Cultivation, lack thereof.

[julijs]

Mount & Blade Genre

Sandbox titles can be inherently flawed as they contain many staples of other genres with an emphasis on free-formed gameplay, all of which are arguably under the perception of art by it's players; one may like the former rather than the latter.
Bannerlord is a title that holds a pillar on battle simulation and by choice have decided it to be their magnum opus of the genre, doing so they have deliberately constrained all other aspects of the game, why they have done this is only speculation - but my narrative on this is by the overwhelming sales and steam reviews that has encouraged it.

Bannerlord and Warband Fiasco

Whenever the game Warband is thrown around in these forums as a counter argument for Bannerlord, many do not understand why these people think the predecessor was better, and they're right, the game statistically isn't better than the later. But in order to see why this is thrown around, you must stop seeing it in black and white glasses and look inwards for the middle ground of the reasoning.
It is very much the idea of Warband that is better than Bannerlord's, because what they loved it for was behind all aspects playing an equal part to the game, roleplay, feuds, characters, companions, battles, romance and marriage. No they're not that great in Warband, but for the many this was Taleworld's chance to shine on innovating and cultivating these features on their next title, which they didn't, as they purposefully sacrificed all other characteristics of the game so everything is now revolved around battles.
I like to throw around the phrase glorified battle simulator in these forums, the game might look like mount and blade on the surface, but on the inside it is just the chef-d'œuvre of battles and other concepts that were very wanting being disparaged around the game. most evidently is the goal of marriages and companions becoming an automated statistic rather than an expansive mechanic.

The Root of the Problem

Bannerlord is a very complex game behind the curtains, but not within the hands of the player, as a sand-box title this makes the game fall flat (greatly), as the game is right now, and with the current idea that the game design directors have right now is handicapping emergent gameplay, there is a lack of tools (mechanics/features) at the players disposal to contribute towards making an interesting player driven story, it relies too much on the player to make their own fun on the notion of their own creativity.
This at its core cannot be fixed by additional content, and is an issue of the game being wholly automated by It's battle and campaign AI who have too much control on almost all aspects of the world, whereas the player has very little to non- even if you were to be the most influential person (a king). with this scarcity of dynamic and interactive AI in addition with mechanics makes the world feel unresponsive and most frightening of all, boring. (Imagine being a child on a beach playing with sand, impressive right? well now imagine you have no tools and no toys to do anything with the sand, you could run it through your fingers or maybe watch it sprinkle- but that gets old very quick as sand by itself is not much fun when compared to making castles and moulding a world in your image)

It is very cool that the current mechanics are fairly complex, but if the player cannot even engage moderately in it, then what's the point? if the player can't use it to manipulate the living and breathing sand-box world then it is nothing more than eye-candy.
Unless they lighten up the current features to be more interactable and absolutely responsive to the player, such as lords, kingdoms, bandits, caravans, settlements, and companions, whilst all working together dynamically to give actual soul to the game and lead up to more than just battles, then the game will be very mediocre no matter the additional content.

TLDR

tldr; Bannerlord will become as broad as an ocean, as shallow as a puddle on its current path, as an over-abundance of mundane additions will do very little to stimulate the larger picture for the player, with repetitive quests and battles very much getting in the way of enjoying the game, but also its true potential..

Suffice to say, developing an immersive gaming environment with an atmosphere that is both expansive and open is an enormous undertaking in a sandbox title, so for Taleworld's to aim very unambitiously is not lazy game design, it's a different approach- but its very underwhelming and fails to cultivate the current game as everything is a side-grade, with features cut from the prior at the cost of new features, and others being strictly dumbed down or barely improved.

 

[Poddicus]

Amazing post, I couldn't have said it better myself
Coming from Warband, Bannerlord's singleplayer is just inherently boring. Sure, the battles are bigger and better (fix the cav AI & useless armour values) but that's all there is. The world itself feels empty and barren of things to do and all of the "features" being added just feel like mundane check-list boxes.

The Lords and NPCs feel like cardboard cut-outs with a forced and painful persuasion system, why? Warband's was just fine, Lords would each act according to their own personalities and treat you as such, they'd keep you to your word individually. Here they just serve as war parties.

It really doesn't take much to address all this, just a bit of creativity. *See some of the 'missing from Warband' and 'additions / suggestions' threads because I cba listing things here to keep the post relatively short

 

[black_bulldog]

It is very cool that the current mechanics are fairly complex, but if the player cannot even engage moderately in it, then what's the point? if the player can't use it to manipulate the living and breathing sand-box world then it is nothing more than eye-candy.
Unless they lighten up the current features to be more interactable and absolutely responsive to the player, such as lords, kingdoms, bandits, caravans, settlements, and companions, whilst all working together dynamically to give actual soul to the game and lead up to more than just battles, then the game will be very mediocre no matter the additional content.

One of the biggest problems if not the biggest core issue with this game is that the player is punished for things that he/she has no control over, to me this is absolutely ridiculous. For example making someone king and not giving him the final decision about when his faction goes to war or offers peace is a big no no because at that point you're just a cog in the wheel not the one driving the cog. Sure you may be able to overrule it a few times but you don't have unlimited influence so you can't stop it forever. Another example is the way battles progress, it essentially becomes just a mosh pit and using formations and trying to tactfully place formations has little to no effect so we're an army commander in name only.

Here's some other fundamental core issues with this game. This game's focus is suppose to be about commanding an army so why are battle simulations even a thing for the player? Does TW realize that battles are boring so they just give players a way to skip them or is it something else? If so why not have less battles but each is more important? Or why are there so many perks that are useless to the player? What a horrible way to waste perks by making them only useful for the ai. I doubt if these questions ever even were thought about by TW because from what I see there is little depth of thought about mechanics in this game.

 

[Sigaretovic]

Mount & Blade Genre

Sandbox titles can be inherently flawed as they contain many staples of other genres with an emphasis on free-formed gameplay, all of which are arguably under the perception of art by it's players; one may like the former rather than the latter.
Bannerlord is a title that holds a pillar on battle simulation and by choice have decided it to be their magnum opus of the genre, doing so they have deliberately constrained all other aspects of the game, why they have done this is only speculation - but my narrative on this is by the overwhelming sales and steam reviews that has encouraged it.

Bannerlord and Warband Fiasco

Whenever the game Warband is thrown around in these forums as a counter argument for Bannerlord, many do not understand why these people think the predecessor was better, and they're right, the game statistically isn't better than the later. But in order to see why this is thrown around, you must stop seeing it in black and white glasses and look inwards for the middle ground of the reasoning.
It is very much the idea of Warband that is better than Bannerlord's, because what they loved it for was behind all aspects playing an equal part to the game, roleplay, feuds, characters, companions, battles, romance and marriage. No they're not that great in Warband, but for the many this was Taleworld's chance to shine on innovating and cultivating these features on their next title, which they didn't, as they purposefully sacrificed all other characteristics of the game so everything is now revolved around battles.
I like to throw around the phrase glorified battle simulator in these forums, the game might look like mount and blade on the surface, but on the inside it is just the chef-d'œuvre of battles and other concepts that were very wanting being disparaged around the game. most evidently is the goal of marriages and companions becoming an automated statistic rather than an expansive mechanic.

The Root of the Problem

Bannerlord is a very complex game behind the curtains, but not within the hands of the player, as a sand-box title this makes the game fall flat (greatly), as the game is right now, and with the current idea that the game design directors have right now is handicapping emergent gameplay, there is a lack of tools (mechanics/features) at the players disposal to contribute towards making an interesting player driven story, it relies too much on the player to make their own fun on the notion of their own creativity.
This at its core cannot be fixed by additional content, and is an issue of the game being wholly automated by It's battle and campaign AI who have too much control on almost all aspects of the world, whereas the player has very little to non- even if you were to be the most influential person (a king). with this scarcity of dynamic and interactive AI in addition with mechanics makes the world feel unresponsive and most frightening of all, boring. (Imagine being a child on a beach playing with sand, impressive right? well now imagine you have no tools and no toys to do anything with the sand, you could run it through your fingers or maybe watch it sprinkle- but that gets old very quick as sand by itself is not much fun when compared to making castles and moulding a world in your image)

It is very cool that the current mechanics are fairly complex, but if the player cannot even engage moderately in it, then what's the point? if the player can't use it to manipulate the living and breathing sand-box world then it is nothing more than eye-candy.
Unless they lighten up the current features to be more interactable and absolutely responsive to the player, such as lords, kingdoms, bandits, caravans, settlements, and companions, whilst all working together dynamically to give actual soul to the game and lead up to more than just battles, then the game will be very mediocre no matter the additional content.

TLDR

tldr; Bannerlord will become as broad as an ocean, as shallow as a puddle on its current path, as an over-abundance of mundane additions will do very little to stimulate the larger picture for the player, with repetitive quests and battles very much getting in the way of enjoying the game, but also its true potential..

Suffice to say, developing an immersive gaming environment with an atmosphere that is both expansive and open is an enormous undertaking in a sandbox title, so for Taleworld's to aim very unambitiously is not lazy game design, it's a different approach- but its very underwhelming and fails to cultivate the current game as everything is a side-grade, with features cut from the prior at the cost of new features, and others being strictly dumbed down or barely improved.

Good way of putting it. I just wish TW would finally wake up and actually do something with this (and all the other) feedback, instead of persisting with their own boring vision that is devaluating their own hard work.... God.. At this point i feel like bashing my head into a wall. That's how frustrating it is to realize the only ones who don't get it call the shots at TW.

 

[Lesbosisles]

Agreed with the OP. The game looks promising even after the parade of disappointments we all had here, yet there's really almost NO way to directly affect anything in the world.

There is low loyalty in enemy town? Maybe you could sneak into it, bribe some notables/gang leaders, so things might go even worse and the riot will start in it? Nah, you just sit and wait, MAYBE there will be a riot. Some might say something like: hey, you can raid their villages and the security will go down, and so the city's loyalty. Have you seen the impact, that looted villages give to the security? -0,2!!

An ongoing war goes the wrong direction, it makes your faction weak, yet the AI can't really see it? Maybe you'd like to end this war by persuading/capturing some lords who gain profits from this war and preventing its end (as we could in Warband, by the way)?? No, the only way you can end the war is through voting, yet your vote means nothing if no other AI lord backs you up.

Maybe you'd like to give an advice to the party, that there are badly defended settlement which can be easily captured and direct the party to it? Hah, bad luck for you, pal. The only way you can do this is to create your own party which is impossible without having influence points and a large amount of food in your pockets. So, at the beginning you're fully dependant on AI stupid descisions (they will prefer a castle with 20 defenders at the other side of the map over a city with 40 defenders, having about 90-men themselves.

Are you being trapped in a besieged settlement with only 200 defenders, while the attackers have 2000+ men? Wanna send a message to your allies, call for help? Haha, no, just admit that your castle aint yours anymore.

Maybe, you'd like to make some friends in your faction, so they will back you up in votings? 2 things: first - there are so FEW ways to rise the relations with other lords, and second - your friends WON'T back you up anyway. Relationship means almost nothing.

And so on. That's a big problem. You're not the man who can direct this sandbox somehow, influence on it. You're more like a piece of timber, thrown into the river, going whatever the water takes you to, having no opportunity to change that somehow.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Agreed with the OP. The game looks promising even after the parade of disappointments we all had here, yet there's really almost NO way to directly affect anything in the world.

There is low loyalty in enemy town? Maybe you could sneak into it, bribe some notables/gang leaders, so things might go even worse and the riot will start in it? Nah, you just sit and wait, MAYBE there will be a riot. Some might say something like: hey, you can raid their villages and the security will go down, and so the city's loyalty. Have you seen the impact, that looted villages give to the security? -0,2!!

An ongoing war goes the wrong direction, it makes your faction weak, yet the AI can't really see it? Maybe you'd like to end this war by persuading/capturing some lords who gain profits from this war and preventing its end (as we could in Warband, by the way)?? No, the only way you can end the war is through voting, yet your vote means nothing if no other AI lord backs you up.

Maybe you'd like to give an advice to the party, that there are badly defended settlement which can be easily captured and direct the party to it? Hah, bad luck for you, pal. The only way you can do this is to create your own party which is impossible without having influence points and a large amount of food in your pockets. So, at the beginning you're fully dependant on AI stupid descisions (they will prefer a castle with 20 defenders at the other side of the map over a city with 40 defenders, having about 90-men themselves.

Are you being trapped in a besieged settlement with only 200 defenders, while the attackers have 2000+ men? Wanna send a message to your allies, call for help? Haha, no, just admit that your castle aint yours anymore.

Maybe, you'd like to make some friends in your faction, so they will back you up in votings? 2 things: first - there are so FEW ways to rise the relations with other lords, and second - your friends WON'T back you up anyway. Relationship means almost nothing.

And so on. That's a big problem. You're not the man who can direct this sandbox somehow, influence on it. You're more like a piece of timber, thrown into the river, going whatever the water takes you to, having no opportunity to change that somehow.

+1 I agree with the specific and sentiment of your words. I do enjoy the game but yes, those specific instances, and more, that you mentioned are too insulated from player's choice and effect.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

Very well put. Totally agree.

it relies too much on the player to make their own fun on the notion of their own creativity

 

[EvilWeezel]

Nailed it. I have about 230 hours, not much compared to many. I started my second play-through just a couple days ago, and suddenly last night I started to feel "whats the point?" Stay bored with looter and bandit battles before joining a kingdom, or join a kingdom and suffer through the awful AI decisions, get a castle or city and then constantly defend it until the kingdom makes peace. In about 30 mins of play my first castle changed hands 4 times. As a new character I'm around 70 troops hopelessly left to abandon a siege of 1200 plus, and hope my AI armies choose to back me up. They don't...they just went to a new target, lost... and got 6 lords captured.

Progress is kind of an illusion in this game. And consider how easily you can screw something up or get yourself into a situation where you are stuck (i.e. being given a fief that is on the brink of revolt, starving, and no prosperity). On my first character, being king really didn't change the game at all for me except giving me final say, only to have my decision to make peace for example, pretty quickly undone. Enhancing the army strategy feature a bit may help. As king the player should have a bit more agency in deciding where armies focus their efforts, because currently they are nothing short of idiotic. The first army I joined after joining a kingdom lost a battle we highly outnumbered the enemy simply due to really bad tactics. No archers on high ground, cav just sitting still under a rain of arrows, and infantry standing downhill from enemy archers making their shield wall highly ineffective. It's just very frustrating at times. Especially when the only hope I have to retain a castle is to dump most of the troops into a garrison just for a prayer of keeping it. Then the boring routine of making the rounds to recruit more, in which time the inevitable siege will come. Kind of made me want to abandon my new character for the original one with 400+ troops, at least able to defend my own land, even if that play-through feels its done with a little over 50% of lands conquered. Despite high relations with lords, and many attempts not one has joined my faction leaving my nation unable to properly govern or defend new lands. And constant war on 3 fronts begins to feel like a stalemate of give and take.

Everything in the OP was very well stated. And it caused me to really in an instant go from "man I love this game" to "what is the point?" I could always just make my own custom battles if I wanted endless combat under interesting conditions, leaving me to agree that the non-combat aspects of the game are incredibly lacking and in some cases non-consequential.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Agreed. I want to do things that change and control the game world. I want the AI to have to do things as well. As it is, it's just repetitive battles so the game becomes "How fast can kill everyone and paint the map?" All NPC are primarily an obstacle with almost no meaningful interaction, you can't make them do anything useful. Being a vassal or a ruler with 12 vassals is basically the same thing.

 

[Apocal]

There is low loyalty in enemy town? Maybe you could sneak into it, bribe some notables/gang leaders, so things might go even worse and the riot will start in it? Nah, you just sit and wait, MAYBE there will be a riot. Some might say something like: hey, you can raid their villages and the security will go down, and so the city's loyalty. Have you seen the impact, that looted villages give to the security? -0,2!!

Since you're referring to me here, let me just say that it isn't a Security penalty that hurts them but the direct Loyalty penalty for starving, which is more than ten times as strong and reliably makes settlements riot. I made it clear in my post -- and it is clear in-game as well -- so I'm not sure how you missed that part or thought I meant Security.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Since you're referring to me here, let me just say that it isn't a Security penalty that hurts them but the direct Loyalty penalty for starving, which is more than ten times as strong and reliably makes settlements riot. I made it clear in my post -- and it is clear in-game as well -- so I'm not sure how you missed that part or thought I meant Security.

I don't how he referred to you @Apocal , but I do not see a tooltip in-game that tells me that information. When the red fisted hand is on the settlement that is in danger to rebel, the flashing red indicator is on the overall Loyalty icon, but does not pinpoint that it is the hunger effect that "reliably makes (the) settlements riot". It is not abundantly clear to the player.

 

[Lesbosisles]

Since you're referring to me here, let me just say that it isn't a Security penalty that hurts them but the direct Loyalty penalty for starving, which is more than ten times as strong and reliably makes settlements riot. I made it clear in my post -- and it is clear in-game as well -- so I'm not sure how you missed that part or thought I meant Security.

Refering to you? Well, I don't know how, have I mentioned your nickname somewhere or quoted you?

Anyway, let me tell you the story. There was a Vlandian town, Charas, which was conquered by the Imperials. I saw it's loyalty was going down slowly, about -0,63 per day, and the overall loyalty was about 44. "Let's help those citizens realize that Imperials aren't welcome here, shall we?". So I went and completely raided 2 villages which were bound to the city. As a bonus, I robbed one additional village which was not bound to the city, yet was located nearby. After a few days I checked the loyalty change... and saw those juicy -0,2 because of looted villages. No hunger effect was mentioned. The loalty was about 42 or 43. In fact, the effect was barely noticeable.

After a few in-game years, we stopped our war with the Empire already, yet, Charas was still loyal to them. That is one of the serious problem of the game. Whatever you do, it has so low effect on anything, that you actually don't wanna do anyhting.

Help the village by completing it's quest? Ok, hearth grow has increased by 0,001%! Raided villages? Loyalty has decreased by -0,02%! Killed an enemy King in battle? Who cares, here goes another one. Wanna extra HP via perks? We have a few with about +2 HP, +5HP perks, have fun! You have too much influence points, bigger than the ruler, bigger than anyone else in the Kingdom? Alas, you still can't override those low-tier lords with 20 Influence points, hence you can barely change anything in the Kingdom.

The only things which really has the impact on anything is conquering the settlements. In Warband you could stop the Kingdoms from waging a war by completing a Guildmaster's quest. Here you can do little to nothing. The game plays itself and you are more like a spectator. You can participate in anything the game does, but you can't change that or influence this somehow.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

That is one of the serious problem of the game. Whatever you do, it has so low effect on anything, that you actually don't wanna do anyhting.

Well said.

Wanna extra HP via perks? We have a few with about +2 HP, +5HP perks, have fun!

Yeah I often finish the game with unspent attributes and FP because..... nothing really would have mattered. A Dev once said in response to weak perk complaints "It's just a perk"..... well I guess don't just want perks then, I want a good character building system.
inb4 somebody points out that there literally are X Y Z more perks for +HP...

You can participate in anything the game does, but you can't change that or influence this somehow.

What is striking to me is even if you take an entire faction down (parties not fiefs), either by near elimination or imprisonment, even after years, almost nothing in thier home land changes. It supports my impression that the AI just doesn't really DO anything for it's lands. They can have ZERO parties active and nothing happens to thier fiefs. The only rebellion I had in my last game was because of repeated siege attempts form the last faction against the culled battania, not because nobody in battania could solve any issues or do anything. On the other hand if a faction gets a lot of foreign lands at once, they almost immediately have loyalty problems and rebellion. Although yes, the AI can't get a lot of land at once normally, this shows the disparity between the loyalty of native lands and the penalty for expanded lands in foreign territory. Just seems fake to me, "you get all rebellions because -3 loyalty" "you never get any no matter what because not -3 loyalty." Throw on top the fact the AI doesn't know how to make loyalty policies or recruit and land clans in the best culture (nor can you as ruler, do to elections) and it just seems like a big annoying system to make the game drag on.

 

[Apocal]

Refering to you? Well, I don't know how, have I mentioned your nickname somewhere or quoted you?

I just posted this a few days ago. Sorry if you were referring to someone else, but lately people have started referring to me without quoting anything I've written.

At any rate, your example is one of the few systems where player actions have an obvious, consistent effect.

That said, I don't disagree that most of the game you don't have much impact on, but I hate using quests as a framework because it encourages players toy farm them instead of being a natural process arising from impacts in the living world. If I cause a rebellion because I'm raiding villages and looting caravans left, right and center -- good. If I cause a rebellion because I just walked into a marginal town and talked to the artisan, it starts to get silly. Especially the ninth time I do it and there is the same dialogue involved, which just rips away my suspension of disbelief.

I don't how he referred to you @Apocal , but I do not see a tooltip in-game that tells me that information. When the red fisted hand is on the settlement that is in danger to rebel, the flashing red indicator is on the overall Loyalty icon, but does not pinpoint that it is the hunger effect that "reliably makes (the) settlements riot". It is not abundantly clear to the player.

Hover over the Loyalty icon on the town menu. It doesn't work for towns that are hostile, but if you've seen the penalties once, that's it: you pretty much know exactly how to reliably cause a rebellion.

 

[Lesbosisles]

If I cause a rebellion because I'm raiding villages and looting caravans left, right and center -- good. If I cause a rebellion because I just walked into a marginal town and talked to the artisan, it starts to get silly. Especially the ninth time I do it and there is the same dialogue involved, which just rips away my suspension of disbelief.

It actually should work both ways. The player should be able to affect the rebellion state both via doing damage to economically important objects (villages and caravans) and also should be able to cause a loyalty reducement via bribing notables (it can be done the way, so you can only bribe notables you have good relations with).

Right now, the impact from sabotage is not really effective and there's no other way you could affect the situation.

 

[Alino3d]

Mount & Blade Genre

Sandbox titles can be inherently flawed as they contain many staples of other genres with an emphasis on free-formed gameplay, all of which are arguably under the perception of art by it's players; one may like the former rather than the latter.
Bannerlord is a title that holds a pillar on battle simulation and by choice have decided it to be their magnum opus of the genre, doing so they have deliberately constrained all other aspects of the game, why they have done this is only speculation - but my narrative on this is by the overwhelming sales and steam reviews that has encouraged it.

Bannerlord and Warband Fiasco

Whenever the game Warband is thrown around in these forums as a counter argument for Bannerlord, many do not understand why these people think the predecessor was better, and they're right, the game statistically isn't better than the later. But in order to see why this is thrown around, you must stop seeing it in black and white glasses and look inwards for the middle ground of the reasoning.
It is very much the idea of Warband that is better than Bannerlord's, because what they loved it for was behind all aspects playing an equal part to the game, roleplay, feuds, characters, companions, battles, romance and marriage. No they're not that great in Warband, but for the many this was Taleworld's chance to shine on innovating and cultivating these features on their next title, which they didn't, as they purposefully sacrificed all other characteristics of the game so everything is now revolved around battles.
I like to throw around the phrase glorified battle simulator in these forums, the game might look like mount and blade on the surface, but on the inside it is just the chef-d'œuvre of battles and other concepts that were very wanting being disparaged around the game. most evidently is the goal of marriages and companions becoming an automated statistic rather than an expansive mechanic.

The Root of the Problem

Bannerlord is a very complex game behind the curtains, but not within the hands of the player, as a sand-box title this makes the game fall flat (greatly), as the game is right now, and with the current idea that the game design directors have right now is handicapping emergent gameplay, there is a lack of tools (mechanics/features) at the players disposal to contribute towards making an interesting player driven story, it relies too much on the player to make their own fun on the notion of their own creativity.
This at its core cannot be fixed by additional content, and is an issue of the game being wholly automated by It's battle and campaign AI who have too much control on almost all aspects of the world, whereas the player has very little to non- even if you were to be the most influential person (a king). with this scarcity of dynamic and interactive AI in addition with mechanics makes the world feel unresponsive and most frightening of all, boring. (Imagine being a child on a beach playing with sand, impressive right? well now imagine you have no tools and no toys to do anything with the sand, you could run it through your fingers or maybe watch it sprinkle- but that gets old very quick as sand by itself is not much fun when compared to making castles and moulding a world in your image)

It is very cool that the current mechanics are fairly complex, but if the player cannot even engage moderately in it, then what's the point? if the player can't use it to manipulate the living and breathing sand-box world then it is nothing more than eye-candy.
Unless they lighten up the current features to be more interactable and absolutely responsive to the player, such as lords, kingdoms, bandits, caravans, settlements, and companions, whilst all working together dynamically to give actual soul to the game and lead up to more than just battles, then the game will be very mediocre no matter the additional content.

TLDR

tldr; Bannerlord will become as broad as an ocean, as shallow as a puddle on its current path, as an over-abundance of mundane additions will do very little to stimulate the larger picture for the player, with repetitive quests and battles very much getting in the way of enjoying the game, but also its true potential..

Suffice to say, developing an immersive gaming environment with an atmosphere that is both expansive and open is an enormous undertaking in a sandbox title, so for Taleworld's to aim very unambitiously is not lazy game design, it's a different approach- but its very underwhelming and fails to cultivate the current game as everything is a side-grade, with features cut from the prior at the cost of new features, and others being strictly dumbed down or barely improved.

Totolly agree.

 

[LichTale]

To be fair I feel that on some points the game not only it didn't improve but it even became worse. Mainly player and NPC interactions. I have to say that I hate the current clan system cause it's ****. It killed all the individuality that the game had, let me give a few examples:

-In warband you could court a girl, another noble could court her too and you could even fight a duel for her, while it wasn't overly impressive at least it was better than bartering the wife.

-In warband you could have a good relationship with the brother while being hated by the father, it did let me have more complex relationships than just being liked/hated by the whole clan.

-I don't hate house renown, but for the love of god, why did they take down the individual renown? I want people to hear of my character's name, to know him, not just his clan!.

In the end this has been said quite a bit but what most of us hope is just that this game drinks a bit from crusader kings so that it gives a better experience, that game is actually quite funny cause of how messy it can be on relationships and events, assassinations, usurpations, marrying and discovering your wife is your half sister, stealing your brother's wife... The problem that mount and blade always had is that you don't have dynamic interactions with the world, it's all static, stuff doesn't just happen, events don't develop.

How great would the game be if companions had some importance over using them for missions? you remember that outlaw companion you got? well he became an outlaw after becoming an enemy of x noble and he is sending manhunters for him, you could betray him and earn relationship with that noble or help your friend in need, perhaps the conflict could be solved in some way? if the mount and blade world was more alive and I could get choices and battles cause of seemingly relunctant choices it would be great.

Let's be fair, I want to cuck a king, leave with his wife then gain his eternal hate while his daughter decides to hunt me down, seduce her too and laugh at the king's face. Basically have fun on many aspects, even if it wasn't perfect I can use a bit of imagination, but you know... messing up with people is always a pleasure.

 

[Lesbosisles]

In the end this has been said quite a bit but what most of us hope is just that this game drinks a bit from crusader kings so that it gives a better experience, that game is actually quite funny cause of how messy it can be on relationships and events, assassinations, usurpations, marrying and discovering your wife is your half sister, stealing your brother's wife... The problem that mount and blade always had is that you don't have dynamic interactions with the world, it's all static, stuff doesn't just happen, events don't develop.

Assassinations won't be in the game, I asked Duh about it half a year ago.

The points you mentioned are the part of the "Too complex" problem. Developers are so afraid of adding a bit of complexity in the game, so it looks too shallow right now.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

Assassinations won't be in the game, I asked Duh about it half a year ago.

The points you mentioned are the part of the "Too complex" problem. Developers are so afraid of adding a bit of complexity in the game, so it looks too shallow right now.

I wonder why they won't include assassinations. If you kill someone with a console command it says on their encyclopaedia page that they have been assassinated or murdered. Could be a fun quest sort of like prison breaks or something to use companions with high roguery or whatever for.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Especially the ninth time I do it and there is the same dialogue involved, which just rips away my suspension of disbelief.

Your suspension of disbelief is killed during the first fight with looters after it takes multiple arrows to the head to down one while they one hit you with rocks, what's one slightly unrealistic quest.