This game sucks

[froggyluv]

****ting in someone's house is rude as ****.

Yeah but we aint trespassing on strangers land or being rude at an invited dinner. We are consumers that paid for something that was outlined to us in DevBlogs leading up to it and failed to deliver. Now I get how some people get screwed over and just fold their hands and sit silently in frustration. If you are so easily insulted you may want to leave the internet -its a harsh place

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Yeah but we aint trespassing on strangers land or being rude at an invited dinner. We are consumers that paid for something that was outlined to us in DevBlogs leading up to it and failed to deliver. Now I get how some people get screwed over and just fold their hands and sit silently in frustration. If you are so easily insulted you may want to leave the internet -its a harsh place

Ah yes, a "no u".

Real life is a harsh place, the internet is not, hence why you hide from it being mad at - and I cannot emphasize this enough - a 40 dollar video game. Holy ****.

We've already been promised the rest of the stuff in the DevBlogs. Does it suck waiting a decade? Sure, but, again - a 40 dollar video game.

 

[froggyluv]

Not mad about the $40 at all. Merely explaining to you why customers have a right to vent their frustrations on both the end product and trajectory of "accessibility" -especially when they are built on solid ground not just mindless rants.

 

[Milo The Orange]

I don't agree that that the game sucks but it is obviously a major disappointment for a warband veteran (though I don't speak for the veterans). I put a 1000 hours + into Warband and I held off playing Bannerlord until the "full release" which was 8 ish days ago because of the EA stuff. It took me nearly 24 hours on my **** internet to download. So I and many other people were expecting everything to be much better than warband, I mean TW had nearly unlimited resources, manpower, and time compared to OG mount and blade so how could everything not be better? Turns out bannerlord does have stuff much worse than fully patched warband, not even mentioning the tons of mods and their mechanics the devs could have taken inspiration from. Like warband + diplomacy has more in depth kingdom-level management. Bannerlord has no political intrigue, alliances, or anything else. Kingdoms just wage war constantly. Political intrigue is somehow more pointless than in the game a decade ago. I guess I was just expecting the game to be a massive improvement in everything compared to M&B1. To reverberate from the start, the game doesn't suck, in fact it is an all right game. Just lackluster from what I was expecting after like a decade of waiting, I did and will have fun with the game and the awesome (more awesome than TW) modders will without a doubt make a shining diamond out of it just like with the first title.

"The devs never listen to us!"

"This game sucks and is a grift!"

Some of you need to touch grass. And I mean that with all the disdain I can muster. ****ting in someone's house is rude as ****.

You don't need to insult people because they aren't a giant fanboy like you are, the devs aren't perfect and neither is anything. I may not agree that the game is a "scam" or "sucks" but I think it's an understandable position for people who paid for a product and were expecting a fully finished game. I've read and have to agree with people on reddit that the game at full release still does not feel like a full game.

 

[Grank]

half of all titles announced turned out to be vaporware, where games were literally broken

This reminds me of how I used to return games to CD rentals like 5 times within the same renting period. Yeah games back then were atrocious. Amusingly enough I didn't have that problem with the PlayStation. Probably because the market in my country mostly imported Japanese games.

If this is his life's work, then he must have a very crappy life and very low standard to deliver such a game without great quality

Yikes. That's very uncalled for. People fail and stumble from time to time. Insulting the game is one thing, but insulting someone's life is just vile.

 

[xdj1nn]

I don't agree that that the game sucks but it is obviously a major disappointment for a warband veteran (though I don't speak for the veterans). I put a 1000 hours + into Warband and I held off playing Bannerlord until the "full release" which was 8 ish days ago because of the EA stuff. It took me nearly 24 hours on my **** internet to download. So I and many other people were expecting everything to be much better than warband, I mean TW had nearly unlimited resources, manpower, and time compared to OG mount and blade so how could everything not be better? Turns out bannerlord does have stuff much worse than fully patched warband, not even mentioning the tons of mods and their mechanics the devs could have taken inspiration from. Like warband + diplomacy has more in depth kingdom-level management. Bannerlord has no political intrigue, alliances, or anything else. Kingdoms just wage war constantly. Political intrigue is somehow more pointless than in the game a decade ago. I guess I was just expecting the game to be a massive improvement in everything compared to M&B1. To reverberate from the start, the game doesn't suck, in fact it is an all right game. Just lackluster from what I was expecting after like a decade of waiting, I did and will have fun with the game and the awesome (more awesome than TW) modders will without a doubt make a shining diamond out of it just like with the first title.

You don't need to insult people because they aren't a giant fanboy like you are, the devs aren't perfect and neither is anything. I may not agree that the game is a "scam" or "sucks" but I think it's an understandable position for people who paid for a product and were expecting a fully finished game. I've read and have to agree with people on reddit that the game at full release still does not feel like a full game.

have you honestly reached the late-game in BL? In warband it took much longer for the game to become bonkers and blatantly pushing anti-player mechanics. In BL that happens much earlier, and it's crap for it

To be clear, when I say early 2000s, I mean the specific hype-machine type games that were made just to bilk early sales as hard as possible. Digital distribution was exotic and pre-orders were in their infancy, but there were enough sales bound up in hype that game companies courted reviewers, had media pushes and did things to generate (very temporary) consumer goodwill to make sure the release was smooth.

That was still an improvement over the 90s though. Anyone who says gaming now is worse than it has ever been is either lying or too young to experienced the era in gaming where like half of all titles announced turned out to be vaporware, where games were literally broken (as in, can't boot up, can't create a new character, can't get past level 4, etc.) on release, where patches were rare and frequently had to be paid for, where every successful game spawned an immediate horde of clones six months later and there would be actual, literal plot holes because a whole segment of the game was cut but the devs had forgotten to rewrite the story around that.

well... - baldurs gate, nvwn, kotor, the FO games (all up to NV included were great games - all after were garbage), the GTA games up to San Andreas (which's still the best), the first Dragon Age, Star Wars Galaxies, original WoW, Warcraft RTS series, Star Craft, birth of DOTA & growth of Counter-Strike, Hitman series going full rage, TES with Morrowind and Oblivion (way way better than Skyrim ever was), Jedi Academy, VTM Bloodlines, Battlefield 1&2, original AC, Half-life, diablo 1&2, etc.
Many of the greatest games were released between 98 and 2010. The generic crap games were overlooked and often forgotten, but the most important part's that PC gaming was at it's peak and had the most engaging RPG games... Today we have absolutely zero RPG games based upon good systems like the PnP, stories are becoming less engaging and often very braindead, with very few and rare exceptions (like TW3); Mechanics and total depth of features / gameplay / gamedesign has been steadily decreasing while they invest ever so more in graphics...

You are being intellectually dishonest to say that "it's the same" or that "it's a lie" that games were much better at that period. Than there's the experimental era with the first few 3d attempts like Doom, Redneck Rampage, Duke Nuken... Those were also golden because they brought completely new things and opened the doors for all of the greatest games that came a bit later...

Can't understand where you are coming from, you basically pulled a niche mostly unknown practice out your arse to justify what became the mainstream, yet we have physical proof that your point's basically dishonest... Only fools would buy these games - the only thing that would grab masses by their balls were games carrying blockbuster movie titles - these were pure hype and pure garbage, I have to agree there... Yet any gamer knew that at the time, even the youngsters (I was among the youngsters in the late 90s)

 

[Life_Erikson]

What sort of quality are you referring to? If it appeals to the masses, it appeals to the masses - that's proof of concept right there. The purpose of pop music is precisely to appeal to the masses. Good or bad quality in that regard refers to the ability to do just that. It's not meant to compete with other niches of music. And indeed, most high brow art doesn't appeal to the masses. People who love Britney Spears aren't likely to appreciate Schnittke, but quality is not the reason why. If it were, then you could level accusations of "bad quality" on any genre of music, or the arts besides - using standards they aren't meant to conform to.

Lets keep the exemple of music. I hate rap music. It is just my subjective taste. But even though I don't like to listen to almost any of it I can still appreciate some of it because of its merits. Intelligent or funny lyrics for exemple.

There is a subjective part about enjoying something (taste) and an objective one (quality). People here are refering to the latter.

Pop music may appeal to the masses (as you yourself said it is primarily designed to do so which is also part of the problem why it lacks in quality) but it isn't necessarily produced with quality in mind. I don't mean production (studio) quality of course.

What I mean is that there are measures with which I can evaluate a piece of music without letting my own taste fool me.
Intelligent well-written text is one of them.
Interesting composition another. And the talent that is put in to singing / playing instruments yet another.
All of these are lacking in modern pop music and not without reason. It is designed with the masses in mind. There are no risks being taken in terms of composition because a more complex or unconventional composition may not be grasped and liked by everyone. There is no need to pay musicians a lot of money to play their instruments well since most pop music is generated on a computer. And lastly if your famous singer (which you use because he/she is famous) doesn't perform that day you just slap a ton of autotune on by default as is the fashion of the day anyways.

Do you see what I mean with lack of quality? It is also a lack of ambition and creativity. And I think this is exactly for reducing the risk of NOT reaching the masses with it.

Bannerlord has a bit of the same problem with its "ViSIoN". What TW wants to make out of the game is a battle simulator because that is what sells in the current times forgetting that M&B was never only that but a mix of battle, roleplaying and strategy. However they care more about what they think they can sell to the masses than creating a creative quality product.

Problem is that even in creating a battle game they are failing. With armor, high level troops and cavalry being too weak, archers too strong, ladders not working and ai being dumb as a bag off bricks, BL is failing even at that.

 

[xdj1nn]

Lets keep the exemple of music. I hate rap music. It is just my subjective taste. But even though I don't like to listen to almost any of it I can still appreciate some of it because of its merits. Intelligent or funny lyrics for exemple.

There is a subjective part about enjoying something (taste) and an objective one (quality). People here are refering to the latter.

Pop music may appeal to the masses (as you yourself said it is primarily designed to do so which is also part of the problem why it lacks in quality) but it isn't necessarily produced with quality in mind. I don't mean production (studio) quality of course.

What I mean is that there are measures with which I can evaluate a piece of music without letting my own taste fool me.
Intelligent well-written text is one of them.
Interesting composition another. And the talent that is put in to singing / playing instruments yet another.
All of these are lacking in modern pop music and not without reason. It is designed with the masses in mind. There are no risks being taken in terms of composition because a more complex or unconventional composition may not be grasped and liked by everyone. There is no need to pay musicians a lot of money to play their instruments well since most pop music is generated on a computer. And lastly if your famous singer (which you use because he/she is famous) doesn't perform that day you just slap a ton of autotune on by default as is the fashion of the day anyways.

Do you see what I mean with lack of quality? It is also a lack of ambition and creativity. And I think this is exactly for reducing the risk of NOT reaching the masses with it.

Bannerlord has a bit of the same problem with its "ViSIoN". What TW wants to make out of the game is a battle simulator because that is what sells in the current times forgetting that M&B was never only that but a mix of battle, roleplaying and strategy. However they care more about what they think they can sell to the masses than creating a creative quality product.

Problem is that even in creating a battle game they are failing. With armor, high level troops and cavalry being too weak, archers too strong, ladders not working and ai being dumb as a bag off bricks, BL is failing even at that.

I often use music as an example too - I for one love Sex Pistols and hate Dream Theater, yet Sex Pistols is crap and Dream Theater is state of the art level of quality...
Also, music quality can be measured by the amount of notes, variations and harmony succeeding at inducing certain feelings - one cannot ever say that a 4 note on repeat pop song's better than a classical piece... Same goes for anything art related, I did try to explain this on another thread a while back but was met with furious pitchfork muppets that kept insisting that quality isn't objective
GL, they might come out of their rat-holes to pester you for saying what you said

 

[dannazgu]

Not mad about the $40 at all. Merely explaining to you why customers have a right to vent their frustrations on both the end product and trajectory of "accessibility" -especially when they are built on solid ground not just mindless rants.

the problem is the people who don't see the problem are console players that accept any low bar quality and ppl who never met the work in warband and doesn't see how some system inside bannerlord is for a game for 10-15 years ago

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Not mad about the $40 at all. Merely explaining to you why customers have a right to vent their frustrations on both the end product and trajectory of "accessibility" -especially when they are built on solid ground not just mindless rants.

You don't need to insult people because they aren't a giant fanboy like you are, the devs aren't perfect and neither is anything. I may not agree that the game is a "scam" or "sucks" but I think it's an understandable position for people who paid for a product and were expecting a fully finished game. I've read and have to agree with people on reddit that the game at full release still does not feel like a full game.

You both have an extremely romanticized view of what a consumer is entitled to. There is not a "right" here - there is no legally binding agreement other than that in exchange for your money you are provided a good or service - which has been provided. Even then,

There are plenty of scenarios out there where money was exchanged and nothing was delivered, or a literally unplayable product was delivered, this is not the case.

I just find it intellectually dishonest when folks come on here complaining the devs don't listen to them as if they're entitled to that - no one is - and then they turn around and churn out threads like this as if throwing a tantrum is going to have the devs ensorcelled into bending to everyone's demands. That's childish and pathetic, some posters here must have not been spanked as a kid with the level of pathetic rants like this.

And yes, that's just my opinion, I still think there are far more constructive engagement techniques that can be undertaken but I stand by my original take in that someone getting bent out of shape over a video game is gross.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Pop music may appeal to the masses (as you yourself said it is primarily designed to do so which is also part of the problem why it lacks in quality) but it isn't necessarily produced with quality in mind. I don't mean production (studio) quality of course.

What makes pop music bad isn't necessarily the quality of individual tracks, but the fact that it uses the same elements in every song with no innovation or change for years at a time. Even "elevator music" (officially known as library music due to the vast libraries of it that were produced), a highly complex fusion of jazz and orchestral music, is now seen as low quality trash due to oversaturation and overuse of the same tropes and motifs.

I feel the same way about video games. The pop music of the game industry is stuff like CoD and asscreed, even though if you let someone from 2003 play modern CoD and asscreed odyssey their minds would be blown. As an example, I didnt buy any new AAA games until 2015 when I bought Just Cause 3, a fairly unfleshed empty open world. But at the time it basically made my head explode, having played nothing but old physical copies of games and cheap indies.

Basically individual novelty is part of how the player views the game. Playing warband was a novel experience, but playing it again in 2022 is not.

 

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

You both have an extremely romanticized view of what a consumer is entitled to. There is not a "right" here - there is no legally binding agreement other than that in exchange for your money you are provided a good or service - which has been provided. Even then,

There are plenty of scenarios out there where money was exchanged and nothing was delivered, or a literally unplayable product was delivered, this is not the case.

I just find it intellectually dishonest when folks come on here complaining the devs don't listen to them as if they're entitled to that - no one is - and then they turn around and churn out threads like this as if throwing a tantrum is going to have the devs ensorcelled into bending to everyone's demands. That's childish and pathetic, some posters here must have not been spanked as a kid with the level of pathetic rants like this.

And yes, that's just my opinion, I still think there are far more constructive engagement techniques that can be undertaken but I stand by my original take in that someone getting bent out of shape over a video game is gross.

Player feedback is crucial during the early access period, which Bannerlord was in for two years.

Having angry comments on a message board is a pretty tame consequence for releasing a half-finished $50 product, imo.

 

[TurkishEconomy]

What I find interesting is that based on the recent (negative) steam reviews, the IGN review, the other reviews on Metacritic, the statement "This Game Sucks" is starting to appear more fact than opinion.

 

[Gadheras]

What I find interesting is that based on the recent (negative) steam reviews, the IGN review, the other reviews on Metacritic, the statement "This Game Sucks" is starting to appear more fact than opinion.

Looking at metacritic currently what drags it down is the IGN review, the other registered reviews put them in the 80 and above range.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mount-blade-ii-bannerlord.

Meanwhile 78% of reviews on steam past 30 days is positive. I think you do poorly as a "fact finder"... Might I suggest find another mission in life?

 

[froggyluv]

You both have an extremely romanticized view of what a consumer is entitled to. There is not a "right" here - there is no legally binding agreement other than that in exchange for your money you are provided a good or service - which has been provided

Lmao "romanticized view"....this is a game forum. People dont like the game, they have the right to complain here. Its not a fantasy or some legal arrangement....its a fact. Get over it.

 

[Apocal]

Many of the greatest games were released between 98 and 2010. The generic crap games were overlooked and often forgotten, but the most important part's that PC gaming was at it's peak and had the most engaging RPG games... Today we have absolutely zero RPG games based upon good systems like the PnP, stories are becoming less engaging and often very braindead, with very few and rare exceptions (like TW3); Mechanics and total depth of features / gameplay / gamedesign has been steadily decreasing while they invest ever so more in graphics...

"Today we have absolutely zero RPG games based upon good systems like the PnP"

wtf are you talking about? Both Pathfinder games are amazing RPGs based on a PnP system, released in the last few years.

You are being intellectually dishonest to say that "it's the same" or that "it's a lie" that games were much better at that period.

You're being dishonest to say that I said either of those things, because I didn't.

Can't understand where you are coming from, you basically pulled a niche mostly unknown practice out your arse to justify what became the mainstream, yet we have physical proof that your point's basically dishonest...

...

Digital distribution was exotic and pre-orders were in their infancy, but there were enough sales bound up in hype that game companies courted reviewers, had media pushes and did things to generate (very temporary) consumer goodwill to make sure the release was smooth.

Why yes, game companies courting reviewers and doing media pushes before release was definitely "mostly unknown" and "niche" in the 2000s

Get the **** on.

 

[Gadheras]

"Today we have absolutely zero RPG games based upon good systems like the PnP"

wtf are you talking about? Both Pathfinder games are amazing RPGs based on a PnP system, released in the last few years.

You're being dishonest to say that I said either of those things, because I didn't.

...

Why yes, game companies courting reviewers and doing media pushes before release was definitely "mostly unknown" and "niche" in the 2000s

Get the **** on.

I still remember there was cases of game magazines etc got busted for doing "nice reviews" of crap games after getting "paid off" by the publishers in form of advertisment deals and what not back in the day. Nothing unknown or niche about that. You can compare it with so called influencers today get paid to promote crap people wouldn't normally look twice at.

Steam reviews doesn't really set a standard, but you should at least get a good idea where things are going.

 

[JoeyJoJoJrShabadoo]

On the contrary, I find it quite fun and addictive.

It's also worth mentioning that Taleworlds invented a whole subgenre, as M&B clones are an actual thing.

 

[xdj1nn]

"Today we have absolutely zero RPG games based upon good systems like the PnP"

wtf are you talking about? Both Pathfinder games are amazing RPGs based on a PnP system, released in the last few years.

looks like garbage - their steam trailers with that narrator talking like blippi's the cherry on top...
If you tell me that these games are the same level as NvW or Baldur's Gate I'd snap...

You're being dishonest to say that I said either of those things, because I didn't.

"Anyone who says gaming now is worse than it has ever been is either lying or too young to experienced the era in gaming where like half of all titles announced turned out to be vaporware" - you actually did, it is now objectively worse because even the supposedly trustworthy AAA companies are doing it, it's a market staple now whereas back than it wasn't - there was still concern on pushing some quality product, yet by the latest years in that era there was a increase in gaming popularity and with it monkey-brains started being vocal about their tunnel-vision about graphics, as such the market started to oblige as a top priority and the overall quality behind the games started to decrease steadily.
What makes a good game is something that transcends it's media format and can be reproduced under absolutely any mean, even Table Top board games. Take BL for instance, and you'll be unable to make it even acceptable as a board game - same goes for countless recent titles, whereas a few still retain that ability they are 6/10 in quality, everything else's below five

...

Why yes, game companies courting reviewers and doing media pushes before release was definitely "mostly unknown" and "niche" in the 2000s

Get the **** on.

Media pushes were on spot for AAA, yes, but it wasn't straight bribe / there were much less shills working in those medias, reviewers used to actually play the games and talk about the game itself... Now they barely play the games and are much more inclined into writing "praise", while keeping as much objective info about the game out as they can get away with, this is also valid for films and shows - often they'll also keep any objective approach towards entertainment to simply talk about politics - at times accusing their own fan base of being all-ists if they fail to sell. Sometimes you'll also have the "bribed brides" who give top scores and bash the game in the text - yet this still makes them crap journalists.

 

[TurkishEconomy]

Looking at metacritic currently what drags it down is the IGN review, the other registered reviews put them in the 80 and above range.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/mount-blade-ii-bannerlord.

Meanwhile 78% of reviews on steam past 30 days is positive. I think you do poorly as a "fact finder"... Might I suggest find another mission in life?

I think you're reading too much into clear astroturfing versus the reviews from credible websites/individuals.

The consensus from the community on this forum, and any legitimate reviewer is that this game, does in fact, suck.

It was an obvious bait and switch, total cash grab by TW, and you know that.