What do u think is missing for this game to have a soul?

[meowwoofneigh]

Two years more of development and working mod tools.

Assuming TW is not under pressure, they will most probably won't take them that long to do. If the players from a decade prior can be patient enough for the game to be on EA release, then another year or two shouldn't be a problem. Then and only then can we expect more from updates and future expansion packs.

 

[Pythagoras]

A bigger price tag doesn't mean the devs have to oblige to that motion as if it's a divine mandate from some imaginary authority they have to follow, the only authority they take orders from are ultimately none other than themselves. And if you bought the game knowing full well it's only in EA and became disappointed at the lack of content despite spending many hours playing the game, then it's on you not the devs.

Other AAA companies set their prices higher on the games they make despite the overall shiny graphics but piss-poor content and no one complained. Yet TW is not even a AAA company but somehow they 'have to live up to the AAA standards because muh price tag'? Now that is BS logic.

If they want to exist and grow in future they will have to deliver according to their prices, that's how it works. Also it is a morale obligation, especially if you tease your fans and let them wait for so long. Nobody complains about some bugs and some features missing, since it is EA. People complain about the core and what they expect to come according to what they already see.

And yet people still insist the game should be full of immersion and realism no matter what anyone else says. While M&B is an RPG game, it certainly is not a 'real-life' medieval sims simulator, and no one should suffer through the 'immersive realism' some vocal minority wanted this game to become. Calling my criticism on 'deep immersion and realism' as 'hatred' is yet another BS logic from you.

There will never be a completely realistic game and everyone is aware of that. But attacking people for just wanting more of something that is a big part of the genre is just insane. It is also not a vocal minority, i think most people want this game to have more immersion (which inevitably is connected to realism or at least authenticity) - just to different degrees. Open world RPGs need authenticity, that's what distinguishes them from arcade games!

Example: You can hire mercenaries in city taverns. Why? Because it is realistic and logical to do so for that time and setting. If you could hire them, let's say, on the market like goods, that would be really annoying, wouldn't it? Realism doesn't mean a SIMS-like simulation, it just means plausible design, mechanics and possibilities.

Why do you think the devs frequently patch the game after putting it up for sale on Steam in the first place? The point of EA is to acquire solid factual feedback from players to make the game better overtime towards release day. They even put a telemetry on the game for transmitting raw data. And yet despite all of that some fans still find reasons to criticize the devs for 'not doing enough'.
I, for one say let the devs do their work to get things done. They alone know what exactly needs to be done to make the game stable. Game stability takes priority over some reactionary criticism and flavor features that can be added at a later date, assuming those features would even be considered at all.

All they acquire are bug and crash reports. Since this game is unbelievably superficial (and over 2 months have already gone by) people of course want to have more content, and that's what they of course communicate - mostly constructively. TW however does not respond nor communicate at all, there is no real roadmap, no dev blog, no polls and no content. If we only get fixes until release this game will be dead along with its developer - only mods will keep it alive and somehow worthwile, which would be awfully shameful.

 

[Cri11e]

Perks (Character development) --> AI interraction (Depth) --> World diversity (Actual significant gameplay differences of cultures; Armour, weapons, troops etc. the more the better) --> More RP features (Like bandit/outlaw, REAL mercenary, building your own castle anywhere you want etc.)

This is my personal priority list for enjoying sp.

 

[abc123456]

Other AAA companies set their prices higher on the games they make despite the overall shiny graphics but piss-poor content and no one complained. Yet TW is not even a AAA company but somehow they 'have to live up to the AAA standards because muh price tag'? Now that is BS logic.

Exactly this. Why can't people see this?
Take the Witcher 3, for example. I finished the game + almost all side quests over 200 hours btw.
Yes, it is traditional "AAA". Beautiful art. Immersive world. Good story and characters.
But the gameplay is utter garbage. Barely any item or RPG choices. Combat is an awful dodge spam. Clunky movement.
90% of the game is ride here, use witcher senses to follow a trail, listen to Geralt take to himself. Done.
AI is stupid as crap.

In the end, it was a good story, the world was a great experience and that's that. It is more an interactive visual novel.
As a game though, it is not a good game by far.

Now I like Witcher 3, but only for one playthrough. So, between Bannerlord and Witcher 3, I'd pay more money to play a complete Bannerlord as a game.

So many other "AAA" games follow the same formula. Shiny eye-candy graphics, shallow gameplay. So you don't complain about this? They are just cheating you with marketing strategies.

 

[Waybook]

Seems like a lot of people want to turn Bannerlord into an RPG.

IMO, the game already has needless RPG mechanics like loot modifiers ("cracked" etc.), smithing, playing board games with lords.

M&B for me is a third person strategy game, where you control a character. It doesn't need traditional RPG mechanics.

That said, adding detail to the game world to make it feel more alive would be great. It just doesn't need a bunch of RPG side-activities and mechanics.

 

[William7667]

Now I like Witcher 3, but only for one playthrough. So, between Bannerlord and Witcher 3, I'd pay more money to play a complete Bannerlord as a game.

So many other "AAA" games follow the same formula. Shiny eye-candy graphics, shallow gameplay. So you don't complain about this? They are just cheating you with marketing strategies.

Yes I agree playing witcher and a lot of games is more like watching a movie with far too many cut scenes and too many binary choices
ie only one correct way to do things. If I want to watch a movie I'll watch one not sit for hours looking at one cut scene after another with a bit of player participation in between.

Whereas I feel the battle scenes in bannerlord are more like being in the movie than watching it ( if it's ever possible to put it in VR it'll be a smash hit ) and it has more of a sandbox feel ie multiple ways to achieve the same end. Sure it needs improvement but the basics is there.

 

[Pythagoras]

Seems like a lot of people want to turn Bannerlord into an RPG.

IMO, the game already has needless RPG mechanics like loot modifiers ("cracked" etc.), smithing, playing board games with lords.

M&B for me is a third person strategy game, where you control a character. It doesn't need traditional RPG mechanics.

That said, adding detail to the game world to make it feel more alive would be great. It just doesn't need a bunch of RPG side-activities and mechanics.

Side activities are not what makes an RPG in its core. RPG just means freedom and development, and that's what M&B was always about. You take over the role ("role playing game") of a character, whos actions and development you control, and those factors are important. Especially the control part is a thing that's hugely missing, because it makes a great number of possibilities necessary.

If it was a strategy game you would have actual tactical abilities, which in fact you don't - coming back to control...
Total War is a strategy game, and even there your possibilities and the AI are far from what would be complete in a strategic sense, which is due to it being a product for the masses.

 

[Nakh]

Seems like a lot of people want to turn Bannerlord into an RPG.

IMO, the game already has needless RPG mechanics like loot modifiers ("cracked" etc.), smithing, playing board games with lords.

M&B for me is a third person strategy game, where you control a character. It doesn't need traditional RPG mechanics.

That said, adding detail to the game world to make it feel more alive would be great. It just doesn't need a bunch of RPG side-activities and mechanics.

What do will players do if there is no RPG mechanics? 99% repetitive fighting and 1% of kingdom management? Game will be even more desolate without RPG stuff.

 

[Waybook]

What do will players do if there is no RPG mechanics? 99% repetitive fighting and 1% of kingdom management? Game will be even more desolate without RPG stuff.

There are already enough RPG games. Games like Witcher, Elder Scrolls and countless MMOs already give you enough side quests, loot and skillpoints. Why would you want this game to offer you the same things so many other games already have?

M&B series has always offered something unique - it's battle system, where you are both a commander and a fighter. Improving that should be priority #1 for the devs. Grinding smithing skill to get a weapon with higher numbers is not fun gameplay and I wouldn't want them to waste any development time on stuff like that.

 

[Pythagoras]

There are already enough RPG games. Games like Witcher, Elder Scrolls and countless MMOs already give you enough side quests, loot and skillpoints. Why would you want this game to offer you the same things so many other games already have?

M&B series has always offered something unique - it's battle system, where you are both a commander and a fighter. Improving that should be priority #1 for the devs. Grinding smithing skill to get a weapon with higher numbers is not fun gameplay and I wouldn't want them to waste any development time on stuff like that.

I agree with you on your priority. Combat, AI and tactics are by far the number one things to improve. But that doesn't contradict the demand for RPG elements. RPG does not mean boring grind, it just means depth, immersion and possibilities to play as you please as a player. And in that regards M&B was always an RPG. If you don't like a living world to immerse yourself in then you don't have to - as long as the unique M&B core works.

 

[Wulfsdottir]

There are already enough RPG games. Games like Witcher, Elder Scrolls and countless MMOs already give you enough side quests, loot and skillpoints. Why would you want this game to offer you the same things so many other games already have?

Loot and Skillpoints doesn't define RPG.
Good RPG is where you assume a role of a character (often created by you, like here, but there are exceptions like Witcher) and play it out defining his/her character traits, choices etc. The world around you is build in a way that makes you feel like living in that world and being part of it, often helping to shape it too.

It's not classical strategy game where you're playing more of a state, rather than character. (Sure, you're called King, Emperor or whatever) but functionally you just play the state/country/nation whatever.

We want more immersion just because the fundamentals are there, but then they kinda don't work. There are people in the streets who walk around, who you can interact with - yet, when you try to interact with them, they all say the same and don't react to you in any meaningful way.

Now, there were people walking the streets in Total War games too, but the game was designed in such a way that you knew, they were just decorative people representing population on a strategic map - because it was STRATEGY game. And you didn't expect, nor want your general to approach them and have interaction. And the fact that you couldn't do it, didn't ruin the immersion for you.

The tavern. It has bartender who you can interact with - yet he has nothing to say.
Traits - some lords have honorable trait, some devious - yet they both act the same way in a war, raiding villages and robbing the caravans. That breaks immersion. What's the point for NPC to have traits if all it is for is how many points in numbers it gives you when you interact with him? What's the point if the devious lords acts exactly like honorable one?

That's what we are talking about, not the medieval life simulator.

 

[Waybook]

I agree with you on your priority. Combat, AI and tactics are by far the number one things to improve. But that doesn't contradict the demand for RPG elements. RPG does not mean boring grind, it just means depth, immersion and possibilities to play as you please as a player. And in that regards M&B was always an RPG. If you don't like a living world to immerse yourself in then you don't have to - as long as the unique M&B core works.

I do like living immersive game worlds and even mentioned that in a previous comment. However some of the most immersive games with good atmosphere are Freelancer and the STALKER series in my opinion. Yet neither of those is an RPG. Also, neither of those create immersion through adding on side activites like minigames or grindy crafting skills. They achieve immersion by creating a believable game world through NPC interactions with each other.

I'm just concerned that if they add more RPG elements, then the game will get grindy. We already have skills, relation, renown and influence, which can be grinded. I don't want to spend 10 hours on repetitive side activities before my character is ready for the main gameplay.

 

[Pythagoras]

I do like living immersive game worlds and even mentioned that in a previous comment. However some of the most immersive games with good atmosphere are Freelancer and the STALKER series in my opinion. Yet neither of those is an RPG. Also, neither of those create immersion through adding on side activites like minigames or grindy crafting skills. They achieve immersion by creating a believable game world through NPC interactions with each other.

I'm just concerned that if they add more RPG elements, then the game will get grindy. We already have skills, relation, renown and influence, which can be grinded. I don't want to spend 10 hours on repetitive side activities before my character is ready for the main gameplay.

I would definitely say Stalker is an RPG. You take over the role of a character in an immersive world - what more do you think does it need to call something RPG?
I think noone of us "immersionalists" prefer an overly grindy gameplay over a believable game world. In fact that's what i and many others are talking about the whole time. What we need is a more diverse world (however not in modern days political terms) with more possibilities, more interaction, more influence on the world. Noone talks about more things to be grinded.
The values we have so far, regarding skills, relation etc., are enough - we just don't recognize any real influence on the gameplay.

 

[abc123456]

There are already enough RPG games. Games like Witcher, Elder Scrolls and countless MMOs already give you enough side quests, loot and skillpoints. Why would you want this game to offer you the same things so many other games already have?

M&B series has always offered something unique - it's battle system, where you are both a commander and a fighter. Improving that should be priority #1 for the devs. Grinding smithing skill to get a weapon with higher numbers is not fun gameplay and I wouldn't want them to waste any development time on stuff like that.

We don't need to copy other RPG games. Forget other games and create unique and fun activities that works with Bannerlord.

Like I said in an earlier post, some good unique ways to expand bannerlord are:

• adventurers like yourself doing what you can do, starting from scratch like you.
• multi-staged bandit hideouts that play like mini-sieges with indoor maps + selectable companions to assault

 

[Squirrelfart]

I really think that relationships should matter and that the mid-late game politics shouldn't resolve to throwing influence at everything. You should interact with lords more, and their relationships with you and their personalities should matter, because right now, they're just influence dispensers and war parties. More quests, variable dialogue, and maybe if influence didn't solve everything and it was down to charm skill and relationships instead of a funny number to determine fief ownership (I much preferred Warband's manual persuasion but it could be streamlined), army creation, courtship, and other things, the game would feel more full of soul (as you interact with NPCs with personality and relationships instead of what is literally just increasing your number count of an arbitrary currency).

 

[Waybook]

... You should interact with lords more, and their relationships with you and their personalities should matter...

This is the kind of stuff I'm worried about - I don't want to chase lords around to chat and play minigames with them, because otherwise they might not like me and my kingdom will collapse.

 

[Squirrelfart]

This is the kind of stuff I'm worried about - I don't want to chase lords around to chat and play minigames with them, because otherwise they might not like me and my kingdom will collapse.

Yeah but right now the game is literally "throw influence at every problem until it's not a problem". There should be a good middle ground.

 

[Honved]

As said, RPG elements CAN include grindy side activities, but those are not necessary to make it an RPG. Having the ability to make decisions which affect the world around you, and actually see those effects in action, are essential, otherwise your choices have no meaning. For example, I hated The Witcher, because it gave you shallow choices which didn't have much meaningful impact on gameplay, only cosmetic changes between A and B and possibly a different end scene. M&B was very much a RPG, as well as being a good medieval small-unit tactical combat simulator, because you could choose to support a faction and affect the growth or collapse of kingdoms. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff was unaffected, such as looting every village in a faction not affecting the ability of the lords of that faction (other than the player) to recruit fresh troops, or the buying/selling of items not affecting the prosperity/growth of the town or village where you bought or sold them.

What I want are diplomatic options with individual lords (which we already had to some degree in original M&B and in Warband), character interactions both with other lords and with factions, as well as with your own companions, some effect on the availability of goods due to the destruction of caravans, the looting of towns, and possibly most importantly: the growth or reduction in total population (and recruits) in villages due to either peace and prosperity or through excessive recruiting, looting, or occasional random disasters. Village income should depend on population, prosperity, and the availability of certain key resources needed to support whatever it produces to produce more than a minimum level for its size (Population x prosperity x (base_value+resources_available) / z = $ Income). Reduce the population and it provides less income, loot it to lower the prosperity and it gives less cash, or prevent it from obtaining certain resources (needing at least one of each per economic cycle) and its earnings and goods output are reduced slightly for each item not available. Make growth dependent on the availability of food, so buying up that last loaf of bread just might leave them with 1 or 2 less troops available to recruit further down the road, while selling a spare loaf to a town short on food might help pull them out of a cycle of starvation and population decline. Economic actions and choices need economic consequences, which was sadly lacking in the previous games.

Declarations of war and peace should be driven by events and relations between faction leaders, with the odds of changes in the current war/peace status going from highly unlikely to almost inevitable depending on circumstances, not entirely at random as it is now. Being at war should make declaring another war by the AI almost impossible to occur, while holding another culture's land should increase the odds of factions of that culture declaring war to get it back. Factions should be more likely to declare war on the largest threat if it's already at war, less likely to declare war on a stronger faction if that strong faction is not already at war; factions should not be suicidal. Most importantly, the game really does not need to have EVERY faction at war at all times, as long as there are other things for the player to do in the mean time: hunting bandits, hiring out as a mercenary for a faction that is at war (while you are in a faction that's not involved), or resolving disputes (diplomatically or militarily) between clans within your own faction. Accepting peace, and then declaring a fresh war on the same adversary a day later, is totally unacceptable, where a truce measured in months should be the minimum for normal behavior (unusual events could lead to abnormal behavior on extremely rare occasions, as in once every couple of games).

A sandbox is no fun if the sand doesn't stay where you put it, at least for a while, and a strategy-oriented game (or a hybrid tactical/strategic/RPG game like one of the M&B series) with totally random behavior that doesn't respond rationally to changes in the status quo isn't believable or much fun, in my opinion. Randomness should be a modifier to the odds of events which are already plausible under the circumstances, not the sole cause of such events.

 

[Niomedes]

I miss the interactions with nobles warband allowed. Gauge support for fief assignment, plot, ask questions. Right now, there's no point in like, knowing who's in your kingdom because there's no reason to talk to them.

That's my main gripe too. I actually find myself trying to ask lords questions when I want to find someone else, only to find out that I actually can't and have to use the Encyclopedia.

 

[adrakken]

Nope. If the game had seen a proper development performance we would have a game rich in content by now, not the current skeleton. Mods are extra, the sauce. It could very well have a soul on its' own.

What's missing? Interactions ofc.. Emphasised relationships with Nobles and Notables, Proper Diplomacy, Political Schemes, A.I. logic on Diplomacy (sometimes factions will declare war on you because they want your land, not needing any reason, yeah, but in this state of the game it just feels so artificial), Proper combat A.I. where it won't act like a "dumb bot". List goes on and on.

How long will it take? 2 years minimum.

Its clear you are not a M&B player. Its supposed to be a sandbox, not a themepark and there is already a deep detailed Diplomacy mod adding a lot of content, just like before...and that is without detailed tools and knowledge of how things work. We do not need the developers for it.

not really, a sandbox is supposed to give you certain mechanics for you to use freely, without constraints (like a main quest) and with your imagination as the limit.
In the game ATM, there is nothing but fighting, at least give me some sand and a box!!

A sandbox only requires a box and the sand. WE use the tools, to make the content. Just like the previous games. The originals and their expansions had LESS than this game already has. That, is reality. That is what made this series great...the MODDERS. Deal with it.