This game sucks

Users who are viewing this thread

The steam reviews aren't going to show that the game is perfect, but what it is going to show that most people don't think the game sucks. The entire idea that people hate the game which has been thrown around a lot. And there is a pretty big difference between average and sucks. Obviously, never settle for average when you can be great, but this constant argument that the game sucks and people actually hate it does fall apart when the majority of reviews for the game tends to be positive.

And? They like the game, so what? What makes them any lesser beyond the fact that they use a console?
My claim is "stop saying Steam reviews are good" and I backed it up with stats. If it sucks, it doesn't suck by a lot.
The console comment wasn't serious but we all know what those people are like in their peasant garbs and low standards.
It's almost harvesting season.
Ok pruner.
 
Last edited:
Everyone has their own standards for the games they play. Most games that are on PC are on console and vice versa. I think everyone expects a high standard from the things they care about. Some people just have supremacy issues and think they matter more than other people. Same people you put in that Stanford prison experiment and it's obvious they just want to feel better than others so desperately.
 
My claim is "stop saying Steam reviews are good" and I backed it up with stats. If it sucks, it doesn't suck by a lot.
The Steam reviews aren't also bad. I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment. Bannerlord right now is currently at 87% overall, in the above average category from the study that I found. Recent reviews are 91%, placing them in very safely in above average territory, just on the verge of being in the top percent of games.

The console comment wasn't serious but we all know what those people are like in their peasant garbs and low standards.
The dung covered peasant convention is that way.

Jokes aside, the only reason I pointed it out is because a lot of people on the forum have an elitist attitude towards Console users which is a bit silly.
 
People want it to succeed, so they will try to do that by the only means available to them.
Get real. There was never any means available. Posters can only build hype or drama. Building a game is a ton of work. We’re just shooting the breeze.
These players are not indicative of the average consumer,
Higher investment also leads to higher expectations/standards. Those coming fresh don’t have our baggage and can enjoy large parts of the game without feeling cheated by what’s missing or what could have been. New players aren’t looking for a 1,000 hour experience.
 
Last edited:
Know your audience. The majority of people who discuss Bannerlord on this forum have been here at least two years now, since the launch of EA. Of those, a considerable proportion played Warband and other licensed titles like Napoleonic Wars years before Bannerlord's EA launch. The people who spend all this time complaining on this forum are doing so because they have enough of a personal stake in the game that they can't just make a clean break, drop it, and go play other games. You only get that kind of emotional investment through long-term loyalty. These players are not indicative of the average consumer, so from a purely profit-motivated perspective they're not the most important people to pay attention to in the short term (they're also way more likely to purchase the game anyway because of past loyalty). However, these are the players that will play the game for months after the date of their purchase, are the most valuable group when marketing DLCs for this title, and they contain the subgroup of community content creators.
I would agree if their criticism was constructive, but all this topic is far from being constructive.

btw "However, these are the players that will play the game for months after the date of their purchase, are the most valuable group when marketing DLCs for this title, and they contain the subgroup of community content creators." - does your words mean that Taleworlds is planning to release DLCs for this title for a separate fee?
 
I would agree if their criticism was constructive, but all this topic is far from being constructive.
This thread may not by nature of the title, but if you were here since EA started (and maybe mods can attest), it was certainly a lot more optimistic with constructive criticism/feedback and hopeful threads on suggestions and things then. Many were met with silence or 'we'll discuss internally' or 'too complicated'; and that was only after much urging for that even iota of a sentence. Patches came to a near halt after first few months, news became more vague, some out of touch comments, and many times just copy/pasted 'read this general update from 6 months ago for our plans'.
btw "However, these are the players that will play the game for months after the date of their purchase, are the most valuable group when marketing DLCs for this title, and they contain the subgroup of community content creators." - does your words mean that Taleworlds is planning to release DLCs for this title for a separate fee?
You won't fish any affirmative answer from a mod or from TW on this; all they provide, as before are vague 'we are open to it' non-committals.
 
This thread may not by nature of the title, but if you were here since EA started (and maybe mods can attest), it was certainly a lot more optimistic with constructive criticism/feedback and hopeful threads on suggestions and things then. Many were met with silence or 'we'll discuss internally' or 'too complicated'; and that was only after much urging for that even iota of a sentence. Patches came to a near halt after first few months, news became more vague, some out of touch comments, and many times just copy/pasted 'read this general update from 6 months ago for our plans'.

You won't fish any affirmative answer from a mod or from TW on this; all they provide, as before are vague 'we are open to it' non-committals.
I've been here since 1.4.6 and all I saw since that is few ppl (literally 2-3) doing really good job and contributing the community with their constructive critics and all others are just whining indistinctly about how everything bad is.
Anyway, developing a game you can't satisfy 100% of players but trying to please a bunch of toxic trolls is a waste of time and resources.
Steam reviews are good, most of reddit topics in r/bannerlord are positive, I personally like this game too playing it 2k+ hours, any aspect you don't like can be fixed with mods - that means that the game is good and those sore trolls can go back to their caves to please themselves.
 
The sole fact that this company cannot manage to have stable game experience after X years of developing is indicative of their incompetence. This game is already past official release date and yet here we are with regular server crashes and game crashes. I don't know where the problem is at this point, but the TW dudes were never taught what communication is so I doubt we'll ever know tbf..
 
I've been here since 1.4.6 and all I saw since that is few ppl (literally 2-3) doing really good job and contributing the community with their constructive critics and all others are just whining indistinctly about how everything bad is.
Anyway, developing a game you can't satisfy 100% of players but trying to please a bunch of toxic trolls is a waste of time and resources.
So about when their 'refactoring' phase is, and pretty much where it goes downhill in terms of communications/changes/patches/delays.
No one is claiming they are able to satisfy 100% players, that would be naive, but don't say the criticisms (many and constructive alike) are only to the satisfaction of 'toxic trolls'. A lot of the suggestions are valid to some degree and fairly good.
Steam reviews are good, most of reddit topics in r/bannerlord are positive, I personally like this game too playing it 2k+ hours, any aspect you don't like can be fixed with mods - that means that the game is good and those sore trolls can go back to their caves to please themselves.
Stop using only steam review numbers only, take the context of the reviews; it's such a basic analysis, considering how basic the premise of the review functions steam has to offer works.
 
The steam reviews are good because the game has serious flaws that aren't easily seen unless you play the game long enough. Once you see the flaws it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore them and tell yourself everything is fine and dandy.

The game was created to keep the interest of new players but it has nothing to offer to keep veteran players coming back for more. You can only cut off so limbs to make this game challenging and fun.
 
So about when their 'refactoring' phase is, and pretty much where it goes downhill in terms of communications/changes/patches/delays.
No one is claiming they are able to satisfy 100% players, that would be naive, but don't say the criticisms (many and constructive alike) are only to the satisfaction of 'toxic trolls'. A lot of the suggestions are valid to some degree and fairly good.

Stop using only steam review numbers only, take the context of the reviews; it's such a basic analysis, considering how basic the premise of the review functions steam has to offer works.

And again - toxic indistinct whining that everything is bad is not a constructive criticism. I separate those two and as I already told here and will repeat again if you don't get: there are few people who is contributing to the community with their consisted and justified critics (like Ananda, for example) and all others who is just whining. What's more funny is when those toxic unconstructive whiners are complaining that the devs don't want to talk to them and implement all whistles and bells they demand.

Ok, if you don't like steam reviews - name any objective source of information which can show that a game is good or bad, in your opinion.
 
It's one of the biggest frustrations that a community has ever experienced. This game had a potential, but it sucks. Devs are incompetent, the job is unfinished, the boss doesn't give a damn, and seems like no one knows what to do. <snip>
It really kinda stings that people don't appreciate what we DO have with this game.

They were a team of horse-crazed Turks who delivered something that I think can safely be called ***ART***, and now you're complaining you don't like the art. Who cares.

Some people should slow down and contextualize the granularity we are provided in M&B, the openness to modding of the platform, and a hundred other things.

I have fundamental disagreements with some of the combat changes that are central to the engine, but I've played enough Warband. Bannerlord is better, now, and mods are MUCH better.

TLDR, go play Roblox
 
It really kinda stings that people don't appreciate what we DO have with this game.

At least for me, the frustration isn't with the game in isolation. It's a fun timewaster if you don't care about roleplay. But what makes it such an annoying experience is all the easily avoidable, really poor design decisions that I know even I could have done a better job with. There are literally hundreds of them, and I can't play the game without thinking "why the hell did they do that?" a thousand times. What makes it so annoying is that there is potential for a much less schizophrenic and grindy game than this, but with the current direction of development that is almost certainly never going to happen. 10+ years of development and some truly ingenious technical artists who managed to get 1000 vs 1000 battles at 60fps, all ruined by a campaign so poorly designed, sloppily tested and thoroughly unenjoyable that it boggles my mind.

A lot of people defending this game have internalised the Early Access mindset, judging the game by what they think it will be eventually with all the overhaul mods they dream of. But nothing has fundamentally changed about the game since release and it's a pipe dream to think they'll pull out a secret gigapatch that removes all the bad design.
 
Last edited:
There is no objectivity in reviews. You can't quantify how good a game is.
Agreed, your excellent comment is 5/7.

Edit: public opinion about something is usually a good measure of its worth and can be quantified. This includes politicians, quality of products and services, including computer games. So mass surveys about games are a very good indicator of a game's quality. The problem with Steam reviews is the binary grading that heavily distorts the results towards 100%. More usual 5-stage grading like the 5 star system are much more accurate, but would produce lower ratings and Steam isn't interested in precise ratings, it wants to sell you games.
If you think the public is wrong about a game's quality, you'll need to back that up with serious arguments that border on scientific objectivity, or you'll just have another contrarian or elitist opinion that can't be taken seriously by gentlemen and scholars of the forums.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom