>>2491126
Are total war fags just retarded? Nobody kvetched when AoE2: DE came out and made HD obsolete. If you don't want it don't buy it. Fucking stupid niggers.

>>2491266
To be fair, HD wasn't the original game either and it was pretty shit for most of it's lifetime and everyone knew that. They just played it because it was more convenient (and arguably still an improvement over how jank OG was to play). DE is a full remake with a much better running engine under it.
That being said, I don't know what those fags are expecting to achieve by reviewbombing a game everyone already got for free and is going to get delisted anyway. Does it feel bad they are charging $10 for it, sort of. Realistically it was never going to be any cheaper and you can just not buy it if you don't care about the other things and don't think they are worth it, S2 still works fine for the most part.
TW fanbase is horrible.

>>2491266
>Nobody kvetched when AoE2: DE came out and made HD obsolete.
Where the fuck have you been? complaints that peoples had to buy the game AGAIN when HD was "perfectly serviceable" was a common occurence alongside muh voice acting and muh woke
It was a pretty good litmus test for tourists and grifters
>>2491309
HD was the result of microsoft sighing and nonchalantly giving the job of porting the classic games of the series onto modern systems to a bunch of long-time modders
That's why the games were still rough, had their first (and sometime only) DLC feel like a mod being commercialized, why there were stupid "features" like big map size that break the engine and cause crashes and the only reasons this didn't kill the venture were nostalgia and the ability to just play the game without fucking around to find a fix for the deprecated directdraw api or being stuck in the 90s with 4:3 aspect ratio
AoE2 was successful enough for them to actually do proper DLCs for it and since that too was successful microsoft decided to give them carte blanche to remake all the AoE games starting with 1 as a test drive

People on the internet will find whatever excuse they can to be angry. Sometimes it feels like the internet is increasingly a place for people to vent their anxieties.

>>2491126
Should be free for owners of the existing game tbhdesusenpai. But I'm only a few weeks from getting lost in a new witcher 3 playthrough anyway.

>>2491352
ding ding ding
moids would do anything but therapy

I'm more angry about mods not carrying over, but that's a consequence of updating the game to 64bit so there's nothing to be done.

>>2491126
>you shouldn't get paid for your work, because community mods are FREE!
???

>>2491375
>Drag textures into an AI upscaler
>Select "playable" in a dropdown menu but otherwise leave the minor factions as is
>Recompile the game(which happens to allow it to be run at 64-bit)

>Hand over your 69.99 + tip! These hard working devs deserve your money for their labor!
???

>>2491386
>Drag textures into an AI upscaler
Source?

>>2491386
then don't buy it
don't buy the game
everyone who owns this 15-year-old game can still play it
you're not obligated to buy the game, so why complain?

>>2491392
AYO GIBS ME DAT FOR FREE

Not entitled, by the way.

>>2491392
>why complain
That's what a review is anon, criticism or praise of a product.
OP posted a review. >>2491375 attacked that review by saying that the devs deserve to be paid. I argued in agreement of the review.

Your insinuation that a game should not be criticized is inane. "Just don't buy it" is not a protection against criticism.

>>2491400
>That's what a review is anon, criticism or praise of a product.
Oh so OP has played the game?
That's what a review is anon, criticism or praise of a product you've experienced

>>2491400
"Gibs me" isn't a criticism.

>>2491404
>Uhh akshually a review requires you to have put hands on the product.
No it does not. The most accurate definition of review in this situation would be "an act or process of carefully looking at or examining the quality, condition, etc., of something or someone."
Steam might require you to own a game to POST a review on their platform, but that does not mean a review is dependent on ownership .
You're not a child bickering with a sibling. There is no "winning" this argument, and you have already realised you were wrong. You can just stop posting.

>>2491406
>>2491393
Not a single person in this thread or OP's image have argued that this game should be free. You are the singular person imagining this.I realise that you find american nigger vernacular humourous and want to post it, but your contrived scenario and comments are contributing nothing.
The original review asserted that free mods provided similar content. This is different than claiming the remaster should be free.

>>2491412
>No it does not.
Yes, it does
This isn't my opinion, it's a fact; you can't review something you haven't experienced

>>2491414
Your definition of experienced is flawed. Ownership is not required to experience something.
I can look at a picture and review it. Similarly, I can look at a game and review it. I do bot have to play it myself.
I can review historical events by reading about the event. I do not have yo participate in that historical moment. Similarly, I can read about a product and review it.

Trying to gatekeep reviews of games does not actually change the definition of the word review.

>>2491412
>The original review asserted that free mods provided similar content. This is different than claiming the remaster should be free.
The OP LITERALLY makes FREE [sic], "sheer greed" and "extortion" the main points of their post, you haven't even read the OP

>>2491419
>I can look at a picture and review it. Similarly, I can look at a game and review it.
You stupid motherfucker: a game is interactive, a picture is not

File: 1789418370579-1.jpg (146 KB, 640x814)

146 KB JPG

>>2491412
>Not a single person in this thread or OP's image have argued that this game should be free. You are the singular person imagining this.
Ooh, here comes the disingenuousness. Bringing up community mods being free isn't indicative of anything.

>>2491424
You are interacting with a picture by viewing it.

>>2491419
Gatekeeping is good, though.

Why did we ever decide to tolerate complaints about a game from someone who never played it?

>>2491423
Calling a company greedy is not the same as demanding their products be free. I did read the review and it's clear you have an issue of comprehension.
Maybe the original reviewer wants the price lowered. Maybe they believe that more content should added before they sell the product. Maybe they believe the product should be deleted. Or maybe you're right snd the want it for free.
The point is, we don't actually know because they didn't say. You, however, imagined that they did.
>>2491424
>You stupid motherfucker
Calm down, you're not a pubescent child
>a game is interactive, a picture is not
True, but that neither changes the requirements or definition of a review.

>>2491431
>True, but that neither changes the requirements or definition of a review.
Great, I'm looking forward to your book reviews from having looked at the cover
insane

>>2491425
Quote it then. Quote the actual text arguing that the product should be free. It's clear you also have an issue of comprehension, and I would be glad to correct it.

>>2491430
I can understand why you might want to gatekeep a community. But trying to change the definition of a word is moronic.

File: ATJyakub.jpg (122 KB, 1014x1413)

122 KB JPG

>>2491126
>strategy game set in Japan
>"shameful display"
Underrated comment.

>>2491391
My uncle Al does the upscaling

>>2491309
>TW fanbase is horrible
That's just 'strategy game fans' in general
Mostly turd worlders having a meltdown that
>My rig crashes a lot (no SSD OS in 2026 lol)
>Game is not the game I played
>My favorite faction arbitrarily was ignored!!! I have to make it about me and my problems!
>Spending money for continued support and new content?!
>Because I play strategy games I'm inherently smarter
All this culminates in the least deserving customer base of all time
Sure their games are unpolished, but I think CA actually makes games it wants to make

File: panzer.png (302 KB, 640x480)

302 KB PNG

>>2491798
>>My rig crashes a lot (no SSD OS in 2026 lol)
Once in a while when someone makes a high-budget high-graphics strategy game you get hundreds of broke third world niggas in the comments going
>by my computer runs all the other games I play
>last game he played is picrel
This is oddly specific to strategy games, other people also complain, but not to that extent.

>>2491856
>This is oddly specific to strategy games
Contemporary strategy games are non-AAA and worship the ashes of the past. High-budget high-graphics games in the genre nowadays are unusual

i dont understand why all these retards are complaining about the game being $60. It's not $60. It's $10 you fucking retards. If you own shogun 2, it's ten fucking dollars. Now is this lazy shit worth $10? I dunno that's up to you, but it aint $60. Unless you don't own shogun 2 at which point, why are you whining.

>>2492003
Yeah, realistically nobody is going to pay full price, but the discount is only for the first month putting you in a shitty FOMO situation you have to buy it now or never because it's probably not going 75% off again any time soon as a "new" game and it only applies on steam. Also some fags will say the base price is okay because that's how much S2 collection costs now, but it's pretty nonsense because that game was given out for free at some point and even before that it goes 80% off every other week and nobody actually paid $30 for it while somehow I doubt the complete edition will and they are delisting the old one.
It's really hard to see it as anything other CA trying to raise the price and squeeze some money out of an older title. I guess only Rome2 gets free updates and everyone else has to pay for it. So much for building goodwill by updating old titles.
In the end it's not a lot anyway, but the way they went about it just feels bad.

How is this new title going to work with the multiplayer accounts? I had a lot of min/max veteran units I don't want to have to farm all over again.
I'd be happy just for this to breathe some new life into the MP scene though,

I wish other titles that they made had a similar MP "Campaign". I've often thought about how Empire 3 would be perfect with it, as the central units (line, light, grenadier, dragoons, cavalry, arty) would be the same across factions and it would just be small cultural outliers that deviated like archers, apaches, shinobi, ghulams, camelry, elephantry.

>>2492258
>Empire 3
And where's Empire 2?

>>2492353
Unironically being developed as a full mod because CA sure won't do it.

>64 bit patch behind a price tag that isn't compatible with a 15 years worth of mods
>"It's $10!!!" before sitting at $40 and barely going on sale since it's a "new game "
>Can't even list a single bug fix
This is genuinely worse than Rome Remastered, incredible work CA