Do i need mount and blade warband to play fire and sword.

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
i love the contradiction in the phrase: 'stand alone expansion pack'....

someone didnt learn english :wink:

that, and the fact that my receipt for pre-order of mount and blade (the original) explicitly says that it will include all future expansions.
which it did originally, and then sometime in the last 2 years someone decided they wanted more money for warband from their supportive fans who pre ordered M&B which enabled their company to stay alive in the first place.
i think if taleworlds was an ingame lord they would be classified as 'aggressive, evil, backstabbing, calculating'.
 
I think Warband should have been a free update for people who'd pre-ordered Mount and Blade. Everything it added could have been done with Mount and Blade without a new game. Except possibly multiplayer, but I never cared about that anyway.
 
could be worse i mean 15 bucks i do not mind that for this game

after all the amount of replay value m@b has is well worth it
 
Did someone mention butt hurt?!
300835812961.jpg
 
No... you don't need Warband (to play Fire and Sword, otherwise you need Warband to simply enrich your life... that's the ploy I use to try to convince my local friends to buy it).

I don't really see a problem with shelling out cash to Taleworlds for each new game... their products are packed with a lot more potential and playable fun than the other stuff I've bought in the past.
 
This industry gets away with a lot that wouldn't happen in other industries. A staff member at a computer shop once remarked to me that, if the computer industry was the motor industry, the big names like Bill Gates would be in prison. Not aimed at Taleworlds, but a lot of games and other software products that you pay good money for are released unfit for purpose, but somehow the developers are never prosecuted. I don't know about other countries, but in the UK the Sale of Goods Act and the Goods and Services Act both state that a product or service must be sold fit for the purpose intended, be of reasonable quality and offered at a reasonable price. When some big-name new game comes along at £35 (the highest I've seen a PC game go, consoles regularly pay £50 for the hyped-up games) and is so buggy out of the box that it's unplayable, that product has clearly violated all three mandates of these laws.

I'm no soliticor, but mail-ordered and digital download games sales would probably be covered by the Distance Selling Regulations, giving the customer the unlimited right to cancel the order and return the goods for a full refund including postage costs within seven days of purchase. Somehow, though, consumer rights don't seem to apply to the computer industry.
 
Sir David of Derby said:
I don't know about other countries, but in the UK the Sale of Goods Act and the Goods and Services Act both state that a product or service must be sold fit for the purpose intended, be of reasonable quality and offered at a reasonable price.
Software is legally defined as a license to use rather than a product or service. Has been since the early eighties.
When some big-name new game comes along at £35 (the highest I've seen a PC game go, consoles regularly pay £50 for the hyped-up games) and is so buggy out of the box that it's unplayable, that product has clearly violated all three mandates of these laws.
You can count the number of releases that make it through QA with game breaking bugs on a single hand in any given year, which considering we're now seeing thousands of releases is actually better going than most other industries. The problem isn't the software, it's the userbase. It's like the automotive industry, back in the day when you actually needed a basic knowledge of mechanics to own and operate an automobile there were few cars which ever garnered complaints on reliability. Once anyone capable of passing a test could drive you suddenly have a lot of cars and companies being wrote off because their cars keep breaking down; not because of any degradation in the quality of the engineering, but because over half the people now driving do not even have the basic knowledge of how to check the oil level of the engine.
Same applies to the computing industry. Back when you had to use a CLI interface to run a game there were barely any mention of bugs. Now any muppet capable of using a mouse can run a computer, suddenly every game is full of bugs. Not because of a drop in the engineering, but because over half of gamers lack even the basic knowledge of how to update drivers.
Distance Selling Regulations
Only apply to UK companies.
 
License to use rather than a product? I wasn't aware of that. That's a dirty little legal trick if ever there was one!

Certainly all the laws I named only apply in the UK, they're English laws. I imagine other countries have similar laws, but I don't know about other countries.

I do appreciate the serious response, but I think you might give too much credit to the various software houses out there. I think a combination of pressure from publishers, hype from marketting and probably other factors lead to games being released before they're ready. I by no means have the statistics available but I seem to remember big name games like Rome: Total War, Armed Assault, Master of Orion 3, to name a few, that shipped with game breaking bugs. MoO3 was actually pointless to play, because out of the box the AI wasn't able to ever attack the player's empire.

I concede the point about the sheer volume of releases, and there have been many games I've had no problems with. It does have to be said that M&B is one of the best-supported games I've come across, and the pre-order price was real value for money. As I said, I was less happy with the price of Warband, it should have cost less for what was added to the pre-existing game. Fire and Sword is a lower price and appears to add more than Warband added to Mount and Blade, so the balance seems right to me.
 
Sir David of Derby said:
I do appreciate the serious response, but I think you might give too much credit to the various software houses out there. I think a combination of pressure from publishers, hype from marketting and probably other factors lead to games being released before they're ready.
Being released before they're ready doesn't mean it's going to be full of bugs. They hamper development just as much as they annoy the end user. Though of course it depends on where you draw the line between a bug and a simple lack of polish.
I by no means have the statistics available but I seem to remember big name games like Rome: Total War, Armed Assault, Master of Orion 3, to name a few, that shipped with game breaking bugs.
None had game breaking bugs I recall. Rome had a few serious issues like the AI being unable to use ships, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a game breaking bug. Armed Assault tends to suffer from scope rather than bugs, it's not that there's anything broken so much as you have a conflict between the aims of the game and the implementation (same as any sandbox, the more open you want the game to be, the more control you have to give up regarding things like the AI and player control. So you get things like AI troops happily running into machine guns because the only way to prevent it would require you script it precisely). MOO 3 the AI certainly could attack you, in a large part the problems there weren't so much bugged as simple bad design in the first place.
As I said, I was less happy with the price of Warband, it should have cost less for what was added to the pre-existing game.
Warband gave you an extended map, new factions, a bunch of new quests and features like being able to form your own faction plus the multiplayer, which is enough for a sequel. Certainly far more change than you see in the Call of Duty series as a whole for example, which simply shuffles the story and provides virtually identical gameplay.
 
Ah, well, Call of Duty never was worth the hype. Modern Warfare was fun but not worth the price-tag. I quite agree with you, to my mind Modern Warfare was not much different to CoD 2.

I was under the impression the no-attack bug was well known for MoO3? Perhaps it was fixed in a patch? Certainly when I played it I never got attacked, and was so bored I returned the game, back in the day when PC games could be returned for a refund. I later heard about the bug and it all fell into place.

RTW was not crippled with bugs, as such, but the AI not using ships was certainly a major issue. That and the ridiculous Hollywood units, but that's another discussion.

Not sure if it was a bug or not, but Armed Assault had some major crash issue when I played it. I patched the game, checked drivers, etc, but nothing resolved it. Unplayable as a result.

My view of Warband is skewed because I have zero interest in multiplayer. I do think the new features should have been part of Mount and Blade all along, apart from the new faction, that must have been a lot of work. I do love the new items though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom