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.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
This game sucks
- Thread starter bbaydogdu
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
HugoTheFrenchMan
Grandmaster Knight
It's certainly somewhat disappointing but I could not say it sucks after the hours I have put into it, I think the 1000 hours or so justify the price I paid for the game.
Definetly got my money's worth, definetly needs much improvement to be an overall good game but I can't say it sucks.
Definetly got my money's worth, definetly needs much improvement to be an overall good game but I can't say it sucks.
bbaydogdu
Sergeant
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.
Last edited:
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).
Well, the mere existence of this already proves you wrong, so I don't know what else to tell you.
Gadheras
Squire
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...
So why did they charge full price if it was just a broken prerelease version?
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?
This isn't a factor of complaining after the fact the past days, but an ongoing mess since EA ~2.5 years ago (or more for some of us). This 'official' release is just a slap in the face for many - it's basically just another e1.X patch with so, so many bugs and missing QoL (to the point it's not as subjective) still but now they hooked the unaware console players into it.
So yes, they are facing the valid criticism and fairly accurate reviews since release, but honestly, those same reviews would have been exactly the same issues as ~2 years ago - they just benefited from the 'EA' tag which is probably why 'official' reviews weren't posted until the 'official'.
Calabanar
Sergeant at Arms
Did you read the dev blogs? Hunt for any scrub of info since the annoucement? Doubt it. You weren't expecting the game like most of the forumites here because you didn't even know of its existence yet. Warband is by far my favourite game, and with the sneak peaks that we could get throughout the years, there was ample reason to be excited.
TW created the hype, fans carried it on, that's how it's supposed to work: it's called excitement.
You tell me. I can only guess: the graphics, size of the map, etc. You prefer Bannerlord, good on you, noone will blame you.
I've tried to love Bannerlord for a while, yet I can't: it is still extremely dissappointing. Not because it doesn't have feasts, unique companions or whatever: because the game feels empty, rather soulless and unfinished. Warband was very simple, and kinda corny but it worked in its favour: fun lines and voices, relationships with npcs very simple but effective to at least guide imagination...
Bannerlord roleplay? Everything works against me: Characters? Don't care about them, relationships are both useless practically and void of all meaning in terms of roleplay since there are no gameplay repercussions... Most important upgrades pretty much everyone expected like basic Diplomacy? Absent. Actually ruling over the kingdom? Nope. Managing fiefs? Basic and unappealing mechanics. Alright, screw ruling: let's smith, making custom weapons is fun... crazy grind to have fun... great. Well, let's do a merchant run then! Oh, caravans are pointless, most workshops too unless you buy out all other similar workshops on the map... ok...
Worse: there are so many, simple to implement, OBVIOUS opportunities to improve that are never taken into account. Take smithing: you could unock parts by tier depending on your level: Level 0 -> tier 1, 25 -> tier 2, 50 -> tier 3, 75 -> tier 4, etc. Or if they wanted to keep the same system you could simply BUY the blueprints from smiths, ANYTHING to reduce the grind... nope!
That's barely scratching the surface and it's nothing new, it's been discussed here, on reddit and in the steam forums so I won't clutter this thread more.
IN SUMMARY: You are new to the genre, ofc you'll enjoy Bannerlord more than Warband: it's more modern. But although Bannerlord isn't a disaster like a lot of forumites tend to pretend, it is still a dissapointment. A good game, sure. But a good game when talking about Bannelord is underwhelming, it shouldn't have been a good game. It should have, it COULD have been a game that would define a generation. And the fixes for that are so simple it's infuriating!
Anyway.
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.
The console version wants a word with you about your purse and your belongings.
First off, the devs have repeatedly stated they intend to keep patching the game after release. That includes some content to come.
Secondly, James's WB mod was bricked by a patch released in 2014, four years after WB's release.
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.
So not only is TW getting the EA QA testing from us (but ignore most change issues), now they also don't have to do half the work either? Arguably, that is a pretty sauve business model.
Just assuming overhaul mods are going to materialise is frankly disrespectful to the small handful of people who dedicate so much effort to make overhaul mods. They are monumentous amounts of work, especially nowadays with games being orders of magnitude more complex than in the past, and they are risky endeavours at best, and futile at worst. It's absolutely not guaranteed that these mods will release.
Back in the warband days, dozens and dozens of overhauls were planned, teams consolidated, models made and code written, but the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of them failed to release, or were cancelled. People have real lives to attend to, and one modder having to take on a new job could kill a project instantly.
TurkishEconomy
Regular
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.
Feedback is contradicting each other too.
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.
That's why I'm don't like outrage. You guys are bringing valid points, but you exaggerate and end up making false claims. You act like Taleworlds ignored feedback completely, but that's not true. The reality is that they ignored or failed to implement many important suggestions, but they still listened and implemented some requests.
