Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Video Review by IGN

Users who are viewing this thread

I don't like high fantasy (like LotR vs. GoT) so I never really played PoP.
I like high fantasy and I can't like PoP at all in that department lol. I find its a bit of a derivative mess in that regard, don't understand how anyone could care for it from the 'lore' perspective. It just feels like a mishmash mess.

As far as I recall, you literally can't win the game unless your cool with the f*cking elves, so that was a turn off.
 
It's not high fantasy despite the name, that's what I liked about it. There's very little magic and supernatural stuff, and all of it is just lore.
 
IGN is not a good example about their scores, even though most points they made about Bannerlord are legit. Better to remember just recently they also gave some medieval walking sim, a score of 8 because.. i dont know; side-seeing and pushing boxes are "fun"? Usually they dont go lower than 8 or 9 if it is a popular/known title, so they only lower their score for indie-like, non-corporate titles.

If you want better channel to get kind of decent & fair "scores"; go watch GamesRadar, or even Gamespot.
 
The design behind some of the PoP's main features can be summed up in a very simplified way: take the fun bits of Warband and expand on them. Play to the strengths of the base game (and do a lot of other stuff, but this principle is simple and effective for every game.)
For example: is it fun to meet various bandits, peasants and lords fighting battles that you can join? Yes, then make a whole bunch of varied minor factions, mostly hostile to each other, so you can have an even greater variety and frequency of battles you can join opportunistically.

So why didn't the Taleworlds designers do the same thing? I guess they haven't played their own game enough and didn't play mods to pick up the most fun mod features from all kinds of mods. You really need to play the game to find out what is fun about it and improve on it, you can't just have meetings and pretend you are the best designer ever and decide what you need to do in the next game.
Jesus, this, exactly. I've been saying this whole time Bannerlord should have just expanded upon warbands features, but the ****ers decided to scrap everything. I hate it.
 
It's not high fantasy despite the name, that's what I liked about it. There's very little magic and supernatural stuff, and all of it is just lore.
FYI high fantasy has zero to do with magic, elves, fantastical creatures and monsters or anything like that. The term high fantasy refers to a setting on some other world that is earth like, while low fantasy takes place on earth but in an altered reality or a different time.

Jesus, this, exactly. I've been saying this whole time Bannerlord should have just expanded upon warbands features, but the ****ers decided to scrap everything. I hate it.
They could've scrapped everything except the combat and redone the rest of the game, but still made an excellent product. But Taleworlds couldn't decide what they wanted in this game, so threw a ton of concepts into it without any thought of world building or how to actually flesh out mechanics. That's why the game is lacking depth and why it's taken so long to develop. It's hard to hit a target if you don't have one.

I agreed with a lot of the IGN interview, but not the final score rating. The score should be higher.
.
The score isn't the important part because it's completely subjective. What matters is what was said by the reviewer. One of the biggest issues with reviews is people don't often read the review and just look at scores to see if a game is "good" or "bad".

Steam reviews are even worse because all they use are thumbs up or thumbs down. I've seen where people give a game a thumbs up but then spend 1 paragraph touting the positives and 4-5 paragraphs *****ing about the cons of the game. I usually smh when someone on these forums uses Steam scores as some kind of metric of how good or bad the game is. It's based on rating system that has only like or dislike and takes nothing else into account.
 
FYI high fantasy has zero to do with magic, elves, fantastical creatures and monsters or anything like that. The term high fantasy refers to a setting on some other world that is earth like, while low fantasy takes place on earth but in an altered reality or a different time.
Interesting! Never knew that. I also wouldn't have counted GoT among the High Fantasy genres before.
 
The fact that high fantasy doesn't have to be about magic or other races, is why it's one of my favorite if not my absolute favorite genre. It can be just about anything so long as it's on another world/planet (or rather, very unlike Earth settings). PoP managed that very, very well, at least in my opinion. I also love the soul crushing difficult of it. 😅
 
FYI high fantasy has zero to do with magic, elves, fantastical creatures and monsters or anything like that. The term high fantasy refers to a setting on some other world that is earth like, while low fantasy takes place on earth but in an altered reality or a different time.
I don't buy it. Here's the wiki.
Low fantasy, or intrusion fantasy, is a subgenre of fantasy fiction in which magical events intrude on an otherwise-normal world.[1][2] The term thus contrasts with high fantasy stories, which take place in fictional worlds that have their own sets of rules and physical laws.

Intrusion fantasy places less emphasis on elements typically associated with fantasy and sets a narrative in realistic environments with elements of the fantastical. Sometimes, there are just enough fantastical elements to make ambiguous the boundary between what is real and what is purely psychological or supernatural. The word "low" refers to the prominence of traditional fantasy elements within the work and is not a remark on the work's overall quality.
High fantasy is set in an alternative, fictional ("secondary") world, rather than the "real" or "primary" world.[2] This secondary world is usually internally consistent, but its rules differ from those of the primary world. By contrast, low fantasy is characterized by being set on Earth, the primary or real world, or a rational and familiar fictional world with the inclusion of magical elements.
Both Calradia and Pendor are relatively normal worlds (which doesn't have to be Earth), with Pendor getting some magical events occasionally. Both are definitely not high fantasy. Calradia isn't even low fantasy.
If they had elven princesses prancing around shooting fireballs at dragons, they would have been high fantasy. Or a fellowship of diverse fantasy races and characters embarking on a dangerous mission against a great magical Evil.
Instead, both Calradians and Pendorians are mostly realistic, prosaic people trying to get ahead in a feudal world.
 
I don't buy it. Here's the wiki.


Both Calradia and Pendor are relatively normal worlds (which doesn't have to be Earth), with Pendor getting some magical events occasionally. Both are definitely not high fantasy. Calradia isn't even low fantasy.
If they had elven princesses prancing around shooting fireballs at dragons, they would have been high fantasy. Or a fellowship of diverse fantasy races and characters embarking on a dangerous mission against a great magical Evil.
Instead, both Calradians and Pendorians are mostly realistic, prosaic people trying to get ahead in a feudal world.
Did you read what you actually quoted? I suggest you go back and re-read it especially the last part.
 
This is why so many long term fans are disappointed in BL as opposed to the Steam casual crowds - this being their first exposure to the game.
By the way, that's complete nonsense. I am not sure, but maybe you need to make that up in order to give more meaning to your subjective opinion?
If you only spend your time on this forum it's easy to assume that it's an accurate reflection of the player base, but in truth the vast majority of long term fans never visited the forums. There is absolutely no way you can have any knowledge about the feelings of the wider long term player base. It's entirely possible that you are right, but it's just a possibility. Try to think outside of the echo chamber.
Sincerely, a long term fan.
 
Did you read what you actually quoted? I suggest you go back and re-read it especially the last part.
I did, did you? I think you are confused by insisting that non-Earths imply high fantasy. Whereas in the wiki definitions it's enough for an Earth-like world to be "a rational and familiar fictional world with the inclusion of magical elements" to qualify for a low fantasy setting.
but in truth the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of long term fans never visited the forums.
Fixed to be more Taleworldian. It's immediately more convincing.
 
By the way, that's complete nonsense. I am not sure, but maybe you need to make that up in order to give more meaning to your subjective opinion?
If you only spend your time on this forum it's easy to assume that it's an accurate reflection of the player base, but in truth the vast majority of long term fans never visited the forums. There is absolutely no way you can have any knowledge about the feelings of the wider long term player base. It's entirely possible that you are right, but it's just a possibility. Try to think outside of the echo chamber.
Sincerely, a long term fan.

Your outta da loop Long Termer. You remember that 8 years long thread on these forums with like 100,000 entries with hopeful and wishful suggestions for the sequel to Warband? Yeah Id gather that since zero of those made it into the sequel, that accounts for a pretty large base of disappointment. Of course no ones gonna have absolute numbers on such a thing - but if you follow my reasoning that - THIS is why those 2 critic's reviews matches up with the current complaints here on the forums and not so much with the overall Steams thumbs up.

It aint complicated. people who have fully played out the base games and are aware with both its predecessors and mods capabilities -are going to have a different level of standard than would be a casual fan who's never played this genre -in which there is only ONE franchise. That aint rocket science and its happened to all kinds of niche,fan favorite under the radar type games and even book/movies - in which whose owners have decided to go the more mainstream accessible route to both increase their fanbase and their earnings.

In the end its always gonna be subjective - thats why we place our subjective opinions here -but yours is just as subjective as you based your entire argument off of yourself. Population:You.

So Babylon..babelfisch
 
Babelfisch is correct in a sense, and I feel he has a point that is worth exploring. New players experiencing Bannerlord will have a different experience than those who have been watching the evolution of this effort for a decade or more.

The main difference between these two groups is expectation. Those new to the game will experience it fresh with no preconceptions and likely will have a good time. To a point that is, when they realize the offering has problems and there are no unanswered questions remaining and they see how the game will turn into a grind, then they will put it down, and drift to a new product.

The folks who have been watching the development are looking at this differently. They see what it “could” become. They have experience with mods and other lines of thought and clearly see the “White spaces” during play that could be expanded upon to give players a full and challenging experience lasting for hundreds if not thousands of hours of engagement.

A living breathing game environment with NPC’s that make sense and have unique goals or plots that bring intrigue and life into the experience at the lord and family level not just the kingdom/culture level. Companions that have goals and quests and problems and integrate into the game itself with their unique abilities and perspectives. Lore that gives context to everything and sets up never ending unanswered questions so that every playthrough delivers a unique set of challenges and experiences.

Madvader is absolutely correct when he states that you must play the game to find out what is fun about it, and more importantly, what is not fun or challenging. Somewhere along the development process, as we all know, the vision either was not the same as the player base, or the vision was lost in the complexity of development.

@froggyluv.. don’t let anyone question the value of your contribution to PoP with the voice acting. You were excellent and I still smile when I hear your voice.
 
Your outta da loop Long Termer. You remember that 8 years long thread on these forums with like 100,000 entries with hopeful and wishful suggestions for the sequel to Warband? Yeah Id gather that since zero of those made it into the sequel, that accounts for a pretty large base of disappointment. Of course no ones gonna have absolute numbers on such a thing - but if you follow my reasoning that - THIS is why those 2 critic's reviews matches up with the current complaints here on the forums and not so much with the overall Steams thumbs up.

The thing is: the forum population is just a tiny tiny fraction of the wider player base. How many accounts are there? 20k? 30k? Most of them neither post nor read the forums. I am playing the game since 2006 or 2008 and I never posted on the old forum (I did have an account that I can't find anymore though).

It aint complicated. people who have fully played out the base games and are aware with both its predecessors and mods capabilities -are going to have a different level of standard than would be a casual fan who's never played this genre -in which there is only ONE franchise. That aint rocket science and its happened to all kinds of niche,fan favorite under the radar type games and even book/movies - in which whose owners have decided to go the more mainstream accessible route to both increase their fanbase and their earnings.

Warband was sold more than 6 million times. They are currently at ~3 million sold units as far as I know. So you are telling me that the 3 million Bannerlord players aren't part of the 6 million Warband veterans? They are all new to the genre and almost nobody who played Warband wanted to try Bannerlord?

In the end its always gonna be subjective - thats why we place our subjective opinions here -but yours is just as subjective as you based your entire argument off of yourself. Population:You.


So Babylon..babelfisch

True. I just think that 'people have different opinions' is a much better explanation than 'everyone who likes the game must be a newcomer'.


I get it. You had 10 years time to build up expectations and imagine all kind of things. The thing is, developing games takes more time and effort than imagining things, so that's why the game can't meet your expectations.
I don't blame you for your disappointment alone though. Taleworlds should not have announced the game so early and I guess that part of the long development time was due to bad decisions by the management.
Their blogs showed features that didn't make it into the game. That's nothing special but I understand that it sucks.
They should not have said that Bannerlord would be finished soon when in truth it wasn't.


That doesn't make it a bad game though. It's still the best (or only) Medieval sandbox. I don't think any other developer could have created a better successor to Warband. I do agree with most of the criticism (not the tone though) because coming up with good ideas is pretty easy and lots of gameplay loops could be better and more fleshed out.
It's still better than Warband in almost* every way. And that's what I expected from M&B2.

*I still miss feasts and learning poems, but they  never were the pinnacle of gameplay. And if that's really the biggest issue the game must be almost perfect...
 
That doesn't make it a bad game though. It's still the best (or only) Medieval sandbox. I don't think any other developer could have created a better successor to Warband.
Warband is a mediaeval sandbox which is more fun in many regards (and less fun in others).
It's still better than Warband in almost* every way. And that's what I expected from M&B2.

*I still miss feasts and learning poems, but they  never were the pinnacle of gameplay. And if that's really the biggest issue the game must be almost perfect...
Warband is more balanced, more varied and less frustrating to play (in most regards). There are multiple core mechanics in Bannerlord that don't really do anything relevant where their equivalents in Warband did! One massive example being relation with AI lords, which has such little impact it may as well not even exist.
 
Warband is a mediaeval sandbox which is more fun in many regards (and less fun in others).

Warband is more balanced, more varied and less frustrating to play (in most regards). There are multiple core mechanics in Bannerlord that don't really do anything relevant where their equivalents in Warband did! One massive example being relation with AI lords, which has such little impact it may as well not even exist.
According to Steamcharts there are currently 25,770 concurrent players in Bannerlord and 3,794 concurrent players in Warband. Which doesn't mean you are wrong, just that you are pretty much alone with your opinion.

I don't remember relations being much better with much more impact in Warband but maybe I remember wrong. Anyway, I am not saying that you can't criticise Bannerlord. The (deserved) criticism just doesn't stop it from bein a good game. It's neither crap, nor a slap in the face, nor a 5/10 as some people on this forum are putting it. The truth is that the vast majority of people thinks it's good. Not perfect, not very good, but good. And these people aren't newcomers. This hate for Bannerlord and Taleworlds really only exists in a very small circle on this very forum.

You are in an echo chamber.
 
Back
Top Bottom