I don't think console crowd is the problem. I mean mainstream series like Call of Duty, GTA, Resident Evil. They do fine on the consoles .... Heck Assassins' Creed Vahalla has more dismemberments and overly graphic executions than what we are suggesting be added.I am not against it. However I ask myself: would it fly with the console crowd? Probably. Would it fly with Sony/Microsoft? Probably not.
So my guess is: Probably not.
I don't think console crowd is the problem. I mean mainstream series like Call of Duty, GTA, Resident Evil. They do fine on the consoles .... Heck Assassins' Creed Vahalla has more dismemberments and overly graphic executions than what we are suggesting be added.
It would be no problem for Mircrosoft / Sony. Just look at Gears of War / God of War as an example. Sure it would be rated 18+ so maybe it´s an issue for Tale Worlds because 18+ usually means less sales. There are a lot of console games with gore.I am not against it. However I ask myself: would it fly with the console crowd? Probably. Would it fly with Sony/Microsoft? Probably not.
So my guess is: Probably not.
Sure it would be rated 18+ so maybe it´s an issue for Tale Worlds because 18+ usually means less sales. There are a lot of console games with gore.
18+ doesn´t mean that only 18+ people play those games, but it´s not as easy to advertise 18+ games in many countries compared to <18 games.Lmao, because CoD kids were never a thing, right?
18+ doesn´t mean that only 18+ people play those games, but it´s not as easy to advertise 18+ games in many countries compared to <18 games.
Also you really can´t compare a huge franchise like CoD with a niche game like Bannerlord. How many of those CoD kids do even know that Warband/Bannerlord exists? How many Warband/Bannerlord players know that CoD exist?
But publisher consider the ratings for games and if possible they try to achieve <18 ratings. See Total War Warhammer as an example, it´s 16+ and has less gore without the cheap "Blood for the blood god" DLC (was day 1 dlc for 1,99€ if remeber correctly). The DLC is 18+ and just adds the gore effects but because it is just a DLC the base game is 16+
They didn´t add it as a DLC because they wanted the extra money, they wanted to avoid the 18+ rating for the game and they did it that way.
Yes, I guess it will be released Q3/Q4 .Which is a smart move, in the studios view. Many players where quite disgruntled at first though.
On a related point, TW WH 3 got announced today.
will there also be nudity mods? Asking for a friendThere were a bunch of discussions on this already. I think it comes down to TW avoiding the 18+ rating and there is a mod for it.
In short, it TW will never release but mods are there to workaround it.
will there also be nudity mods? Asking for a friend
To be honest, Cyberpunk is on the potato consoles and it has pretty gruesome kill scenes.Its a 18+ game tho, Bannerlord I guess is 16+ ?I am not against it. However I ask myself: would it fly with the console crowd? Probably. Would it fly with Sony/Microsoft? Probably not.
So my guess is: Probably not.
So from a historical perspective if a trained soldier hits a peasant without armor with his longsword he would just bleed a little bit and die?I wouldn't want dismemberment or decapitation on the battlefield since it doesn't add immersion from historical perspective. It just turns the game into one of those hollywood bs. However I would like the see the decapitation part in execution scenes.
Kinda. Sword propably cuts off some part of the flesh and gets stuck deep inside the flesh. It wouldn't be little bit bleeding. Decapitations happens mostly after battles for higher ranked men. Wining side's men put enemy lord's or knight's head on a stake to make an example for the rest of the enemies. In the middle of battle? Naaaah... It is really really hard to completely cut off body parts like neck, arms, legs with a single strike no matter how well trained the warrior is. If a wariror lands a solid strike to disable his opponent doesn't waste any more time to decapitate or dismember him. He just finishes him quickly and move on.So from a historical perspective if a trained soldier hits a peasant without armor with his longsword he would just bleed a little bit and die?
History is really awesome!