Search results for query: *

elysebluemoon said:

Hi, can you disable all of your mods, verify your game files and try to recreate this again?

Click to expand...

elysebluemoon said:

Hi, can you try deleting the "C:\ProgramData\Mount and Blade II Bannerlord\Shaders" folder?

Click to expand...

Apocal said:

No, it won't make me any more immersed. This would just become a very annoying fetch quest for information in order to do things I need to do to get back to the actual gameplay. I'm not looking in the encyclopedia or on the notables tab in search of T H E F O R B I D D E N K N O W L E D G E. I'm looking to interact with them for a fairly limited set of reasons.

And how would the game know someone is important to me? Personally, I care much more about the pair of 350+ power landowners in Karakalat than I do about the Empress of the Southern Empire. The latter has about 21,000 men at her disposal, the latter perhaps 10. But does the game realize that my interest is due to being able to recruit those 10? And my non-concern with Rhagaea is because we aren't currently at war?

Click to expand...

Kentucky James VII said:

Interestingly enough, this was a trend in filmmaking around the same time as the video games @Zyffyr mentioned. The problem is that it just confuses people. "Realist" cinema sounds like a good idea but in practice it's just in contradiction with the entire purpose and strength of storytelling, i.e. to focus in on a small piece of human existence. Most realist / maximalist cinema is either boring or pretentious, or both. It's the same with video games, even something as broad as an RPG has to eliminate most of the tedium and redundancy in human life otherwise it just becomes bloated and disorganised.

If you wanted to make a game about note-taking or memory you would have to focus all the mechanics on that to justify it. I think this is part of what people mean when they react negatively to realism in games. Gameplay works best when it's focussed on one thing, and the more little details and dead-end, detached mechanics you add the less focus there is.

Click to expand...

Kentucky James VII said:

That doesn't matter, most players cheese the mongols by putting forts in their spawn point (which is announced about 10 turns before they show up). And simply knowing that the Americas exist in 1080 AD when the game starts will impact anyone's campaign unless they consciously act as if it isn't there. But I don't see why these are "problems" that have to be resolved. Players will suspend disbelief to such a degree that none of this is necessary for immersion. It's the equivalent of wanting a film to have plot threads that go nowhere, just like in real life.

Click to expand...

Kentucky James VII said:

That can only work to an extent, but you can't force a player to "un-know" stuff in a game. An example of this is Medieval 2 Total war where after your first playthrough you know that the Americas exist and that the Mongols are coming. There's nothing the developers can do to prevent the player from preparing for things they know are coming, so most developers just accept this, and leave it up to individual roleplayers to make the decision of whether to metagame or not.

Player / Character knowledge dissonance exists in all games with any sort of progression whatsoever, but as long as the game mechanics are good and allow for multiple playstyles most people will ignore it. The believability you gain from doing this isn't worth the level of annoyance you will cause players by deleting information from under their noses and forcing them to write stuff down.

Click to expand...

Zyffyr said:

The assumption is that the person making the notes has the intelligence to organize things.... like one section has everything about a single subject.

My position, by the way, isn't a personal bias - it is standard industry knowledge. Long ago game developers thought it was a great mechanic to force you to remember everything on your own. RPGs didn't have minimaps or quest logs. Eventually they realized that everyone just wrote everything down anyway and there was absolutely no value to making people remember everything. It creates frustration without adding difficulty.

Click to expand...

Zyffyr said:

While I can get behind limited release of information, the "forgetting" mechanic is an objectively bad suggestion. If I can bypass a mechanic by the simple expedient of having a piece of paper and a writing implement next to my computer then the mechanic has no value and is a complete waste of development time.

Click to expand...

Kentucky James VII said:

It's not just about squeamishness, or how graphic it is. I think you make a good point that it needs to be narratively justified in some way otherwise it just comes across as fetish fuel. Playing as a character who tortures people can sometimes be justified if there a solid some in-game and roleplay reason to justify its existence as a mechanic. But especially in a game like Bannerlord which has laughably barebones interpersonal interactions and consequences, it's far too easy for it to just come across as gratuitous.

Click to expand...

Ikea Knight said:

The capitvity system has two aspect:
One when capturing a NPC and one, when affecting the player.
1. Capturing a NPC can either increase your relation with a NPC, increase your income, be a strategic decision or can be part of a quest.

When the player is captured, he loses bis army, valuables and playtime is waisted/ can lead to the loss of castles and towns or quest.

So capturing in itself is a quite influncial mechanic.

What's the point of the dialogue?
Mostly flavor I guess.

The thing why torture works in other media is because it drives the plot.

When Theon is tortured it makes the viewer feel sorry for that guy. On the other hand people antagonize Bolton. When he is finally killed that is a catharic moment for the audience. I guess that's similiar to classic drama where you are supposed to identify yourself with the protagonist.

There is a torture scene in Witcher 3. But that is also story driven as it helps to charaterize Geralt.

The torture scene in Viking Conquest is if remember correctly quite early in the game and again story driven.

Bannerlord on the other hand is not story driven and torturing wouldn't help the plot. Torturing between NPC won't affect the player in a major way and the player torturing NPC won't affect the plot or gameplay in such a major way that such an imoral mechanic would be okay to be implemented.
In the end it will only enable the player to be the only torturer with any impact at all.
And this, to me, makes torture a one sided and redundant mechanic.
If only the player is torturing, while it is at the same time a meaningless mechanic to the Rest of the world, I don't think it is justified to let a player chose to be a torturer.

Click to expand...

IceNoVa said:

I'm all in favour of a sandbox title that gives players freedom to do what they want to do. However, most people arguably would want that sandbox to be full of tools to create awesome sandcastles rather than having the option to use shovels and buckets to torture everyone else in said sandbox, because they really want that awesome red castle and need the blood of their enemies to dye the sand.
The franchise is called Mount&Blade, not oubliette&thumbscrew, in that spirit a sophisticated captivity system would be a great addition, minus the torture&associated bits.

Click to expand...