nox 说:
F&S had a specific purpose, which was to present a historically replayable perspective of a period in history. For that, it does what it intended to do.
As a global release product, I think this was one of the issues: the period selected is very much an unknown to most of the world. So, the sense of historical reenactment just really isn't there for an audience that doesn't have a high degree of familiarity.
I'm going to project from my own experience and say that the major draw for most players (at least those who come from M&B or Warband) was the new features, especially the firearms. Having the firearms turn out to be merely re-skinned crossbows (from a coding/mechanics perspective) really disappointed.
As to the other new features (e.g., caravans, mercenaries), they are all currently still suffering from a number of bugs. The lack of any rudimentary QC process is pretty evident.
Beyond the bugs, the biggest thing lacking in F&S is polish. By that, I mean non-bugged code that are failures of game design. Almost all of the new features have not been balanced in terms of gameplay (e.g., the economy is incredibly broken) and the overall experience does not capitalize on the new features effectively.
Basically, F&S could have been a very good product, but as a paid one, rather than a mod, it should have focused on things that no modder could bring- more fundamental, engine-based changes in the game's mechanics and a focus on polish and iterative game design, which are the usual hallmarks of a good, professional product.
So- F&S could have used a solid beta period, whether internal or external, where some experienced Warband players put in some time and provided some useful criticism. For example, it would not have taken long to realize that economy is busted and that the recruiting mechanisms are out of wack.
Hopefully, Taleworlds/Sich will treat the initial months of the release as the overdue beta and dedicate the time needed to fix the game up based on the feedback.