Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 125 posts

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#61

Post by onraglanroad »

complianceowll wrote: post #60
onraglanroad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't help me anyway because you know far less than I do. You don't know what's historically accurate. You don't understand why there was a black community in Rome. You don't know why there was one in 17th century London. But you still think you know better than me bubba.

The fact that you are telling me (someone you don't know) "...you know far less than I do" and "You don't know what's historically accurate" and all the other "you don't know"s, tells everyone everything they need to know about who they're speaking to. Thank you for confirming my suspicions!

Check out if my statements were accurate. I realise it's not ego confirming to be told you're wrong but you could really see it as an opportunity to learn.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#62

Post by paulryanrogers »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #49
fylham wrote: post #13

For those who aren’t aware, AOE2 is thriving today with a huge player base, fan base, ongoing development and large international tournaments (recent Red Bull Wololo tournament in London, for example). I play this game regularly with friends and love it.

The most insane part of AOE2 is that I was a young teenager when I first played the game and the dominant players then are STILL the dominant players now - 27 years later

How is this possible when StarCraft tournaments are dominated by the young?

Is it lower APM and therefore less RSI? A more niche market?

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#63

Post by icegreentea2 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #62
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most insane part of AOE2 is that I was a young teenager when I first played the game and the dominant players then are STILL the dominant players now - 27 years later

How is this possible when StarCraft tournaments are dominated by the young? Is it lower APM and therefore less RSI? A more niche market?

Uh, dunno if I'd say that BW is dominated by "the young".

Top 4 at the latest ASL are all born before 1995 - they're all millennials. None of them are from the first generation of BW pros, but they've been in the game for a long time.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#64

Post by tsycho »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #49
fylham wrote: post #13

For those who aren’t aware, AOE2 is thriving today with a huge player base, fan base, ongoing development and large international tournaments (recent Red Bull Wololo tournament in London, for example). I play this game regularly with friends and love it.

The most insane part of AOE2 is that I was a young teenager when I first played the game and the dominant players then are STILL the dominant players now - 27 years later

That's....not true.

Maybe a few pros have been playing for 20+ years, but most of the top players (by championship wins) are young.

Hera, Lierrey, Vinchester, Lewis...are in their 20s. And even the previous #1 Viper isn't that old.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#65

Post by cauch »

complianceowll wrote: post #57
cauch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean "out of context". The initial article is literally explaining that there is a misconception around the diversity of culture during the antiquity. This anecdotal event, that I picked because it was recent (sorry to disappoint you, I don't really care for Musk), was just a concrete example that the exact misconception we are talking about is real and still present today. The fact that the culprit is Mu…

> I don't really care for Musk I'm laughing so hard right now. You resoundingly do care about Musk; you're obsessed with him. Second, who said anything about me alleging that "they depicted a roman army that was no entirely Rome-inhabitant looking"? Those are your words not mine, and if anyone is looking for the king of strawman arguments, we have a winner with you. Rome was a very ethnically diverse place, including…

> I'm laughing so hard right now. You resoundingly do care about Musk; you're obsessed with him.

I love those self-defeating argument, it's still a mystery how people don't realise how stupid they look. You know that I know better than you how much I care about Musk, right? You are trying to convince me that something that I can observe, as a fact, to be totally wrong, is in fact true. You realise that all you do is confess that you are unable to conceive that something that you have made up may not be true.

Ok, ok, let me try. complianceowll, you are a little dog called Popo. You say it's not the case, you say you are not a little dog, but I'm laughing so hard right now, because you resoundingly are a dog, you are named Popo. See, I'm so smart, you cannot hide the truth from me.

Did it work? Did you believe to be a little dog (because you are)? No? Well, guess what, similarly, I still don't believe I'm obsessed with Musk. But I do believe, based on that proof, that your opinions are worth nothing, because they are the result of someone who not only is convinced of something false, but also believe that they can convince someone who see it's not true that it is true. Silly little dog.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#66

Post by cauch »

complianceowll wrote: post #60
onraglanroad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't help me anyway because you know far less than I do. You don't know what's historically accurate. You don't understand why there was a black community in Rome. You don't know why there was one in 17th century London. But you still think you know better than me bubba.

The fact that you are telling me (someone you don't know) "...you know far less than I do" and "You don't know what's historically accurate" and all the other "you don't know"s, tells everyone everything they need to know about who they're speaking to. Thank you for confirming my suspicions!

> The fact that you are telling me (someone you don't know ...

That's rich from a guy who also tell someone they don't know that they are "obsessed with Musk". You are so full of it, and too stupid to even notice everyone here see you for the laughing stock you are.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#67

Post by Macha »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #63
paulryanrogers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this possible when StarCraft tournaments are dominated by the young? Is it lower APM and therefore less RSI? A more niche market?

Uh, dunno if I'd say that BW is dominated by "the young". Top 4 at the latest ASL are all born before 1995 - they're all millennials. None of them are from the first generation of BW pros, but they've been in the game for a long time.

I think BW has the collapse of the infrastructure that used to support it as a ongoing televised event to blame for that one. It’s less popular among gen z so there isn’t the up and coming replacement and no one is paying them to do it as a full time job as even the mid-tier pros from its prime era were.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#68

Post by constantius »

arjie wrote: post #12

Wow, that’s actually really interesting. I knew of other empires in this shape (to me the Kushan empire is the most obvious syncretic example) but I didn’t know they were all shaped this way. I suppose I always imagined empire being a bigger thing than kingdom but this definition seems more useful. It seems that other definitions don’t involve resource extraction necessarily but power over multiple nations. Still, it…

Yes, the idea of empire as being something bigger than a kingdom is a popular misunderstanding.

However, Rome (and Byzantium) were actually very good at integrating conquered populations into their culture.

Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman, with all the benefits and protections it entailed.

After 2-3 generations, there was not much difference between a Roman from Gaul and a Roman from Rome: they spoke the same language, worshipped the same gods, had the same education, and viewed themselves as Roman. And critically, the Romans from Rome didn't see their compatriots from elsewhere as different.

The Senate was composed entirely of men, but apart from that it was a DEI dream. Some of the emperors were dark-skinned, originating from current Syria: we only know because of their genealogy, their portraits, but otherwise no one cared enough to mention their skin colour, especially in a negative way.

To such an extent that, for most of their existence, Rome and Byzantium did not actually fit the definition of empire.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#69

Post by nephihaha »

I did enjoy that article, especially the main point, but I would take issue with the notion of diversity in the Roman Empire. I have seen this label before, but it is misleading and anachronistic, since the various other groups the Romans conquered were gradually romanised. We might as well say the British or Spanish Empires were diverse... On one level they did have many cultures, but there was also a concerted effort to assimilate those cultures and languages.

Re: Why Are There No Empires in Age of Empires? (2019)

#70

Post by cherryteastain »

constantius wrote: post #68
arjie wrote: post #12

Wow, that’s actually really interesting. I knew of other empires in this shape (to me the Kushan empire is the most obvious syncretic example) but I didn’t know they were all shaped this way. I suppose I always imagined empire being a bigger thing than kingdom but this definition seems more useful. It seems that other definitions don’t involve resource extraction necessarily but power over multiple nations. Still, it…

Yes, the idea of empire as being something bigger than a kingdom is a popular misunderstanding. However, Rome (and Byzantium) were actually very good at integrating conquered populations into their culture. Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman, with all the benefits and protections it entailed. After 2-3 generations, there was not much difference between a Roman from Gaul and a R…

> Very early in the empire, a law made all conquered people officially Roman

Wouldn't call this "early" in the empire. Caracalla [1] did this in 212AD by granting Roman citizenship to free noncitizens, well after the beginning of the empire in 27BC. W Roman Empire fell in the late 470s so about half of the empire's lifetime had severe legal stratification between citizens, free noncitizens (peregrini) and slaves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana

Post reply on HN