Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
tansvanio said:
To be honest I dont give a **** about the name. All I care about is new features, new cabalities and that kinda stuff. I want more replayability.
+1
They can call it whatever they like, I just hope we'll get a good new game.
 
Frosty said:
Orchid said:
Gamespy said:
Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Announced
Hats off to the small development team at TaleWorlds. The Turkish studio has been cranking out quality combat since it launched Mount & Blade: Warband in 2010 and followed up with expansions With Fire & Sword in 2011 and Napoleonic Wars in 2012. And the drums of war won't miss a beat anytime soon. TaleWorlds has announced Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord is now in development.

Other than the teaser trailer above, TaleWorlds has yet to share any details on Bannerlord, but if Napoleonic Wars is any indication (220 unique units and up to 250 players in multiplayer battles), the return to medieval combat will be bigger than ever...

Sure I've seen Warband servers with that amount :<
Actually, NW doesnt even support that many players, only Warband.
 
Nahkuri said:
I'm saying is that your debate of epic proportions is silly, extremely unlikely to go anywhere in the near future and fills up the goddamn thread, and scrolling is such a pain. My forefinger's totally in agony. I doubt many people aside you & Onion are reading it, so you might as well spoiler it.
I sympathize with your plight. Truly no human being on the planet suffers more than you.

NNaw. When he isn't complaining about slight annoyances in video games as if they'd ruined his entire life, or getting into 10 page, 500-words per post debates about whether you should put the milk or the cornflakes in the bowl first, he's a decent poster.
What the **** are you talking about, those are the only two things I do. :lol:
Also, corn flakes are disgusting.

Orion said:
Ringwraith #5 said:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
...which is particularly funny in light of your lecture on the meaning of seldom used words. :lol:
Predecessors, then. Happy?
Yup. :grin:

Yes, you are. Or rather, you were until we pointed out that the fact that a word being a debatable anagram of a name of a fictional being does not legitimize it as a word in its own right.
Again, I never claimed that it did that. So another valid but irrelevant point.

That's when you started shifting your argument from "it's not a real word, why would they use it?!" to "it's not a good choice for the title because nobody knows what it means!"
Um, no, if you read the beginning of the discussion, you'll find that was my point from the start. What was it you said about understanding plain English a few posts back?

A vast multitude games have names that have no meaning outside of the context of specific game universes, or even their respective games. Go look at a list of Everquest expansions if you want an example. It's called artistic license. Don't like it? Fine. Want to argue that it's not effective from a marketing standpoint? There are so many games whose sale records thoroughly contradict such a position. Pretty much any successful fantasy game would.
Bad example. Expansions to a game can get away with it for precisely the reason I already talked about in connection with TES. Nobody is going to be buying those expansions except people who already own the game and are therefore familiar with the lore. And I can't quite recall any games with made-up nonsense words in their titles off the top of my head (other than weird Japanese stuff like Recettear and Disgaea, which is again due to poor translation more than anything). Care to name any?

Pathetic backpedaling and shifting of position is all you've managed to do in the last few pages. Oh, and the occasional "this is why I hate the world, but I can't quit you" bit. You could just stop being a ***** about it and leave already. Or shut up, whichever you prefer.
Ladies first.
 
eobet said:
I paid for and played M&B a bit when it was really early beta... can't even remember the year... but I think Hitman 1 and 2 were out, so the first thing I said was "where are the inverse kinetics"? I know it was much to ask and I was in a minority, but I stopped playing M&B quite quickly because I just couldn't get over the pre-cooked animations with swords passing through shields and other objects. It removed the immersion too much for me.

Now, with every game using very advanced animation systems and physics simulations, I hope I won't have to ask that question again for this sequel. Especially since there now are two medieval combat games soon to be released and I hope M&B2 will aim higher than those. Good luck to the developers! :smile:

I'm not certain that I have understood what you mean, are you saying you hoped to see no clipping, and that all objects such as swords and shields should have a physical boundary in the game? Because I could see problems with that in M&B. There are usually many objects hanging off each warrior; his sword/axe at his hip, shield either in hand or slung over his shoulder, bows in a similar position, and quivers hanging at the lower back. If objects are given a real physical prescence in battle, then they might jiggle around unrealistically when running or when they collide with other objects e.g. when a soldier runs into another or a sword swing cathes a quiver, and that would look daft. And walking down a corridor with a weapon drawn could be very comical/frustrating if the weapon was bumping into the walls all the time. In most games all you have to worry about is a character's cape or jacket flopping around as your avatar moves without looking peculiar.
 
I think he means things like: Swinging a sword at an armoured enemy, not killing him, and the sword passing right through him, instead of bouncing off.
I think that weapons should only do the pass-through thing when the enemy is dead; IE, the killing stroke. Either that, or whenever only a small amount of the blade makes contact with an unarmoured area on the opponent.
 
I can easily see myself getting used to the name butterlard. Hurr. Bannerlord. I think it fits, even. In a rough & ready sort of way, like Warband.
 
MadVader said:
If it turns out to be disappointing, we can always call it Bannerlol.
Buggerlord. It's gotta be Buggerlord.

Rams said:
Say Ringwraith. Have you gotten yourself a girlie?

Being semi-serious.
Tried a few, couldn't find one without serious faults yet. Surprising, huh? Why, do you want to volunteer your sister?
 
Trevty said:
I think Ringwraith would sound like this guy when talking to a girl.
Oh gawd.  :lol:

@RW Keep trying, I think you could really pick something up from being into a relationship. Somehow I imagine that you don't really have much friends either.

I'd hook you up with my sis, but she's rather shallow.
 
Thanks for the advice, but I think I can manage my relationships well enough on my own.

Also, what the **** is up with those avatars?
 
This thread is derailed like hell and is in no way needed anymore. There is another thread which is on the "on-topic" boards, which can be found here. Don't go spamming it like you do here, because I'll be handing out mutes to idiots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom