This game is pretty good. It certainly doesn't suck, like the OP suggests. Otherwise it wouldn't have such good reviews on steam and such.
This game is pretty good. It certainly doesn't suck, like the OP suggests. Otherwise it wouldn't have such good reviews on steam and such.
It's a personel opinion Lucius. You don't have to agree but I see lots of people misunderstood the point of this thread. The game might be better in the future but right now every god damn thing that needs to be FIXED is getting fixed by community. Even when the devs try to fix something they breake more other stuff. That's why I call them incompetent. Right now, simplest things has to be fixed by modders. It feels like they made this game just to be done with it as quickly as possible. I'm not even gonna start complaining about missing features, politics etc. If you gonna do something, do it right. Not like this half a** garbage.This game is pretty good. It certainly doesn't suck, like the OP suggests. Otherwise it wouldn't have such good reviews on steam and such.
Look, if the EA was free (or limited/demo access only, closed beta only, etc...), no issues at all - they can do whatever they want with the development/quality/features of the game up until release where we decide if we want to buy it or not based on the 'final' product. But asking for money (full game amount) ~2.5 years ahead of release - and all the 'nonsense' of the development as shown in the forums with their content cutbacks ('too complicated')/half-assed features/questionable decisions/non-responses/over-hyped but undersold elements/'genre' change/etc..., all they did was 'release' their game 2.5 years ago, but wanting the excuse that it fell under EA so any review/criticism is not 'valid' until official release.End of the day though. Players doesn't dictate how a game get developed or the content of the game. They do however decide if they want to buy it and play it. A old video I saw from gamescom basically said they had majority of features and mecancis already set back then. If people expected more, or assumed there would be things in the game TW already said wouldn't be in the game. That would be on them though. The hype some people set for this game is by own doing. I didn't have the feeling of the creators blow smoke up my bum to be the deciding factor buying the game.
Well, the mere existence of this already proves you wrong, so I don't know what else to tell you.I would disagree entirely. TW doesn't listen to feedback
Look, if the EA was free (or limited/demo access only, closed beta only, etc...), no issues at all - they can do whatever they want with the development/quality/features of the game up until release where we decide if we want to buy it or not based on the 'final' product. But asking for money (full game amount) ~2.5 years ahead of release - and all the 'nonsense' of the development as shown in the forums with their content cutbacks ('too complicated')/half-assed features/questionable decisions/non-responses/over-hyped but undersold elements/'genre' change/etc..., all they did was 'release' their game 2.5 years ago, but wanting the excuse that it fell under EA so any review/criticism is not 'valid' until official release.
At this point, this feels more like a GoFundMe bs scam than as a Kickstarter (for a company that arguable doesn't need it, on the premise of Warband and it not being a new IP or anything).
Yes, I pressed the 'red button', but this does not and should not absolve them of all/any responsibilities. All games can (and they are nowadays) just add the 'EA' caveat and wipe their hands of any responsibility and just churn out whatever they deem is a finished product; despite the valid criticisms from the same people that participated in their paid EA?On steam you get warned about what Early access might entail and if you don't want to accept the risk of end up not get what you want. You should wait until final release. So buy into early access and then complain afterwards fell short when you already been warned. It's like "don't press the red button", and you still do. Who to blame then? Yourself...
End of the day though. Players doesn't dictate how a game get developed or the content of the game. They do however decide if they want to buy it and play it. A old video I saw from gamescom basically said they had majority of features and mecancis already set back then. If people expected more, or assumed there would be things in the game TW already said wouldn't be in the game. That would be on them though. The hype some people set for this game is by own doing. I didn't have the feeling of the creators blow smoke up my bum to be the deciding factor buying the game.
I got Bannerlord before I got the other games in the series.. With Bannerlord I spent over 1000+ hours. The other games less than 10. Why is that you think? Shouldn't the other games in the seires be the "magic kool-aid" that set the standard?
I have a lot of fond memories of games I used to play back in the day. Revist them these days doesn't bring back the magic. But it doesn't keep me from use them as a standard I judge other games on. Back in the day playing original Xcom /UFO Enemy unknow) on my Amiga at hours end. Then later got a pc and got X-com apocalypse, and I was like.. what kind of **** is this? Or playing the original civilization game and all excited about get my hands on Alpha Centauri and it just didn't click...the magic wasn't there.
But this game goes hand in hand with mods. Separating the two is a big mistake.This is a thread about bannerlord, not mods. If someone makes an amazing mod in the future then, genuinely, good for them. But none of us can say one way or another if that's going to happen, so bringing it up is irrelevant. Having actually made an overhaul mod, you're always at the whim of the developers, and a bad patch can ruin all your hard work and make you quit for good.
The console version wants a word with you about your purse and your belongings.But this game goes hand in hand with mods. Separating the two is a big mistake.
First off, the devs have repeatedly stated they intend to keep patching the game after release. That includes some content to come.You were at the whim of the developers particularly in EA, now the game has released.
Just because a game had the design intentions to be very compatible with mods (I don't even think they were as 'open' to this early on originally) shouldn't excuse a lazy base game.But this game goes hand in hand with mods. Separating the two is a big mistake.
Plus, you are of bad faith because you deeply know that "good mods" is something that is going to happen, so was it the case with warband.
You were at the whim of the developers particularly in EA, now the game has released.
Plus, you are of bad faith because you deeply know that "good mods" is something that is going to happen, so was it the case with warband.
Well, the mere existence of this already proves you wrong, so I don't know what else to tell you.
Feedback is contradicting each other too.To be fair he's not wrong. TW does listen to feedback. They just don't listen to every single one. True, part of it is because of Le Vision, but part of it is simply because they lack the ability. I don't think they deserve this level of hatred.
Nope. People also post suggestions there. There was also the ones with modding and multiplayer hosting. They listened. If you nitpick with words like "meaningful" feedback and ignore everything that proves you wrong, that's called being deluded.This is only bug fixes, and you know that. Stop deluding yourself into thinking this is listening to meaningful community feedback on how to improve the game, versus us acting like unpaid QA labor.