Observations from an old hand

Users who are viewing this thread

Ingolifs

Grandmaster Knight
I played my first version of Mount&Blade (0.623) in May 2005, and was hooked. I was one of the initial crowd that spent huge amounts of time both playing the game, and coming up with suggestions and arguing over other's suggestions in the forums.

Mount&blade was a very different game back then. The basic core of the game - foot and mounted group combat - has always been solid, but there existed little else besides that. Endgame play consisted of fighting 100+ party size Vaegir or Swadian war parties, which took a while because the game would only allow 28 troops at a time on the battlefield. Each town was just a menu, and every NPC inhabited the same drab brick hall. Lords were just quest dispensers and would never leave their halls. There were no external town scenes, no castles, no sieges, no becoming lord or king.

With so much potential and so little content beyond fighting, the early M&B community whipped themselves up in a bit of a frenzy imagining all the things that could be done with the game. It was quite intense at times (I once mentioned here I had a dream about an upcoming patch, and I kid you not, someone asked me for a detailed description of what the dream contained, such was the desperation for new information). Endless debates raged over how sieges could possibly be implemented (or managing a town or kingdom, for that matter). The early crop of mods explored many of these ideas, mods like Battle for Sicily and the Lombard Leagues, the latter of which I was quite heavily involved with.

After so much time imagining this stuff, it's fair to say that everyone had their own headcanon about 'what it would be like' when the game was in its finished state.

So when playing Bannerlord for the first time, I've deliberately approached it from the perspective of me 15 years ago. It's been interesting to see which parts of my headcanon match the final product.

So what is my overall impression? Pretty good, not great.

First of all, the game is gorgeous. It may not be as refined as a triple-A game laboured upon by a team of 200 artists, but it's very pretty all the same. The key for me is verisimilitude, the feeling you're inhabiting a real world with real people walking about. The first time I visited Car Banseth during the winter I walked around with my mouth agape for like, 30 minutes. And the scale. When we first got explorable towns (in 0.730 IIRC), they generally consisted of a gatehouse, half a dozen houses and a keep. These new scenes are massive! They also look really cool. Scenes feel wonderfully populated now with animated characters as opposed to the creepy standing staring mannequins in the original M&B taverns.

It's pleasing to see that many of the things I suggested long ago have found their way into the game. This thread from 6 years ago contains a few. I'm glad to see there's no hard limits on the number of troops you can lead, and that inventory space depends on the number of mules you have, not on some weird "inventory management" skill.

The skill system, while hard to get your head around initially and by no means perfect, is light years ahead of what we had previously. I think .632 was the last time I played completely without cheats in M&B. I'd always edit my character stats to have max leadership, prisoner management, inventory management etc because the game was too tedious otherwise. Because the only decent source of xp was from killing enemies, you had to be a badass to level up in a reasonable time, and to be a badass you had to invest precious levels into your increasingly-irrelevant personal combat strength. Now you can continue to improve just by doing stuff. And it's never too late to learn something new.

The area I've been most disappointed in so far is to do with the game ecology and fief management. Yes we have a real economy and actions have consequences and there's politics, but it's all been implemented in the least interesting way. There's something about the impersonal menu-driven nature of it all, combined with the constant defections, declarations of war, village burnings, complete army annihilations and subsequent rapid respawnings and so forth - all driven by menu buttons rather than actual dialogue - that just makes me not care about any of it. I understand that back in the old days the dialogue-heavy aspects of both the original game and mods were simply a limitation of what could be done with the engine, but nevertheless I really miss the presence of actual conversation. It's a shame that the city and village scenes are all so beautifully crafted, yet there is little reason to see any of that when visiting a town.

I have a fief that I don't visit. It has a prosperity of 3000 and I don't know if that's good or bad. It seems to run itself just fine. I have no idea what it is that prosperity, loyalty or security actually do - the game doesn't communicate it, and I never seem to be put into any position where I have to worry about it. When the game has underlying complexity that the player is supposed to pay attention to, it needs to somehow be communicated to the player.

I understand that not many of my criticisms are new - I see a lot of posts complaining of the constant total war, for instance. I am confident that a lot of the problems with the economy and balancing and so forth will be sorted out in one way or another through various patches and mods. From what I've seen so far, Bannerlord looks to be a platform for a really good game, it's just about uncovering the really good game inside.
 
Good post, nailed it. I remember hearing that town scenes would be much more interactive and there would be many more things to do in them. They are incredibly boring and pointless. Some serious creative development issues at TW right now.
 
One of the big gripes I have with fief management is that you don't see the effects clearly. For instance, I hadn't even noticed that upgraded walls look differently on the campaign map until I saw it mentioned on a reddit post.
Some kind of dopamine-boosting reward popup when improvements are completed, showing the real world changes you've caused would be awesome.
 
The amount of resources that must have been taken to do theese scenes must be huge. They are truly amazing looking I admit! Altho i dont care about them, i just go in there to do spy amongst us quest.

I also didnt care that every npc needs its own voice actor like SWOTOR, which most of their budget went and game engine superfailed. I'll hope that they use their resources where it matters most for the game. We already have multiplayer wich must taken huge amount of resources already. Maybe we get reason to go into towns to experience them more.
 
The very pretty city scenes with nothing to do in them and no reason to explore them, is a perfect representation of the rest of the game.

I really wisj I had not gotten involved in the early access and had given TW some more time to actually put some content in the game.
 
I played my first version of Mount&Blade (0.623) in May 2005, and was hooked. I was one of the initial crowd that spent huge amounts of time both playing the game, and coming up with suggestions and arguing over other's suggestions in the forums.

Mount&blade was a very different game back then. The basic core of the game - foot and mounted group combat - has always been solid, but there existed little else besides that. Endgame play consisted of fighting 100+ party size Vaegir or Swadian war parties, which took a while because the game would only allow 28 troops at a time on the battlefield. Each town was just a menu, and every NPC inhabited the same drab brick hall. Lords were just quest dispensers and would never leave their halls. There were no external town scenes, no castles, no sieges, no becoming lord or king.

With so much potential and so little content beyond fighting, the early M&B community whipped themselves up in a bit of a frenzy imagining all the things that could be done with the game. It was quite intense at times (I once mentioned here I had a dream about an upcoming patch, and I kid you not, someone asked me for a detailed description of what the dream contained, such was the desperation for new information). Endless debates raged over how sieges could possibly be implemented (or managing a town or kingdom, for that matter). The early crop of mods explored many of these ideas, mods like Battle for Sicily and the Lombard Leagues, the latter of which I was quite heavily involved with.

After so much time imagining this stuff, it's fair to say that everyone had their own headcanon about 'what it would be like' when the game was in its finished state.

So when playing Bannerlord for the first time, I've deliberately approached it from the perspective of me 15 years ago. It's been interesting to see which parts of my headcanon match the final product.

So what is my overall impression? Pretty good, not great.

First of all, the game is gorgeous. It may not be as refined as a triple-A game laboured upon by a team of 200 artists, but it's very pretty all the same. The key for me is verisimilitude, the feeling you're inhabiting a real world with real people walking about. The first time I visited Car Banseth during the winter I walked around with my mouth agape for like, 30 minutes. And the scale. When we first got explorable towns (in 0.730 IIRC), they generally consisted of a gatehouse, half a dozen houses and a keep. These new scenes are massive! They also look really cool. Scenes feel wonderfully populated now with animated characters as opposed to the creepy standing staring mannequins in the original M&B taverns.

It's pleasing to see that many of the things I suggested long ago have found their way into the game. This thread from 6 years ago contains a few. I'm glad to see there's no hard limits on the number of troops you can lead, and that inventory space depends on the number of mules you have, not on some weird "inventory management" skill.

The skill system, while hard to get your head around initially and by no means perfect, is light years ahead of what we had previously. I think .632 was the last time I played completely without cheats in M&B. I'd always edit my character stats to have max leadership, prisoner management, inventory management etc because the game was too tedious otherwise. Because the only decent source of xp was from killing enemies, you had to be a badass to level up in a reasonable time, and to be a badass you had to invest precious levels into your increasingly-irrelevant personal combat strength. Now you can continue to improve just by doing stuff. And it's never too late to learn something new.

The area I've been most disappointed in so far is to do with the game ecology and fief management. Yes we have a real economy and actions have consequences and there's politics, but it's all been implemented in the least interesting way. There's something about the impersonal menu-driven nature of it all, combined with the constant defections, declarations of war, village burnings, complete army annihilations and subsequent rapid respawnings and so forth - all driven by menu buttons rather than actual dialogue - that just makes me not care about any of it. I understand that back in the old days the dialogue-heavy aspects of both the original game and mods were simply a limitation of what could be done with the engine, but nevertheless I really miss the presence of actual conversation. It's a shame that the city and village scenes are all so beautifully crafted, yet there is little reason to see any of that when visiting a town.

I have a fief that I don't visit. It has a prosperity of 3000 and I don't know if that's good or bad. It seems to run itself just fine. I have no idea what it is that prosperity, loyalty or security actually do - the game doesn't communicate it, and I never seem to be put into any position where I have to worry about it. When the game has underlying complexity that the player is supposed to pay attention to, it needs to somehow be communicated to the player.

I understand that not many of my criticisms are new - I see a lot of posts complaining of the constant total war, for instance. I am confident that a lot of the problems with the economy and balancing and so forth will be sorted out in one way or another through various patches and mods. From what I've seen so far, Bannerlord looks to be a platform for a really good game, it's just about uncovering the really good game inside.
Yeah there were like 2 towns in total, Zendar and Tihr (I guess), along with just a general emptiness about the world. The idea though was what spawned it and sustained it and thats what has got us this far and hopefully will keep us going much farther. I just hope we don't have to rely on mods to get depth like in Warband
 
I understand that back in the old days the dialogue-heavy aspects of both the original game and mods were simply a limitation of what could be done with the engine, but nevertheless I really miss the presence of actual conversation. It's a shame that the city and village scenes are all so beautifully crafted, yet there is little reason to see any of that when visiting a town.
Awesome post. I did want to mention just in case you didn't know (you prob do), the markets in town have a vendor for each of the tabs (weapons, armor/clothes, etc.) that you can go up to and enter a dialogue to shop. I'm with you, I miss the need to go to lords to ask them about whats going on in the world and where people are (at least with the encyclopedia you have to visit a settlement for any of the info to update, would be lame if it was constantly up to date).
 
Yes it compares favourably to a 15 year old incomplete game. Why are you comparing it to 0.623 and not warband which has many of the features the early community wanted. It had them 8 years ago. What does Bannerlord offer that Warband does not? The graphical improvements and battle size increase seem to meet minimum expectations for modern hardware and the development time, what else is there? Lets instead list the things people wished Warband had, see for example what the mod community created even without total conversion mods. The scope of those are far beyond what we see in Bannerlord at this point.

A fair judgement cannot be made until the game is complete, but your verdict on the current state of the game is extremely generous imo.
 
Man I do wish there was more intrigue, dialogs, more characters interacting with each other, this is cool but warband lacked drama and bannerlord does too, true drama, otherwise is just conquering stuff with npcs that give the impression of having a character of their own. Its hard to be fully immersed because you have to give a lot of imagination into it
 
Mount&blade was a very different game back then. The basic core of the game - foot and mounted group combat - has always been solid, but there existed little else besides that. Endgame play consisted of fighting 100+ party size Vaegir or Swadian war parties, which took a while because the game would only allow 28 troops at a time on the battlefield. Each town was just a menu, and every NPC inhabited the same drab brick hall. Lords were just quest dispensers and would never leave their halls. There were no external town scenes, no castles, no sieges, no becoming lord or king.

This is my main reason for concern in Bannerlord, to be honest. I can spend hours in Warband just fighting in the arena or in the training grounds. Just fighting there is enjoyable. In Bannerlord... not so much. Combat just feels clunky. And that is in the end the main foundation of the game. A good combat system and group combat, everything else is just fluff added for flavor. It worries me that we don't have a solid core on the fundamentals after all this time.
 
Go back to your rocking chair old man
Nice to see at least one non-baby-faced person in the forums.

Yes it compares favourably to a 15 year old incomplete game.

I'm not comparing it to the game from 15 years ago, I'm comparing it to my recollection of the general consensus on what the game ought to look like when it was finished.

I could've compared it to Warband but I felt like that was a relatively uninteresting comparison. Some parts are better, others worse. Also, the nostalgia was very heavy when I wrote this.
The amount of resources that must have been taken to do theese scenes must be huge. They are truly amazing looking I admit! Altho i dont care about them, i just go in there to do spy amongst us quest.

I think this highlights a big problem in a lot of modern games. A huge amount of time and effort from a huge number of artists goes into getting the game looking right. Actions that could be abstracted away previously (like, say, picking up an object off the floor) now have to be animated.

When I did scenes for the Lombard Leagues mod 13 years ago, it would take me about 3 hours of solid work to complete a scene. Maybe a couple more hours of polish and testing and setting up the AI pathfinding mesh on top of that. It now takes (presumably more than one artist) 2-3 weeks to do a city scene. Such is the change in both scale and detail. Yet in terms of gameplay and what the scene actually allows the player to do, there is very little difference.

And the result is, a disproportionately huge amount of effort goes into initial impressions, which the player will always get used to remarkably quickly, and all you have left is the somewhat janky gameplay. The first time a looter frowned at me because I was about to attack, I was impressed. Now I don't notice. The first time I saw NPCs dancing and talking and interacting, I was impressed, now I don't notice.

I am a lot more forgiving than a lot of people here (It hasn't escaped my notice that these forums have become a massive vortex of negativity), and I am confident that a lot of these teething problems will be sorted out eventually once the developers realise that the nerf merry-go-round isn't helping and that deeper and more substantive changes are needed. Even so, there are some aspects to the game that I think are deliberate design decisions and not just placeholder mechanics, such as the menu-heavy aspect to party and fief and kingdom management. It's these that I worry about.
 
I played my first version of Mount&Blade (0.623) in May 2005, and was hooked. I was one of the initial crowd that spent huge amounts of time both playing the game, and coming up with suggestions and arguing over other's suggestions in the forums.

Mount&blade was a very different game back then. The basic core of the game - foot and mounted group combat - has always been solid, but there existed little else besides that. Endgame play consisted of fighting 100+ party size Vaegir or Swadian war parties, which took a while because the game would only allow 28 troops at a time on the battlefield. Each town was just a menu, and every NPC inhabited the same drab brick hall. Lords were just quest dispensers and would never leave their halls. There were no external town scenes, no castles, no sieges, no becoming lord or king.

With so much potential and so little content beyond fighting, the early M&B community whipped themselves up in a bit of a frenzy imagining all the things that could be done with the game. It was quite intense at times (I once mentioned here I had a dream about an upcoming patch, and I kid you not, someone asked me for a detailed description of what the dream contained, such was the desperation for new information). Endless debates raged over how sieges could possibly be implemented (or managing a town or kingdom, for that matter). The early crop of mods explored many of these ideas, mods like Battle for Sicily and the Lombard Leagues, the latter of which I was quite heavily involved with.

After so much time imagining this stuff, it's fair to say that everyone had their own headcanon about 'what it would be like' when the game was in its finished state.

So when playing Bannerlord for the first time, I've deliberately approached it from the perspective of me 15 years ago. It's been interesting to see which parts of my headcanon match the final product.

So what is my overall impression? Pretty good, not great.

First of all, the game is gorgeous. It may not be as refined as a triple-A game laboured upon by a team of 200 artists, but it's very pretty all the same. The key for me is verisimilitude, the feeling you're inhabiting a real world with real people walking about. The first time I visited Car Banseth during the winter I walked around with my mouth agape for like, 30 minutes. And the scale. When we first got explorable towns (in 0.730 IIRC), they generally consisted of a gatehouse, half a dozen houses and a keep. These new scenes are massive! They also look really cool. Scenes feel wonderfully populated now with animated characters as opposed to the creepy standing staring mannequins in the original M&B taverns.

It's pleasing to see that many of the things I suggested long ago have found their way into the game. This thread from 6 years ago contains a few. I'm glad to see there's no hard limits on the number of troops you can lead, and that inventory space depends on the number of mules you have, not on some weird "inventory management" skill.

The skill system, while hard to get your head around initially and by no means perfect, is light years ahead of what we had previously. I think .632 was the last time I played completely without cheats in M&B. I'd always edit my character stats to have max leadership, prisoner management, inventory management etc because the game was too tedious otherwise. Because the only decent source of xp was from killing enemies, you had to be a badass to level up in a reasonable time, and to be a badass you had to invest precious levels into your increasingly-irrelevant personal combat strength. Now you can continue to improve just by doing stuff. And it's never too late to learn something new.

The area I've been most disappointed in so far is to do with the game ecology and fief management. Yes we have a real economy and actions have consequences and there's politics, but it's all been implemented in the least interesting way. There's something about the impersonal menu-driven nature of it all, combined with the constant defections, declarations of war, village burnings, complete army annihilations and subsequent rapid respawnings and so forth - all driven by menu buttons rather than actual dialogue - that just makes me not care about any of it. I understand that back in the old days the dialogue-heavy aspects of both the original game and mods were simply a limitation of what could be done with the engine, but nevertheless I really miss the presence of actual conversation. It's a shame that the city and village scenes are all so beautifully crafted, yet there is little reason to see any of that when visiting a town.

I have a fief that I don't visit. It has a prosperity of 3000 and I don't know if that's good or bad. It seems to run itself just fine. I have no idea what it is that prosperity, loyalty or security actually do - the game doesn't communicate it, and I never seem to be put into any position where I have to worry about it. When the game has underlying complexity that the player is supposed to pay attention to, it needs to somehow be communicated to the player.

I understand that not many of my criticisms are new - I see a lot of posts complaining of the constant total war, for instance. I am confident that a lot of the problems with the economy and balancing and so forth will be sorted out in one way or another through various patches and mods. From what I've seen so far, Bannerlord looks to be a platform for a really good game, it's just about uncovering the really good game inside.
Beautiful post!

I would summarize Mount&Blade as a game that was loved for what it could be.

I'm afraid Bannerlord is going in the same direction. Hope I'm wrong.
 
Comparisons useful or not useful, this game has an extreme lack of creative design. Feasts (which are gone obviously), tournaments, marriage have all taken a dramatic step back in atmosphere. I used to be excited to see a feast/tournament because of who might be there and who I could earn points with. Now I just wander from city to city fighting and winning the same generic helmet over again.
 
Once people like you and me and everyone else start modding to reintroduce the good sh!t, the game will be more and more enjoyable. I suspect developers are on holidays after working hard to get Bannerlords out and initial bugs fixed ? so for a few months ,things will be quiet.

When modding tools are released then game development will advance more quickly.
 
Now you can continue to improve just by doing stuff. And it's never too late to learn something new.

Your skill has an upper hard limit based on the number of attribute and focus points you have in a skill. I would like an unlimited system but alas it is not. ( (( Attribute * 14 ) -10) + ( Focus Point * 40) ) is what I've found, limit of 330. Corrections appreciated. Additionally, its much to late to learn anything new after a certain point in leveling, as the game runs out of SP for you to continue leveling up.

Thanks for sharing, i enjoyed reading it. And the game does indeed look great considering budget and team. I think they are improving things.
 
Last edited:
I have a fief that I don't visit. It has a prosperity of 3000 and I don't know if that's good or bad. It seems to run itself just fine. I have no idea what it is that prosperity, loyalty or security actually do - the game doesn't communicate it, and I never seem to be put into any position where I have to worry about it. When the game has underlying complexity that the player is supposed to pay attention to, it needs to somehow be communicated to the player.
I'm just guessing, but I think loyalty will be tied to the yet-to-be-implemented rebellion mechanic, and security will be tied to the criminal enterprise mechanic. They have some minor effects on other aspects of the game currently, but they can mostly be safely ignored for now.

Prosperity affects a few things directly. About 25% of your settlement's prosperity gets converted into taxes. Prosperity also increases the prices of trade goods proportionally (higher prosperity = higher prices), which will draw in more caravans looking to sell goods, which in turn increases the taxes/tariffs you get from trade. The 'Base' rate of project construction shown in the Manage Town menu is calculated as 1% of prosperity. And finally, 0.1% of your prosperity is converted into a bonus to the militia growth rate. It could also have other positive effects that I'm not aware of, but those are just the ones known to me (there are also negative effects associated with higher prosperity, such as increased consumption).

Some of this stuff is already communicated through tooltips, but in general it's pretty vague, and I agree they could do a better job of relaying this information to the player. An in depth finance menu might be a good place to start.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom