It's shallow as with many things in Bannerlord, yes, but it allows role play, which is my point. These notables enable you to imagine a world where there are several influential individuals in each fief, which reflects real life. The give quests that often have to do with other notables. That's role play potential.Then they don't compete with each other, and them competing with each other only favours the player on getting better troops and nothing else. It's an a okey system, but again, this is an anti-lore feature. Recruiting in Bannerlord is closer to buyer slaves than raising armies, and recruiting it's the same in all factions, so again, that "notables variety" truly means nothing to me, it's a very shallow feature.
I don't understand your point about buying slaves. I assume you think so because the simplified UI makes it look like we're merely buying them. I've always thought of it as the same in Warband. In Warband we asked the village elder if there's any people we can recruit. Now I just assume we're doing the same, but to notables instead.
This limitation is exactly what I refer to as role play potential. In history, many settlements had laws that limit what civilians can wear in town, and this limitation reflects that, thus deepening role play. It allows Taleworlds and modders to design encounters with limited gears for increased difficulty, and thus more challenging and fun.This was invented by the Viking Conquest DLC, so technically we did have it in Warband. And here is worse, because is limited to what the game wants you to wear instead of just letting you wear what you want lol.
They're like a quest that increase/decrease relations with certain notables, and gives you rewards. While shallow, they allow for so much potential. The Fourberie mod already makes use of this feature for more role play.Back alley fights are a joke that serve no purpose, and they only exist because they featured it in a promo video. They were supposed to make you a gangster of some sort but the feature was either cut or "still working on it"
Yeah it's a shame about that part. I've always wanted a feature where we can join another clan instead, and climb our "rank" within that clan to become the clan's leader or something. Still, the groundwork Taleworlds did is still to be appreciated, is my point.These are fine. Clan in general it's an alright addition, but it's too bad you can't start as a nobody without a clan like in Warband.
You can kinda do that by having a companion smith a weapon for you, but I understand what you mean. The pricing is also a bit bonkers. Just like many things with Bannerlord, it lacks depth and fine-tuning, but I'd repeat myself by saying that this groundwork is worth appreciating.Smithing is alright, but it's too bad you can't order something being made for you if you have the money to do so. What actual noble lords/kings were smiths and made their own swords??? History buffs refrain, if it happened twice of thrice i don't care.
I agree. It was only interesting for the first few tries. Then again, this allows for more funzies through modding. Something I appreciate.You mean playing those awful minigames??? I don't know who actually takes the time to learn and play them, but I wouldn't spend a second in a system that doesn't take me anywhere than to get a small amount of denars in my pocket. Playing with lords is completely useless too.
Kinda. It's easier, and that allows you to roleplay as an errant knight soloing hideouts, which is a role play I often do. You couldn't really do so in Warband because the simpler AI and layout made it easier for the enemies to mob you. The duel is also a nice role play touch.As doable you mean, going as an archer and hitting a headshot on a sitting target, until you fight a big guy. Hideouts and bandits in general could have been great, instead hideouts are just very, very easy tasks, and repetitive too. To the point they're even boring to do.
I was referring to how parties can actually unite into a single big party called an army. Warband was plagued with army members running away because a single enemy party larger than them was approaching. They didn't take into account the total number of allies around them.Hmm, Warband had this. I would even say that in Warband you didn't have the "ability" you had to earn it in your faction, be good enough and become the marshall. Here, it's affected not by how well you perform in battle in general but by:
While it's true that the influence system is very basic and gamey, think about its other features. It allows you to propose kingdom policies and war. You can vote for change in fief ownership, etc. Again, these are currently too limited in-game. Voting is mostly strong-armed by the AI, but as with many things, it can be fine-tuned to unimaginable height by modding. I can appreciate Taleworlds for providing this groundwork.The influence system is the worst thing to ever happen to Bannerlord. The influence system is a complete piece of garbage, and I'm being nice here, and calm too. But the influence system is the worst piece of trash design to ever be thought for an RPG. Influence in no way, no place can be a currency. It's a dumb idea, and it shouldn't have had replaced reputation and right to rule. It's the example of the whole Bannelord issue: you have an okay feature that could have been expanded into, that could have been worked on and made better, and instead was replaced by a totally disruptive one in favour of being "simple" and "easy". I hope a mod destroys influence and we can play an actual game for once.
I admit I forgot about this when writing that. For one, I agree that it's barebone, just like with many things in Bannerlord. However, I can also understand why they need to make companions dynamic because of the death system. Besides, having not-so-noteworthy but competent retainers is pretty realistic in a way.in Warband they had complains, they didn't get along with other companions, they had something to say if you didn't act according to their ideology, and if the morale was low some would be eager to leave.
Don't worry I did read it. I also agree with you to a degree. I was referring to the idea that "Bannerlord has less lore" because I remember that it has more. Right now that lore only extends to the campaign mod's main quest.Remember the flavor text post I've made, talking about how backstories and text is just flavor, unless they affect the gameplay? Yeah, that is what the post is about. Consider reading it's points.
Then I'm glad it has achieved its purpose. I post here for fun. That whole post was just me reminding people that Bannerlord does have more features that allow role play. Those features are shallow, sure, but they're there. Because the groundwork exists, it allows for great potential through modding. I believe that's something to be appreciated. On the other hand, I understand that this shallowness is exactly why people are angry. Bannerlord shows us so much potential, but it's not explored yet. But come on. If Bannerlord didn't have these shallow features, there'd be fewer things to mod. A simple proof of this, is how there are already mods like Fourberie and those other countless tweak mods. People saw the potential and immediately modded them in. Bannerlord allowing us to mix-and-match mods is extremely useful for this. Merging mods in Warband was impossible for the common users.Idk what your whole post was about, but it was fun responding to. Because truly, every addition in Bannerlord is either a complete ruin like influence, or it's "okay" to the point of elevating the game to Average. It's an average game, yes.