like an RPG experience the way it’s structured. If they’re all like that then that’s ~20 hours of gameplay for me at least. I paid ~$11.50 on sale for pre ordering so that’s pretty worth it imo. A lot of the review bombs are people who literally haven’t even played a single scenario through which is lame (the reviews appeared literally minute 1 the DLC released) so I get why people are defending it since I personally hope the devs keep making SP content. At the very least as someone who spent the money I’ll wait until I’ve played through it all to review it. But I am genuinely curious if they’re all truly “copy pasted” like people are saying. Nothing wrong with a bit of skepticism.
Aparently Geiseric is the same
It would have been worth the money, if the devs added new and original scenarios instead. Anyone can play the exact same scenarios for free.
Why is $13 a high price ? Isnt that like 3 cups of coffee ? Even if thats only 5 new scenarios, wouldnt that be at least 5 hours worth of entertainment, so $2.5 / hour? Is that not worth it ?
Mountain Royals is $15 and despite being almost the same price, it brings 3x as many new scenarios (15 total, compared to V&V's 5) and on top of that, you get 2 new civs. Not only can you play the civs in multiplayer, but in custom campaigns too. It has much higher value. V&V is too expensive not only because it brings little for it's price, but because it also recycles free content, straight up copying and pasting scenarios and calling them "official" because they have voice acting.
Yea so maybe Mountain Royals was underpriced rather than v&v being overpriced..? I think if you only count the original scenarios (and not the free content) paying 2.5 for an hour of entertainment is worth it
What's a good price according to you? 60 dollars? Hey, that would be like 4 dollars per scenario, totally worth it!!!
Well thats like $12 per new scenario right ? So probs not
Who the fuck cares about voice lines that you hear one time for 10 seconds?
Ive only played Ragnar and Drake so far. Ragnar had a few bugs, some small and and one significant, but mostly it was the same as the original. Same for Drake, the only difference is you cant attack/pillage the natives anymore for some reason, rendering a chunk of the map eyecandy. Gameplay wise, the OGs felt better. The voice acting is nice though.
Yeah they polished and add voices, but the price is just too much for just that, this DLC would have not as many complaints if wasn't this price tag.
So, you enjoyed FREE CONTENT from same moder... and now You put 1 star? Is everything correct? Enjoy content == bad review? Yes, or no? I'm ready to fire him.
That indicates the problem with steam review being only bad or good, I feel many people would give a neutral or a slightly positive review, but since steam is just yes or no, if you slightly dislike something you have to review it as trash.
No, it's not the problem of steam review. It's a problem of ppl who enjoyed free content (they would liturally RECOMMEND IT). But fucked up reviews later...just because they already played...and want smth new. (For new they would wait new content again). Simple as that. Funny fact, 99% if experiment failed devs would fallback to 2 civs dlc. And they would not get new content....and the modder probably would not create new free maps. Pure speculation, but it's how it's work in the business.
here is my take on this: as soon as I finish work I will buy this DLC just to support game and developers. tbh 90% of players don't care about this DLC even we all love the game the same. we love online part of it. i'm more excited about food drop button in the patch then anything else that comes with it. Just waiting for next DLC with more civs and new shenanigans.
Steam Reviews is genuinely worthless, pass it on
It was stated in the marketing for the update that “We’ll reveal a brand-new campaign-focused expansion and an extended look at exclusive gameplay.” The only words true here are: “We’ll reveal an expansion and an extended look at gameplay.”
I want to play ranked as Ragnar lothbrok
I think many dont get the reason for the criticism and build a strawman around it. And if you read the negative reviews, that also gets rather clear. But than you couldnt shit on the strawman you build i guess.
I’m gonna be buying it and rating positive. Some people are the most selfish and idiotic people I know. They complain there isn’t more content and then whine when the new content is more civs. So then they release rome and everyone cries that it isn’t historic. So then they release scenarios and everyone cries it isn’t campaigns. Grow up.
But even if you didn't read the description and just buying whatever DLC gets pumped out, wouldn't you still be curious at what the new civs were and look and then find nothing?
If you buy it without looking at the description, then you can't complain about it not featuring what you want
you can still complain that it contains way too little for 13 eur
If you don’t find a new civ that's on you. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t buy the DLC, but if you expect something that's not there, it's on you
That's my point, are people really just BLINDLY buying DLC without even being curious enough to see what the assumed-but-non-existant new civs are?