Exactly. However one might feel about Stellaris at launch, it launched complete and functional. They just decided the game and its audience deserved more, so they kept adding.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord was a grift
- Thread starter Roy1012
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Exactly. However one might feel about Stellaris at launch, it launched complete and functional. They just decided the game and its audience deserved more, so they kept adding.
Bannerlord by itself isn't objectively garbage, but I find it incredibly underwhelming compared to Warband and Viking Conquest, and more specifically, underwhelming compared to what it was touted to be. You say you only played Warband SP for one hour, so you don't have a reference point to compare Bannerlord to. Bannerlord is inferior to Warband in quite a few departments (though not all), and it's enough to notice and be bothered by. After 10 years, a (comparatively) massive budget, and a massive employee expansion later, Warband is still a lot better than Bannerlord in many ways? That's a failure.
I'm not.
Ser Jon was implying there was some industry standard that was being adhered to and there isn't, period.
Consumers can do whatever if they feel slighted by that. I do think that sharing the spiciest of opinions on the official forum is generally counter-productive: the devs who don't give a **** won't read it but the CMs and devs who do care get blasted with negativity.
Last edited:
I'm not surprised you didn't get my meaning...at all.
That was me telling you that early access games do have predefined "rules" they follow (not finished, buggy, alpha etc), that not just "any" game can call itself "early access". I did not imply there's a standard among all early access games they all follow without exception, as if they are all some sort of clone.
BL is in a comparable state to Stellaris when it was released. BL was in the average state for an EA game when it was released. The missing features suck, yeah, but that doesn't mean the core part of the game was there. Bugs are expected from early EA games, it is kinda in the name.
As Duh said when I asked him about it, they do not want to talk about their post-release plans. There is no good evidence to suggest that they will just drop the game, and it doesn't take a lot of logical thinking to realize why. If TW is in it for the money, like many people think they are, then they have no reason to just drop the game. If they do, then they give up on any future profits from games that they want to sell.
Because you were. Even Jance told you to chill. The second a dev went "Some internal issues will be added and removed" you literally went "DEFCON 1 DEFCON 1 TW DOESN'T GIVE A **** ABOUT MODDERS", which is just gonna discourage TW from wanting to listen to the community if they can't even wait a week and see that the patch was actually good for modding.
This goes to show, and I think prove, that this forum is an echo-chamber and doesn't whatsoever show what the M&B community at large is like. Given that this forum is already much more negative, and polls like this exist:
I think it is fair to say that the community at large isn't as negative towards BL as this forum makes it out to be. That doesn't mean everyone loves the game, it just means not everyone hates the game.
Your opinion is valid, however, you are a part of the vocal minority, not the majority. The steam reviews show that a majority of the people who play the game, like the game. It may not be their favorite, but they don't dislike it. If I am being quite honest, the whole rationalizing why the steam reviews are positive kinda comes off as a big cope as to why more people don't hold your viewpoint, and this argument serves no real purpose in actually discussing BL.
If this were the case, BL wouldn't pull 10-20k players a day and would die out in favor of WB. Honestly, the only reason why I have considered leaving this forum is that how much of an echo-chamber it really is. I stop posting in this thread to A, stop giving Roy more posts in his thread that he so loves, and B that I'm not gonna be changing any minds.
In what way do you compare the two? I cannot for the life of me see how you could think the two were in the same sorts of states at release. It's almost like you'll say anything to talk down BL's failures.
Because it literally isn't that bad. I'd get it if literally nothing worked, except that isn't the case. I'm not downplaying the failures of BL, because there are failures, you're just overplaying them. The game is fine, however, there is constant talk about how bad it is and taking the blackpill and it genuinely just confuses me. I'd get it if it were a total mess, but it quite literally isn't.
Disregarding MP. MP is a total mess and I completely agree on that front. I just don't think anything can or will be done until release when they say they will release custom servers. If they didn't promise that, I'd be pushing for that.
Isn't "that" bad, as in Stellaris was comparable in terms of terribleness? And so your only definition of bad is if its so bad nothing works? Well, there we go. That explains everything.
No, not because everything works, cause everything clearly doesn't. That, and also features. Base Stellaris was completely different and lacked many features that it does currently. It took years for those features to be added. BL also really wasn't that bad in terms of an EA release. It also just released, and I expected to have to wait a while for features to be added. It kinda comes with an EA title, things get added as the years go on. It happened with Stellaris, even post-launch, happened with games like Space Engineers and DayZ, BL has a short EA lifespan in comparison to those games. And the game that we have really isn't as bad as all of you make it out to be, and you are very clearly in the minority despite how many times there have been attempts to prove otherwise.
Vonpritz
Recruit
I only played Warband SP for a bit because it wasn’t enjoyable.
I find Bannerlord more fun, and apparently so do quite a few people.
anyways, I’m going to go back to enjoying the game. No point in arguing with random people in the forum, I do appreciate the civility of your post though compared to the rest.
The first hour is fun for sure, even the first 10 hours are fun. But also 1 hour is nothing.
I think it´s funny that you think that you´re able to judge a sandbox game like Bannerlord after playing it for 1 hour. It´s like playing Skyrim for 1 hour and saying it´s a good or bad game. You´re defending something that you have no clue about because of your playtime. That´s what I call a fanboy.
After the release I played it for like 5 hours on the first day and gave it a positive review. 5 hours were not enough time to notice all those placeholder perks and missing features back then...
Another simp defeated by the machine that is the believers in reality. Apes together STRONG ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
That is full-blown delusion talking.
Stellaris was a fully-formed game with fully-implemented features and minimal bugs at launch - almost all of which were patched within a couple weeks. It was entirely possible to download the game at launch and play an entire fully-functional playthrough the same day. I know because that's exactly what I did.
Look at this changelog. This is what a competent developer is capable of. They had 3 hotfixes in the first week after release and a major patch within a month, plus another major patch a month later and then weekly hotfixes after that. If you see what they changed, it's minor fixes and tweaks like "It is now possible to set a custom ruler/heir title for your custom empires" rather than "fixed sieges" or "implemented the perk system" - neither of which TW has done in over a year. BL at EA launch couldn't even use modern graphics cards or multi-core processors, from what I remember.
That's the opposite of how logic works. The only cash-grab they're going to make on BL is on PC release and then again on console release. Those are their only two chances to make REAL money. If they screw it up, no amount of post-release patching and expanding is going to be cost-effective. They might as well give it up.
You are a lunatic. The only game I've ever heard of that did something you're describing (releasing an incomplete game and then finishing it after they'd already made their money) is No Man's Sky - and that's hardly an example of good game development.
Bruh that entire conversation was like pulling teeth. It took MONTHS. TW was completely MIA and then they told us that the #1 complaint of the modding community may get better or worse, with zero explanation. It's like someone defecating at a funeral - you'd hope they have a really good reason for doing so, but you probably wouldn't trust that person to give the eulogy.
They played the game for 3 hours and went on Steam to say "WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO IMPLEMENT ELEPHANTS???"
If they - like you - have completely unrealistic expectations of this process, then their opinions don't matter.
None of our opinions matter, in any event, because TW already has our money. If they follow your completely insane prophecy and make a complete game well after release, it would be an act of charity because they wouldn't make their money back on the cost of further development.
BL had 20 times the number of active players when people thought it would be good and the 20k sad sacks who are still around at any given moment haven't budged in well over a year, despite tons of progress on sheep textures.
If this game weren't a rotting corpse, you'd expect the community to rush back after every big release to see what's new. That isn't happening.
Yes the forum is negative, because we know what's actually going on and we're also still big enough fans to keep complaining about it. But what you aren't considering is the very large number of gamers who periodically check the forums every couple months or so for posts that ask "Does the game still suck?" and leave when they see the depressing factual answers that - for instance - sieges still don't work.
And I disagreed with that. Some games calling themselves "early access" are essentially (or literally) finished and largely bug-free. Some games described as released are a mess. Who stops them? No one. Am I saying that is good? No, it just serves to confuse buyers about what to expect from their purchase in many cases. But much of the time that confusion is the entire point of the exercise.
That's a pretty normal player activity trend for SP games. Huge release numbers that taper off after three or four months. Nothing short of DLC gets people to stampede back into activity, something I had to actually go out and graph like a year ago:
That's also why I'm doubtful mods are going to bring back players in numbers enough to matter.
Of course, what benefit high playercount actually brings to a mostly SP game with zero in-game monetization is itself a question worth asking.
He's right though, those DLC's are basically big patches (with a solid amount of free content as well). In bannerlord you should see the numbers spike when it has a decent update but you don't really. You can bring up something like DayZ for a more accurate comparison and you see something similar, every big patch saw a spike in players coming back to find out what's new and what's been added, and the game had a long near dead point due to lack of meaningful updates.And I disagreed with that. Some games calling themselves "early access" are essentially (or literally) finished and largely bug-free. Some games described as released are a mess. Who stops them? No one. Am I saying that is good? No, it just serves to confuse buyers about what to expect from their purchase in many cases. But much of the time that confusion is the entire point of the exercise.
That's a pretty normal player activity trend for SP games. Huge release numbers that taper off after three or four months. Nothing short of DLC gets people to stampede back into activity, something I had to actually go out and graph like a year ago:
That's also why I'm doubtful mods are going to bring back players in numbers enough to matter.
Of course, what benefit high playercount actually brings to a mostly SP game with zero in-game monetization is itself a question worth asking.
It also wasn’t released during Covid. That has hd an effect on the rate of development of BL. Once they have moved back into the offices, which they have, things may speed up. We’ll see if that happens in the coming weeks, but it seems to have gotten faster.
If they want their supposed space game to sell, they have to prove that they can support a game. And DLC sales would provide income during the inbetween time for the games. It makes complete sense for them to continue working on the game.
Wait for the patch before you freak out. You’ll look like an idiot otherwise when you are proven wrong. Which you did.
“T-they aren’t real fans, they don’t appreciate the game like us real fans do. Only we can state our opinion on the game, and no one else because they’re icky. Everybody totally hates the game, let me do some quick mental gymnastics to prove that point and then we can save M&B.”
I’d expect them to come when the game releases. There really hasn’t been a big release to draw back in everyone, the spike will happen with the release. Features get added, but nothing will draw back the 200k people. Most of those people probably bought the game because they had heard of the meme and tried it out. SP is the primary focus for the game, so it makes sense for there to be a drop off after everyone has tried the game. This game is the furthest thing from a rotting corpse.
I’d trust you to give advice to people on the game if you didn’t brag about blackpilling people. You don’t give factual answers, you give over emotional ones because you’re a fan scorned.
Are you a part of the APES clan?
Also you don’t win by annoying the other side into leaving the conversation. The guy still prefers BL, just doesn’t like speaking to a brickwall.
That's a pretty normal player activity trend for SP games. Huge release numbers that taper off after three or four months. Nothing short of DLC gets people to stampede back into activity, something I had to actually go out and graph like a year ago:
That's also why I'm doubtful mods are going to bring back players in numbers enough to matter.
Totally unrelated, but I'm amazed that W&P spiked above the launch peak. Probably the Greenskins rework more than the DLC itself.
It paints an accurate picture of player activity in largely SP games, which M&B always has been. Even at its peak, Warband MP was a small fraction of total Warband player count. It frustrates me to no end that we don't have a better game in Bannerlord to build a stronger MP community from, in what is already a niche title.
- Status
Similar threads
