now listen fellas, I've played all 3 M&B titles and I can honestly say that there is about ZERO corelation between the original M&B and the new WFaS. when they went from M&B to warband, they drastically changed the engine/graphics. and from warband to fire&sword, they changed everything except the engine. SO: how can part 3 be a mod of 2 and 2 a mod of 1 of 3 is not a mod of 1? that's some higher logic right there for ya.
besides, what else should they have changed to make this more of a 'new' game? improve the engine/graphics so much that everyone needs to buy a new computer to run it? it doesn't look like crysis or oblivion but at least I can fight with 150 men on the map without lag. I think for this game, that's is more important right?
this game is a typical example of the saying 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'.
and so, in my opinion, fire&sword is no more a mod of warband than medieval II-total war is a mod for Rome-total war, or call of duty 2 a mod for cod1. you find a formula that works for you, and you try to keep it fresh without wasting effort on things that didn't need refreshing in the first place! and I would define 'new' as 'fresh' rather than as 'completely overhauled with not a single similarity to the prequel'. so it's new
