Search results for query: *

It's mostly because the way you gain money is completely broken. Defeating a single lord party can net you from 30 to 60k, destroying an army can net you unfathomable not riches. Not only that, but with workshops, caravans and fiefs you can gain several k denars per day. So they rebalanced the weapons as to make them less accessible. Which means that, in fact, that fine sword can be worth more than an army made up of a thousand elite soldiers, or even an entire city.

TheWitchIzalith said:

Edit: Rip. Hit Enter before typing.

Minecraft was basically featureless and had nothing in it in the initial launch. It was a barren land generation basically.
Rimworld had constant crashes and many things didn't work or weren't added in for months.
Terraria like minecraft was also very basic.

While I can't speak from personal experience, I've watched lots of Rust/Subnautica lets plays of the game being completely broken and/or bugged out. So yes, there are plenty of EA titles that have released garbage non-sense at the start, that eventually became gems. Hell go look at Subnauticas new Arctic expansion.

No Man's Sky was a complete joke at launch and was negatively reviewed as such overwhelmingly bad.

In comparison Bannerlord runs fairly well, and my definition of EA is that we are basically the game testers, for companies/people who neither have the time or staff to fully play test. Hence Early Access. We are essentially volunteers for the company.

It's not as though the game is listed as a Pre-V1.0 Beta Release. It's EA with a year of developement expected until launch.

Click to expand...

Wait, I think there's a misunderstanding there, when I said launch, I meant when they launched OUT of Early Access. Version 1.0 of Rimworld was pretty damn stable and feature complete. Version 1.0 of Minecraft was far, FAR more than "barren land generation", Terraria was very complete, Rust might have not been that great at launch but it was pretty good with the new graphics, and Subnautica was pretty well polished at it's launch as well.

TheShadeMan said:

Bull****. Played most of them and it's a complete lie. And you are trying to name a very different games, it's not so difficult to do a Rimworld, that can be easy builded by 1 person and Mount and Blade game.

Subnautica, was same critised on early access, whining kids crying and crying, after few time game got more stability, more content. It's same everywhere, early access means you have to be pationt and wait, help developers and WAIT. Mount and Blade was a good game for it's time and it's literally had the same features Bannerlord right now had, only after time it got upgraded, new features added and etc... Same as will happen with Bannerlord.

Click to expand...

First, yes, I'm naming very different games, because the question was about naming 10 games that were playable when released from early access. And you're telling me that none of them were playable when they released ? I seriously doubt you've ever come close to them at their release then, because I have. It doesn't mean that they were fully feature complete, or that there weren't some seriously questionnable design choices, but they WERE playable. As for Rimworld ? Fine, go ahead and do it. I am in a programming cursus in university, and it isn't magic, it takes time, effort and a LOT of work to attain the level of Rimworld.

And I'm very confused as to why you're lecturing me about early access and people whining, I'm not one of nor am I supporting said people, I've just given a list of games that WERE playable at release to someone who said no one would be capable of naming even 10 of them. I'm in fact in aggreement with you, so I'm not sure why you're venting your frustration on me.

And Mount and Blade the original does not have the same features Bannerlord now has. Why ? Well first, it didn't have multiplayer when it started off. Nor did it ever had clans. It didn't have player created caravans. It didn't have gangs and gang areas. It didn't have sieges with buildable and usable siege machines like trebuchets and balistas. It didn't have bandit lairs that actually interacted with the bandits and truly served as a base of operation. It didn't have the option of having a dynasty, with your character dying and the possibility of having children. It didn't have an actual persuasion system, beside some very wonky and fairly obscure mechanics. It didn't have militias, nor the ability to fine tune how you want your towns/castle to be with the new buildings. It's skill, level and xp system for the player was fundamentally different. Your argument is essentially the same as saying "Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 are the same", just because they have the same core principles. Granted, there is a ton of similarities, but there are also great differences, hence why Bannerlord isn't just an HD version of Warband.

I couldn't aggree more.

TheManedWolf said:

This is too true. Name me a list of games that actually released from early access in a playable state, I bet you can't name me 10. Very few of the games on early access actually leave it and when it's a game that has already been in development for 8 years and comes out in early access with an asking price of about £40 which is the cost of most "finished." Triple A games and then is in a state like this, are you surprised so many people are complaining.

Click to expand...

Alright, let's see how many I can get.

Minecraft
Rimworld
Rust
Mount & Blade
Subnautica
Terraria
Running with Rifles
Starbound


If you'll let me count games that are still in early access but are already pretty damn near to being fully completed, i'd like to add:
From the Depths
Factorio

There, 10 games. It wasn't that hard. Most are in my steam library, and appart from Mount & Blade the original I played all of them. I doesn't mean they were games that necessarily suited me or what I like to play, but they are definitely in a playable state.

Benisfug said:

He said in today's patch. But today's patch was a single thing to fix corrupted saves after 45 saves. Still can't play SP but at least our saves are saved. Until a patch breaks these saves and we have to restart.

Click to expand...

I suspect that he posted this before they decided to focus everything they had on fixing the save problem. To be fair it was the most crippling issue. And fair enough, given the state of flux (and some major issues) there's bound to be several save breaking patches down the line, wether Tales Worlds wants it or not.

Finally ! I can play again without fear of loosing my whole campaign out of the blue.

As for those asking for the faction snowball in SP, here's one of the dev's answer :

The reach of swords on horseback is indeed much less than in warband, I had my strike window so ingrained into my memory that I missed nearly every time at the beginning, swinging too late and from too far. Now I've adapted but it's true that it's quite a pain in the rear to hit anything with a one handed sword from horseback, you litterally have to be stuck to the enemy to do so. So I've simply picked up a bow and gave up using one handed weapons on horseback unless the enemy is retreating or I'm stuck in a close range duel with another cavalry unit.

The list of languages Talesworld intends to translate the game into is in the Early Access info (an article in the news section of the Tales Worlds website).