Is that how you got the cancer, the Human kind?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord is mis-advertised by the devs on Steam (yes, even taking into account Early Access)
- Thread starter Bannerdog
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Is that how you got the cancer, the Human kind?
HumanCancer
Banned
Possibly
Bannerdog
Recruit
My time is worth more than bugfixing and playtesting for free for a multi-million dollar company that has got itself into this situation through what are presumably a combination of bad development practises and bad communication and PR skills. We all know what Early Access means, but I think that many people were expecting this particular game, given the hype and development time, to be further along in progress and more stable and closer to completion than it is now. If you look at the content that is broken or missing it seems around 60-70% finished. That doesn't mean it isn't "playable" and the core of the game seems good (we all love the battles, despite AI issues), but do you really want to invest hundreds of hours burning yourself out by playtesting an incomplete game? To me that's not even logical unless you REALLY have nothing better to do in your gaming or private life.
So yeah, I will happily wait for now and then come back to to play it periodically when I see that progress has been made. Thank goodness for modders, because they are doing a lot to help the devs by mitigating a lot of the serious issues with the game, issues that show a serious lack of attention to detail from the devs. The sooner the devs are in a position to release modding tools the better.
It's clear TW are having problems developing this game and are not in the position they thought they would be in at this point. They have not been open and proactive with the community about that to the level the community deserves when you consider about the amount of money they have made. The least they could do is make communication more proactive, honest and transparent.
Unfortunately the large proportion of uber-defensive people on this forum who obsessively and feverishly spend hundreds of hours per month gaming and invest so much time and emotional investment into it will never allow critical opinions of their favourite games, this can be seen on game forums the world over. The proportion of objective and unbiased voices will always be comparatively low and I am fine with that. It's a principle that applies in many areas of life.
Cases in point.
Last edited:
Bannerdog
Recruit
Yup, basically this is at least one of the reasons. It's now much easier for developers to get away with bad practises than a decade or two ago when games would generally only be released when they were final and polished to the highest quality manageable (generally speaking). Now, developers frequently release things to the public in bad states and then just patch it up as they go along.
Now with this Early Access system they are able do this while charging the same price as a final release title. It is very ethically questionable and I have a feeling that the current situation will not be allowable for long.
Last edited:
oh, so you play with smooth FPS, you must be the first, is your computer on steroids?
Unstable = not stable { stuttering, tearing, crashes, errors, so on so forth}
Wow, easy there boy hahaha Yes it affects the ability to report bugs because we can be more objective and won't waste time trying to figure out if something is or isn't a place-holder. We also get to understand what they are trying to do and we can focus on the "trying to do" instead of talking about a gazillion things that are not pertinent.
Yup, with a roadmap the forums would cleaner and more easy to read by the Devs.
Last edited:
That was deep.
You are seeing things with a bit of rose tinted glasses here. Games in the past were much simpler, and people were not as good at noticing bugs. When they did they often didn't care, because the bar was much lower. In addition to that we have a lot of indie developers releasing games today, which means that we have tons of games released by people who don't really know what they are doing, so... It could be worse. There's still gems out there, you just have to dig around a bit more.
I don't think this will apply to Bannerlord, they are working on fixing things. They are just slow as hell and about as organized as a charging rhino. And they just released a sort of roadmap for MP so, who knows... Perhaps there's hope. And if the objective voices are those saying "boo this game sucks" and "next patch when" I think I can do without them myself.
Bannerdog
Recruit
There have been an absolute slew of games delivered in an incredibly polished state because the state of the industry was very different back then and the pressure (and ability) to release earlier was lower. I have been a PC gamer for around 3 decades so have seen the best and worst of the industry. As for "the games were not complex back then", come on... the things that were done with what was available at the time were AMAZING. Not only were they complex, but they generally had to release things in better states as there was no fast internet to deliver meaty patches on a regular basis.
I don't see many people saying "the game sucks". I see most people justifiably criticizing the devs.
Oh don't get me wrong, some of the old games were absolutely amazing. I spent more hours playing Alpha Centauri than I can even count, same with Caesar III and Baldur's Gate and many others. But if you give some of them to modern, younger gamers, they will probably complain about many of their features and/or see them as bugs (random walkers? why aren't my Roman citizens doing what I expect them to do? Game must be broken. Or imagine if a modern game released with a Morrowind like mechanic where you physically hit a thing with your dagger and you miss because you rolled too low). And yes, they did amazing things with the tools available at the time, but the tools we have now allow for projects of a different scope, and developers get overly ambitious. Especially indie devs. But I am rambling a little here.
There are many people justifiably critizing the devs, but there's also many people posting flame bait threads with ranting attacks to TW instead of providing actual feedback on the game (just look at the threads that have been locked recently, and those are just the worst examples). There's been enough of those that many forum posters now have a knee jerk reaction whenever they see someone criticizing the game, which is also wrong and annoying. I have seen more personal attacks on this forum since Bannerlord released than in the time I spent browsing it before that. I suspect social distancing might be a factor, people are going nuts and they take it out on here. It's getting tiresome though.
I haven't had a single crash. There was one version where I had slow downs in battle, but those went away quickly. Since then, no issues. What I am missing though, is content. The game runs perfectly fine for me otherwise. Just need more content! This is my experience.
Exact same experience here. I gave it a break to come back when there is more content and balancing in mid-late game but that's perfectly understandable as this is not a final product.
Interesting, what mods are you using? I've been playing on Beta 1.3 since it was made available and have had minimal issues. The vast majority of issues I see relate to the mods I use (my choice) and not to the TW branch code.
All your own faults. People hyping themselves up and having weird expectations before they even have anything concrete in front of them. Tsk tsk.
+1 on everything. Games "back in the day" were not always perfect in anyway, in fact a lot of them had bugs at finals release including sometimes game-breaking bugs. The games were also simpler, and so forth and so forth. Somehow, I have a feeling a lot of these people who are strangely upset about the state of Bannerlord before it has even been released, are quite young and just don't have much experience in life. That, or they simply are immature.
Just the leap from 2d to 3d is pretty ****ing big. Imagine all the extra trouble and issue in making a good 3d game, compared to a good 2d game. Laughable.
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
I had a bit of stuttering and fps lag back with the siege, but they fixed that. My battlesize is set to about 600-800 cause 1000 caused issues. other than that, its been running pretty smoothly i dont think i have a "computer on steroids" but neither do i try to play the game on a toaster and i dont use mods of any kind as they can make the game unstable.
If you say a game is unstable if you have lag or stuttering, then i have never played a stable game in my life i would say, cause at some point you will lag no matter what you do. The other day i booted up AoE2 and had lag, SUCH and unstable game....
I have:
Intel Core i5-8400 2.80GHz
16 GB RAM
Samsung SSD 970 EVO 500 GB
Navidia Geforce GTX 1060 6 GB
To be honest, I had as little expectations as possible as to what would be available on day 1 and I was surprised by what I got, positively, and even more on TW releasing daily patches for as long as they did. I crashed once, and it was due to the Family Feud quest starting with negative days to finish. I've also had performance issues at some point, but those are improving with every patch and they have responded to community feedbacks, that is why they are still looking into faction balance, they have made numerous changes to affect the snowballing in campaign, they made changes to the AI, they made changes to lords spawn rate and troops available at spawn.
I wonder if people that buy into Early Access games have had any experience with anything that has risks, like buying shares. You should do some research before jumping in EA, you should look into the company, past projects, as much as you can on how they operate, what are their vices and virtues.
I will use Inquisitor Martyr as an example, I bought the game for two reasons, the first one was because I had played other projects made by the same company, they had three Van Helsing aRPGs that they eventually compiled into a single game, so I knew they could do good work and deliver a fun experience which is a good thing, and second because it was based on the Warhammer 40k universe and I love everything related to Warhammer, be it 40k or Fantasy, which is bad because it increased my expectation and there was a good chance I would overlook the first reason if the company developing it was bad and had a reputation for delivering sub par products, like Ubisoft. I played the game for sometime and I wasn't really satisfied with the end product, IMO it was kinda dull and wasn't fun like their other games, but they are still working on it and delivering content, so there is a good chance I will give it another go at some point in the future. Did I feel cheated? No, I knew there were risks and I weighted those risks with what I knew about the company and the game so far, and I know that games that are not finished are subject to change both for better and worse.
And how does this relate to TW and Bannerlord? Well, I've played the first Mount&Blade game when it was in version 0.751, that was maybe back in 2006/2007, my pc could barely handle it at 20fps and I would play it for hours because I had never seen a game like that, even though it had its flaws, some pretty big ones like not being able to place your arches in the back on even ground because they would insta kill your infantry by shooting them in the back of the head, those were eventually fixed and new content was delivered, so I kept playing it, onto version 0.808, 0.953, 0.954, 0.960, and then release in 2008. In 2009 they announced Warband, I started playing its early versions as well, and even still, patches were coming out for the original Mount&Blade, the last one was in 2011, version 1.011, the same thing had happened to Warband, they released it in 2012 and new content and patches kept being delivered, even after the announcement they started working on their next game, Mount&Blade 2 Bannerlord.
So, do I feel cheated or misled? No, I don't, they said the game would be under development and that major features were not implemented yet, they also said this could lead to crashed and bugs being introduced, which doesn't need to be said really, as developer I can relate. And judging by my past experiences with TW, I know they are dedicated, don't abandon their games and can deliver a lot of quality time.
They've also decided to build the engine from scratch, and it is by no means an easy nor quick task. As a reference, the first unreal engine took 3 to 4 years to be developed.
I wonder if people that buy into Early Access games have had any experience with anything that has risks, like buying shares. You should do some research before jumping in EA, you should look into the company, past projects, as much as you can on how they operate, what are their vices and virtues.
I will use Inquisitor Martyr as an example, I bought the game for two reasons, the first one was because I had played other projects made by the same company, they had three Van Helsing aRPGs that they eventually compiled into a single game, so I knew they could do good work and deliver a fun experience which is a good thing, and second because it was based on the Warhammer 40k universe and I love everything related to Warhammer, be it 40k or Fantasy, which is bad because it increased my expectation and there was a good chance I would overlook the first reason if the company developing it was bad and had a reputation for delivering sub par products,
And how does this relate to TW and Bannerlord? Well, I've played the first Mount&Blade game when it was in version 0.751, that was maybe back in 2006/2007, my pc could barely handle it at 20fps and I would play it for hours because I had never seen a game like that, even though it had its flaws, some pretty big ones like not being able to place your arches in the back on even ground because they would insta kill your infantry by shooting them in the back of the head, those were eventually fixed and new content was delivered, so I kept playing it, onto version 0.808, 0.953, 0.954, 0.960, and then release in 2008. In 2009 they announced Warband, I started playing its early versions as well, and even still, patches were coming out for the original Mount&Blade, the last one was in 2011, version 1.011, the same thing had happened to Warband, they released it in 2012 and new content and patches kept being delivered, even after the announcement they started working on their next game, Mount&Blade 2 Bannerlord.
So, do I feel cheated or misled? No, I don't, they said the game would be under development and that major features were not implemented yet, they also said this could lead to crashed and bugs being introduced, which doesn't need to be said really, as developer I can relate. And judging by my past experiences with TW, I know they are dedicated, don't abandon their games and can deliver a lot of quality time.
They've also decided to build the engine from scratch, and it is by no means an easy nor quick task. As a reference, the first unreal engine took 3 to 4 years to be developed.
yeah, I've tried 1.3.0 and it seems a bit better than 1.2.1 - but tons of people are complaining about sporadic crashes, haven't experienced any yet (just got 1.3.0 beta, don't even know if there was a patch today). But the stuttering and issues on sieges still happen here and there. (sieges always)
no mods
Similar threads
