Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ringwraith #5 said:
ryozu said:
Yes, obviously taking survival in exchange for being bred for food is a superior survival 'strategy'.
It is. Evolution doesn't care about what happens to you after you pass on your genes, only that you do. Being taken care of by another species that is so powerful that nothing can threaten it (except perhaps itself) and that wants your own species to survive and actively works to protect it and keep its population numbers high? That's a fantastic deal.
Well if nothing can threaten it, then why would it need protection in the first place?
 
Pachinko said:
Ringwraith #5 said:
ryozu said:
Yes, obviously taking survival in exchange for being bred for food is a superior survival 'strategy'.
It is. Evolution doesn't care about what happens to you after you pass on your genes, only that you do. Being taken care of by another species that is so powerful that nothing can threaten it (except perhaps itself) and that wants your own species to survive and actively works to protect it and keep its population numbers high? That's a fantastic deal.
Well if nothing can threaten it, then why would it need protection in the first place?
You're a smart one.
 
Start an evolution thread.

YII7 said:
Unofficial art ; should pump some blood to the thread... :twisted:

bat1_by_yiit-d5to9vw.jpg

haha got it! stupid deviantart was blocking and routing everything it should show the picture now  :twisted:

It's Un official, so we can't pick it to pieces and moan for 20+ pages.

Maybe a strong 10
 
Jock said:
Pachinko said:
Ringwraith #5 said:
ryozu said:
Yes, obviously taking survival in exchange for being bred for food is a superior survival 'strategy'.
It is. Evolution doesn't care about what happens to you after you pass on your genes, only that you do. Being taken care of by another species that is so powerful that nothing can threaten it (except perhaps itself) and that wants your own species to survive and actively works to protect it and keep its population numbers high? That's a fantastic deal.
Well if nothing can threaten it, then why would it need protection in the first place?
You're a smart one.
:cool: :arrow: :neutral:
 
RoBo_CoP said:
Start an evolution thread.

YII7 said:
Unofficial art ; should pump some blood to the thread... :twisted:

bat1_by_yiit-d5to9vw.jpg

haha got it! stupid deviantart was blocking and routing everything it should show the picture now  :twisted:

It's Un official, so we can't pick it to pieces and moan for 20+ pages.

But It's been posted by a developer, so maybe, even if unofficial, it represents some aspect of the game. Or perhaps it is official and they say it is unofficial to leak information slowly, without anyone knowing it, and when the game is released everybody will find out that were true information and think that Bannerlord is even better
 
The aspect of humans weilding sharp/pointy objects with the intent on poking another for (??) reason to -> profit. Maybe.

or maybe it's disgraceful trickery!!!  :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
YII7 said:
Tork789 said:
Oh cool, an armour discussion!
First of all, check out these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKbi7YUNaI

Very educational; thanks :smile:

In other words, the dev took an hour and 15 minutes to watch those and then made a drawing. So far the progress on M&B II. :lol:
 
Concerning Bannerlord

Mr.X said:
Would like to add, the "ghost-kill" thing was fixed in cRPG. I'm pretty sure bannerlord won't have an issue with that.
These are great news, but it makes me wonder why the creators of cRPG deny other modders to use this feature. I am sure nobody plays cRPG only due to the ghost-kill fix.

YII7 said:
Unofficial art ; should pump some blood to the thread... :twisted:

bat1_by_yiit-d5to9vw.jpg

haha got it! stupid deviantart was blocking and routing everything it should show the picture now  :twisted:
Depending on how unofficial it is, together with the teaser trailer it can be seen as another clue that Bannerlord will take place in the Early Medieval Ages.



Concerning armour

Kawee said:
On a side note, I hate movies that give soldiers these amazing plate armour, and have them so easily killed by arrows and swords.

You'd think they'd stop to wonder, "if plate armour can't protect you from swords and arrows, why did [people] wear them?"
Just out of curiosity, could you give an example for such a movie?



Concerning Space Marines

Amontadillo said:
I believe the weird proportions of Space Marines are indeed a result of genetic modification according to the lore.
Yes.
I am no expert on this subject, but if I remember correctly, Space Marines are said to feature the exact same genes as every other human. Their physical differences result from the implementation of certain additional artificial organs. However these do not change the human body's overall proportions. In this respect genetic modifications do not make any sense anyway. Creating suitable armour seems much easier to me than to modify people to enable them to wear such weird armour.

Ringwraith #5 said:
Not that explaining away that little oddity makes the setting any less ridiculous and impossible to take seriously.
Actually that oddity can not be explained away. What makes Space Marines ridiculous is just their poor design. Their inventors should have stuck to the design of the normal imperial soldiers. For instance Kasrkin look much more believable than Space Marines.
spacemarineproportions.jpg



Concerning evolution

Pachinko said:
In the far (if not near) future, you could go on seeing four armed brutes and other such genetically enhanced humans.
Jock said:
Are you serious?
You do not really believe this yourself, do you?

Pachinko said:
Moreover, you can't say that humans can't have their arms and legs evolved.
First, I never claimed that human extremities could not change in the course of time, but second, I see no reason why they should evolve in a way to fit a Space Marine Power Suit.

Pachinko said:
Why would've chimps & monkeys evolved into us, then?
Vermillion_Hawk said:
It's a common misconception that we evolved directly from monkeys.
We humans are evolutionarily related to monkeys because we share the same progenitors.

Vermillion_Hawk said:
Not to say early humans didn't look somewhat like primates but still...
In fact, we are still primates.

Kawee said:
Evolution is working just fine.
Evolution is not working fine, but it is not working badly either. It is just working.

Ringwraith #5 said:
The measure of success is survival.
This is exactly the reason why we can not rate animals in view of evolution. It just depends on the environmental circumstances. If the sun would was older than it actually is and stopped working properly right now, we all would inevitably die. Obviously we did not survive then, just like every other species. As a result we would need to be considered to be as unsuccessful as any other species of this planet. The survival of a species can not be a measure of its developmental stage on its own.

Ringwraith #5 said:
Evolution doesn't care about what happens to you after you pass on your genes, only that you do.
No. Evolution does not care at all.

Jock said:
Pachinko said:
Ringwraith #5 said:
ryozu said:
Yes, obviously taking survival in exchange for being bred for food is a superior survival 'strategy'.
It is. Evolution doesn't care about what happens to you after you pass on your genes, only that you do. Being taken care of by another species that is so powerful that nothing can threaten it (except perhaps itself) and that wants your own species to survive and actively works to protect it and keep its population numbers high? That's a fantastic deal.
Well if nothing can threaten it, then why would it need protection in the first place?
You're a smart one.
In this regard I totally agree with you, Jock.
 
It's a comparison; in terms of technology. The stones in the background, and the armour/weaponry of the two shown in the drawing tell a lot more than just black and white.
 
Yabloko said:
Or maybe It won't be placed in Early Medieval Ages because perhaps Calradian ages haven't an equivalent to real world ages
Well, the singleplayer campaign of Mount&Blade starts in the year 1257 and the vast majority of the displayed items could be found in Europe in the year 1257 as well. I doubt this is a coincidence.
 
Hospes fori said:
Yabloko said:
Or maybe It won't be placed in Early Medieval Ages because perhaps Calradian ages haven't an equivalent to real world ages
Well, the singleplayer campaign of Mount&Blade starts in the year 1257 and the vast majority of the displayed items could be found in Europe in the year 1257 as well. I doubt this is a coincidence.

This may not be a coincidence, but what I mean is that perhaps there hasn't been a bronze age, for example, so you can't truly say that there's an equivalence in the ages, and perhaps the year 1257 means 1257 years after an important event, so maybe the medieval age in Calradia could have lasted 5000 years, so our conception of "Early" may be wrong.

Edit: And I agree with Tork, some items that compared to our history would seem anachronistic in M&B coexist with other items from other ages of our history
 
I expressly remember a developer saying that the time period for the game was vague on purpose, because they actually meant it to feel more like 1150-1350. They don't intend anything more than nominal historical accuracy for a slightly wide period.

Also, that image. I detect that Calradia is for the Nooords!
We might see some Nord homeland action. Or something.

Every body should notice that one of the runes in that scene has Y117's name on it.
So, one of the devs doodled some nordic stuff and showed it to us. He also called it art for the game. Unofficial, but still art dedicated to it.
That says to me that either he likes the Nords, or that the game will be centered around them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom