Tell me you haven't actively been following multiplayer without telling me you haven't been following multiplayer:
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Why Is This Forum Section So Toxic?
- Thread starter Corsair831
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
source?
I removed the "your language only" filter to fully capture it. There's no age filter, so
But of course, people will say this statistic means nothing because: 1) Many people don't review, 2) Those are not "real fans", 3) People who like the game r stew pit, 4) It's only Steam reviews not global, 5) Taleworlds paid Steam to hide the bad reviews, 6) Grank photoshopped dem numbers.
Last edited:
Im not sure what age has to do with it 
either way short revieuws like that arent helpfull for people who are looking to see if a game is any good or not. Id much rather read a wall of text and even more so if its to read why people are telling why they are advizing against a game.
My advice if you feel so compelled to be toxic on the forums: play something else for a while. If the game makes you feel so heated that you have to voice that on the forums maybe its time to step away from the game for a bit.
I dont think the game is going to be released anytime soon and you will just burn out yourself from the game at this point.... I stepped back for a few months as well and can see that they improved in some areas and moved backwards in (way to many) others. It is what it is. Il report bugs/glitches, play a SP campaign until a point where im fed up again (almost there tbh and its been what...2 weeks?) and then il go and lurk again. Maybe keeping an eye on updates abit more closely but it wont be my go to game for the forseeeable future until its fully released.
Makes playing the game alot more doable without getting fed up with it.
either way short revieuws like that arent helpfull for people who are looking to see if a game is any good or not. Id much rather read a wall of text and even more so if its to read why people are telling why they are advizing against a game.My advice if you feel so compelled to be toxic on the forums: play something else for a while. If the game makes you feel so heated that you have to voice that on the forums maybe its time to step away from the game for a bit.
I dont think the game is going to be released anytime soon and you will just burn out yourself from the game at this point.... I stepped back for a few months as well and can see that they improved in some areas and moved backwards in (way to many) others. It is what it is. Il report bugs/glitches, play a SP campaign until a point where im fed up again (almost there tbh and its been what...2 weeks?) and then il go and lurk again. Maybe keeping an eye on updates abit more closely but it wont be my go to game for the forseeeable future until its fully released.
Makes playing the game alot more doable without getting fed up with it.
Another reason is likely that the majority of players go for Singleplayer and not Multiplayer. And Singleplayer is arguably in a better state than multiplayer, considering the server crashes, etc.. If all the reviews would be sorted on multiplayer only, the result would surely be much worse in terms of reviews.
Edit: I just looked at the review page and I think its safe to say that nearly all reviews are Singleplayer oriented.. Therefore reviews aren't representative at all
How are the reviews not representative? Are MP players illiterate? Too lazy to post reviews?
Maybe the reviews are representative only of people who write reviews and therefore completely irrelevant??
Maybe elections are irrelevant because all the voters didn't show up??
Let's say that 50% of a population votes, and these are mostly elderly people and nearly all younger generations haven't voted, then this is representative?How are the reviews not representative? Are MP players illiterate? Too lazy to post reviews?
Maybe the reviews are representative only of people who write reviews and therefore completely irrelevant??
Maybe elections are irrelevant because all the voters didn't show up??
The reason for why they haven't ''voted'' or ''reviewed'' is irrelevant so I don't know why you mention it.
Just announced and released too early imo. They should've kept their mouths shut when it was around 2013 or something when the game was announced and should have announced it/started doing it in at least 2017-18.
Naturally they failed to meet the expectations that accumulated over 8 years, just like Cyberpunk.
Yes. An unfortunate naive mistake. They got too excited and opened their mouths, but this was before the No Man's Sky era, so I wouldn't blame them for making the same mistake. It's pretty sad.
I was referring to the "teenagers" bit. I can't fathom why he felt the need to add that.
The MP players are the teens and the poor English speakers who comment "awesome". Mystery solved.
Zoonanay
Knight
And if meaningful progress had been made in that year I'd understand that estimation better, but it hasn't. There's no way they legitimately thought after making this much progress in 8 years that 1 year was all they needed, its horrifically misleading, especially when demo videos in 2016 showed many features that were assumed to be functional, yet were only made functional for the precise purpose of advertising them in demos, then disregarded as "too complex" or "too time consuming".
Besides, EA's original intention was to give players a sneak-peak into a almost finished game and provide an early financial boon to encourage stock and shareholders, not a game missing critical features. It's a gross misuse of a incomplete product that is rampant across the entire industry, and it becomes normalized by people saying "that's what an EA is", it is not, no other industry offers incomplete products for full retail value and expects to get away with it due to slapping a "EA" tag on it.
Not gonna lie I wished they would have booked a ton more progress in that timespan as well.
EA's intention is generally a few things. Create (further) hype for a game. Give people who cant wait for release a chance to already get (part of) the product in their hands whilst giving the studio a financial boost as well. And have people who are into that a chance to help fix bugs, provide feedback and whatnot. Theyre generally very upfront about the 'this game isent finished' part. What state it was in though when they announced it is anyones guess.
If you spend anytime in the bug reporting part of the forums you will see things listed that not everyone experiences. And some things that alot of people will experience. If an issue turns up for EVERYBODY then its generally clear that something is up and needs to be fixed. If the solution is then also easy to find its fixed in no time. If something only happens rarely though and it cant be reproduced its a tougher problem.
I reported a bug a few days ago about a enemy cavalry unit loading underneath the map and its only happened once in the about 100 hours that I played recently. Its still a bug, I reported it and its been passed on to be fixed. I think its safe to say thats its rare because I also dident see other people mention it, but I think it still has to be fixed. Things like that are small things but can potentially take up alot of time. And if you dont know where the problem lies, finding it and fixing it might be a needle in a haystack.
Im not suprised the year wasent enough given the size of the game.
EA's intention is generally a few things. Create (further) hype for a game. Give people who cant wait for release a chance to already get (part of) the product in their hands whilst giving the studio a financial boost as well. And have people who are into that a chance to help fix bugs, provide feedback and whatnot. Theyre generally very upfront about the 'this game isent finished' part. What state it was in though when they announced it is anyones guess.
If you spend anytime in the bug reporting part of the forums you will see things listed that not everyone experiences. And some things that alot of people will experience. If an issue turns up for EVERYBODY then its generally clear that something is up and needs to be fixed. If the solution is then also easy to find its fixed in no time. If something only happens rarely though and it cant be reproduced its a tougher problem.
I reported a bug a few days ago about a enemy cavalry unit loading underneath the map and its only happened once in the about 100 hours that I played recently. Its still a bug, I reported it and its been passed on to be fixed. I think its safe to say thats its rare because I also dident see other people mention it, but I think it still has to be fixed. Things like that are small things but can potentially take up alot of time. And if you dont know where the problem lies, finding it and fixing it might be a needle in a haystack.
Im not suprised the year wasent enough given the size of the game.
Zoonanay
Knight
TW are quite responsive to bug reports, alot of developers don't give a text-response but that is also because most developers don't even consider them worth responding to, it's just generally a "Unknown, "WIP" or "Completed" assignment based on if the sprint has been tasked multiple times and when it's scheduled.
Bug fixing is a huge time sink, agreed, but for a 90 man team of which you'd assume 30-50% are coders directly involved in development these bugs should be getting fixed within a week/month of being reported (unless particularly challenging). The reason many aren't is what I'm assuming is sloppy code design, simply not ordering and annotating complex code can make going back over it take many times longer than it should. And despite how obvious an oversight this seems, you'd be amazed at what slips through (sound of doom comes to mind).
In the end a Junior coder will be responsible for this grunt work, they'll then just send it to oversight to a Senior who either OKs or denies it (in my experience anyhow, companies vary in policy and structure, and TW being based in Turkey might further influence this hierarchy), this can already be a slow and laborous process, but combined with "spaghetti" code and you've got an incredibly slow and poorly functioning system, particularly if you have a high employee turnover rate which appears to be the case in TW (this is quite common across the industry though).
This is another reason these long-term projects generally faulter and fail, newbies having to re-write or go back over legacy can be as time-consuming as other major parts of the development cycle.
I'm just rambling on now, but from what I gather the code for Bannelord is probably in a shambles, it's probably the reason for the re-factor at EA launch and the numerous problems being encountered. Combine that with regularly turning over staff in a country with low recruit availability and you've got underqualified staff dealing with poorly designed code that wasn't expected to be altered or changed = an oncoming disaster.
That does sound very plausible yes...
Why does the industry have a high turnover rate though? Is there any particular reason for it? Id say that with things like coding and long term projects there would be a very reason to hold onto staff rather then shift through new recruits...
Why does the industry have a high turnover rate though? Is there any particular reason for it? Id say that with things like coding and long term projects there would be a very reason to hold onto staff rather then shift through new recruits...
Personally I think it was a mistake to go into Early Access with the game this unfinished, and I suspect they may have needed to for e.g. financial reasons. I'm not a fan of Early Access at all as a concept and just think that it gives a misleading impresesion of having a game available to play early however what you're effectively getting is something which is nowhere near ready for release.
I think that my main point here is that Early Access as a concept is rubbish, and overused by developers, and that as consumers we should try to recognise that an Early Access release is not a release, it's a pay-for beta test for an incomplete product, and as consumers we should treat it as such. Come to an Early Access title with the same attitude you'd come to a beta for a game you've pre-ordered (which is effectively what Early Access is).
Personally I've learned over the years that playing beta's is just frustrating and gives you a terrible first impression of the game, and that you should avoid playing them at all costs and wait for a full release (or even better given the situation with today's gaming market, pick up a game a year after release so it's been properly patched).
CONCLUSION TO INITIAL QUESTION - Early Access as a concept is bad/confusing. It's a marketing term for a beta which you have paid for. The developers should not have used it here and it has given many the impression that this is a full release when it is clearly not. Players should treat Bannerlord as they would treat a beta, and wait for full release if they are not happy beta testing an incomplete game (I personally do not enjoy beta testing).
I think that my main point here is that Early Access as a concept is rubbish, and overused by developers, and that as consumers we should try to recognise that an Early Access release is not a release, it's a pay-for beta test for an incomplete product, and as consumers we should treat it as such. Come to an Early Access title with the same attitude you'd come to a beta for a game you've pre-ordered (which is effectively what Early Access is).
Personally I've learned over the years that playing beta's is just frustrating and gives you a terrible first impression of the game, and that you should avoid playing them at all costs and wait for a full release (or even better given the situation with today's gaming market, pick up a game a year after release so it's been properly patched).
CONCLUSION TO INITIAL QUESTION - Early Access as a concept is bad/confusing. It's a marketing term for a beta which you have paid for. The developers should not have used it here and it has given many the impression that this is a full release when it is clearly not. Players should treat Bannerlord as they would treat a beta, and wait for full release if they are not happy beta testing an incomplete game (I personally do not enjoy beta testing).
A good question. It's also not evident that the industry has a high turnover or what does "high" mean.
However, we learn about occasional details of staff changes in development teams, particularly when the project ended up badly.
We do know that people tend to leave when they see a project is in trouble and going nowhere fast. This must have been a case for Bannerlord. Nobody wants to spend 10 or so years of his life working on a single game. At least one key person also left for a better job (at Paradox) - this is normal. For those young Turks who want to achieve great things in the game industry, Taleworlds is the first stepping stone and not a final destination.
Long projects burn your soul. For the frustration you get from encountering a bug, a programmer feels thrice the frustration from the shame/blame , having to fix it instead of working on more interesting stuff (yes we want to work on cool stuff too), and being told of such bug by people who can't even code (sorry but we really can't help but feel this way). Programmers tend to hate talking too. Aside from many of them being introverts, making reports, documentation or participating in meetings is a waste of time in our eyes. If you're not a programmer, you're just an idea guy and there's no use talking about code with you. Now, imagine if the "idea guy" is a smug higher up, rude or straight up toxic. Fun ain't it?
Aside from that, programming is a much more difficult field than meets the eye. If you think algorithm, logic and syntax are hard, you haven't seen the architectural aspect of software yet. That thing is uncharted territory. It's like climbing a foggy mountain alone. People barely study or document it. The best you can get is broad paradigm, and IT people are notoriously bad with definitions and terminologies, making any paper frustrating to read. Where am I going with this? It's because the majority of programmers are not skilled or even aware of this. It's something that needs significant experience in the particular type of software you're working on, but you have to deal with their garbage still.
That, my friend, is why programmers tend to resign instead of getting fired.
Zoonanay
Knight
Pretty much is the primary reason.
Especially if you're a junior coder, if a better opportunity comes by you're probably going to go to it rather than stick around in a lower position. And more than a few of TW's glassdoor reviews are disturbing, to say the least. It's not uncommon from what I've heard in Turkey to with hold pay due to the high inflation rate, and only pay it once inflation has reduced it by 20-30% of its original value. Not saying TW has definatley done this, it is just 3rd-party rhetoric but I've known this to be common in countries with high inflation rates (like Turkey).
- Status
