"I like it and because of that everybody else isn't allowed to dislike it."
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bloc's warband missing features mod list (No Download/Showcase)
- Thread starter Goyyyio
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I do really try to understand how these arguments can be subjective. I really do. To me, they are just facts.
I meant to say "broken", the combat is broken. Not really subjective, and I used the wrong word.
Again, that is your opinion. It is your opinion that battles aren't fun. Bannerlord is bad for you because you want to dig out your eyeballs before you finish a game. You can dislike a game, I can't argue against your opinion, but you can't call a game objectively bad because of it.
And I know you're gonna go onto the whole "subjectivity doesn't matter" thing, but that is literally the only argument that matters. Bannerlord has flaws, but those flaws don't make it a bad game.
Games have bugs, but Bannerlord isn't constantly bugging out.
I disagree because I disagree. I speak up because I don't see a lot of people disagreeing. Or would you rather I just shut up, because clearly this place can't handle someone disagreeing with everyone.
And I don't think the game is perfect. Your threads have shown that, and it does need work. There are features that I think should be added, and some things that should be tweaked, however the game is fun to me. But just because I enjoy it doesn't mean I say the game is ultimately good. Its alright, it has flaws, but almost every other game has flaws. Just because you do not find the battles fun doesn't make the game objectively bad.
Get over yourself. The game is bad- sucks if you can’t handle that opinion but too bad for you. For some reason you think you get to decide what, when and how people are allowed to express their opinion that they believe it’s a bad game. Well guess what - you don’t.
Calabanar
Sergeant at Arms
Bannerlord isn't bad because it's a 3-4/10, it's "bad" because it's a 7/10 and could so easily become an 8-9, hell, even a 10 with some simple adjustments.
Most people were fine with it being average when it entered EA, because they expected change. It hasn't come though (not to the degree that was promised), so all that's left is a... terribly average game. For people who have waited years and proposed feedback whenever they could, it's a hard pill to swallow.
I’m not stopping you. I’ve never told Five-Bucks to stay quiet, he can keep disagreeing with me. We fundamentally disagree on the state of the game, but that doesn’t mean that one of us has to keep quiet.
If we're getting into the 'subjectivity' from your POV, the game then can never be either objectively good or bad, or anything else than just...a game (but that could also be 'subjective' too then).
It is up to the majority to steer that conversation into the collective subjective points into what finally can finally be considered a 'good' or 'bad' game based on certain sets of issues or praises.
I don't think anyone is telling you to shut-up nor do I see this 'toxicity' compared to a lot of other community forums; disagreement does not = toxicity. We can agree or disagree with each other on the talking points, but the reason you don't see a lot more on 'your' side is probably because it's not the popular take?
Sorry to say but id rate the game in the 3-4 scale as that was my total overall (lackOf) enjoyment with the game. It fundamentally misses on just about everything that would make it fun - and done willingly by the Devs. Anyone that knows me here knows i was what was considered a White Knight of the game and the company early on with this release -used to go to war here defending the Devs as i truly believed they were going to give us all that they appeared to promise us in DevBlogs and more -they just simply needed more time. Time im willing to give -hell ive barely complained more than once over at Star Citizen of which i bought my ship maybe 8 years ago - because i still believe they are truly trying to make it better. I judge this by their very thorough and informative Quarterly dev-blogs, and the ambition, especially for the AI is just too bright for me not to support -even if it crashes and burns spectacularly.
The difference here is that these Devs, who I thought had a very strong vision of their game catered to us and its own trajectory and legacy - deliberately decided to screw us and go the console accessible route. THAT is unforgivable in my book and why ive punted my old WhiteKnight helmet to the curb and am now stomping on it like a petulant child. In short -I feel they screwed us willingly, dont care about their longterm fanbase 1 iota and literally now have active contempt for them.
Calabanar
Sergeant at Arms
You are probably a Warband veteran, if not from earlier, so it would make sense that the game disappoints you enough to rate it so poorly, it seems to be the sentiment from most of the M&B veterans.
I used to defend the game quite substancially during the first months of EA on Steam, as I truly believed the game would improve thanks to our (the players') feedback. I'm not defending TW, just stating what I believe to be the truth: to Warband players, Bannerlord is a huge letdown, to new players, Bannerlord is an absolute gem. It makes sense, there's no other game like M&B, and the core concept is so good it carries the game, ordering soldiers around on a medieval battlefield is fun, it just is.
That doesn't nullify any of the critics and feedback on this forum, including towards TW themselves.
Went to the forum to read the good news.
And again depressed
All hope is in the modders.
I can't play without mods for one hour. Only after the new patch I can play for a few hours.
And again depressed
All hope is in the modders.
I can't play without mods for one hour. Only after the new patch I can play for a few hours.
AngryPanCake
Sergeant
I assume you are talking about yourself, right?
If I (emphasis on "I") spend hours playing a game it's because "I" (same emphasis on "I") enjoy it, whether it's time consuming or otherwise. I have dozens of games in my Steam library that I barely spent an hour or two and moved on, because I didn't enjoy them from the beginning.
On the other hand, BL II despite it's "huge amount of features are incomplete, non functional or terribly imbalanced" as described by @five bucks , I took to it immediately and became my go to game since I bought it a few months ago.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this is the best game ever, I just feel this is an awesome game (for me) that I am enjoying a great deal.
Understand that my post did not make a comparison to any other game, not even to Warband as I have never played or heard of that game until I started playing BL II.
Now, if you ask me do I think TW is doing a great job listening to the community? my answer would be they are not any worse than any other dev team out there that I have experienced over the years. Could they do better? definitely. Can the game be better? most definitely. Does the game have potential? very much so.
AngryPanCake
Sergeant
I think you just hit the nail on the head. I am enjoying this game despite it's stated flaws because I have never played Warband before...which I am glad I haven't, otherwise it would have been a HUGE let down!
That may be true. But even if you ignore the previous games, the promises in the pre-EA and EA devlogs, the horrible community management and the savegame destroying worthless updates which seem to introduce just as many bugs as they fix, which alot of players don't know about/don't mind, BL is still not a good game. Not because there aren't the components there to be so but because the way it is ballanced and they way it is put togethet it just doesn't work.
Plenty of people have said it before: if you want (unlike WB) a fast paced action game you can of course cut peacetime content. (Us WB veterans wont like that baut that wouldn't make it an objectively bad game) However you need to make damn sure the action content actually works, makes up the majority of the time played and is enjoyable. The non functioning armor, broken sieges and braindead AI fly in the face of that combined with excessive and repetitive grind keeping you away from that gameplay. If the game is about battles but sitting there and going from battle to battle takes twenty times longer than the battle itself there you have a problem. Its like building a racecar around a twelve cylinder six litre engine and then installing tractor wheels and expecting it to do well on the racetrack. BL has a powerfull engine. It should do great. But unfortunately it has the wrong wheels.
TW now had two years of time to work this out. They didn't.
And all of this is besides the gripes we WB vets have with this game.
Calabanar
Sergeant at Arms
If you read what I said closely, I never said Bannerlord was a good game in and of itself, but rather that the premise itself is great and something a lot of people have always wanted to experience, which makes up for its obvious flaws if you are new to the concept.
Even if it's incredibly limited in vanilla, the experience is amazing for anyone new to the franchise, and, let's be honest, will also please some Warband veterans that are fine with +- Warband with revamped graphics and some new mechanics (even if they don't work). It's not a good game for those who knew what they wanted from Bannerlord, it is for most of those with no idea of what to expect.
Objectively though, Bannerlord is an extremely flawed game, I believe everyone on this forum can agree. Alas I doubt any feedback on the core mechanics will make TW change their stance, they have only ever tweaked minor stuff or added new mechanics that don't really work as the core needs to be polished for them to be allowed to.
I mean, look at Callum's response: they simply disagree with us, we won't change their minds.
That is sadly true.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
You have already said that things being broken make a game bad, so:
Every time there is a battle involving more than 10 combatants when they all start jiggling at high speed when in a group, or spearmen who can't use their spears, or melee cavalry who can never hit their targets, the game is bugged. Considering the game is primarily focused around battles, that's a huge amount of time. A non-trivial amount of time you play sieges, they are still bugged, especially if you try to distribute orders to the AI.
Every time the AI indecisively bounces between targets, or tries to start a siege on the world map only to abort it at 90% of completion because a raid happened on the opposite side of the map (this is very common btw) the game is bugged. Every time AI kingdoms declare peace minutes after a war was declared, which is nearly every war dec atm, the game is bugged.
And many, many, many, many more examples: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/known-issues.401168/
This is also not including all the mechanics in the game that are incomplete or so imbalanced as to make them unusable; which is functionally the same as being bugged.
False equivalence, Bannerlord has way more flaws than is normal.
With how well warband sold, it's criminal that TW has not implemented naval travel/combat for bannerlord...
I really hope bloc releases this one, would love to play this.
Oh dude... you're still here white knighting the game and "that's just ur opinon" at the veterans spitting facts?
Well at least you get points for stamina.
Similar threads
