Bannerlord was a grift

Currently viewing this thread:

Apocal

Master Knight
I have to disagree. Good games keep their numbers, and even increase them pretty soon after launch when the previously suspicious to the series also decide to buy in on the fun. The game you reference to later in your post is one of them (TF2).
Almost no SP-focused title (like BL) keeps its playerbase longer than three months after launch.
Total War Three Kingdoms -- 90% of the average player count gone in three months. Kingdom Come Deliverance -- 90% gone in three months. Some games manage better numbers through DLC releases, which confuses things.
If a title wants to maintain player engagement, it needs to drop regular DLCs, be an MMO or have a strong e-sports aspect.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Almost no SP-focused title (like BL) keeps its playerbase longer than three months after launch.

If a title wants to maintain player engagement, it needs to drop regular DLCs, be an MMO or have a strong e-sports aspect.
Edited the post to specify, but you commented before the change was committed. Mount and Blade is a sandbox game, not just a singleplayer game with a playthroughable story, but rather meant as an infinite world with infinite possibilities, and modders creating overhaul mods and new functions do further add to the infinity and persistence of it all.

The latter point is why Bannerlord surely focused on the e-sports aspect, and I don't think any critic has anything against a more refined and available competitive mode in the game. The complaints are on why the development was focused on that, rather than the previously known likeable aspects of its prequel, and securing the existance of those before developing something new, and somewhat risky to the series. We can all see what the wrong priorities led to now.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Mount and Blade is a sandbox game, not just a singleplayer game with a playthroughable story, but rather meant as an infinite world with infinite possibilities, and modders creating overhaul mods and new functions do further add to the infinity and persistence of it all.
Similar games to M&B suffer the same drop-offs. There is no morality tale here about a declining playerbase due to mistakes. They could've put out an infinitely replayable, full-featured title and still watched their playerbase evaporate over three months. It is just the nature of gaming; most people move on after they've had their 40 or 60 hours of fun.
 

Bjorn The Hound

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
I did some digging a while back with web archive to see Warband and Bannerlord rank among most played games throughout the years
Warband rank is starting from 2015 because there is no data before this date.
Bannerlord
I was planing to get more data on Bannerlord but for some reason steam db charts and its table stopped loading even if I enabled java script in my browser.
I don't think this drop is acceptable.
 
The drop would not be happening if multiplayer mods were able to be made. However, Taleworlds refusal to allow modders to use private servers (and the new flag debacle) has led to more and more dissatisfaction. Taleworlds needs to accommodate the modders rather than screwing them. As was said before, an mmo version of the game would be nice. Too bad the PW (Kingdoms) modders are being blocked from doing so. We would not be seeing a drop, we would be seeing an increase.
 

Phantom425

Regular
I agree it does ...because it didn't live up to peoples' expectations.
Once again, I disagree, this drop off still makes sense because it was hyped up and people played it, had their fun, and didn't want to come back to it. BL and WB are niche games, so it does make sense that there would be a drop off in player counts.
I have to disagree. A lot of games keep a huge percentage of their initial numbers, and even increase them pretty soon after launch when the previously suspicious to the series also decide to buy in on the fun. The game you reference to later in your post is one of them (TF2). Some games like singleplayer games with a playthroughable story naturally decline, unlike sandbox games like Garrys Mod and Mount and Blade.
You cannot compare games such as Garry's Mod and Mount and Blade for one big reason, Garry's Mod has a massive multiplayer aspect with RP servers, and had a lot of attention from massive Content Creators, bigger then those who are associated with BL. Vanoss is just one massive example, with his videos of the game consistently breaking 5 million views. Secondly, GMod and Mount and Blade are not the same type of sandbox game. Garry's Mod is a sandbox, that's what is has been made to be. You can make what you want and do what you want, be it Prop Hunt or some Medieval RPG. Mount and Blade is solely a medieval RPG with sandbox elements. Mount and Blade would always have a larger decline then games such as Garry's Mod or TF2.
Valheim is developed by a studio of 5 people, and started as a side-project from one dude. It's a massive difference to the power of TaleWorlds, which is a studio of at least 200 developers. Valheims' population is yet stable with more concurrent players, per your own rhetorics, than the aforementioned game. Valheim will take about three years to complete per their estimation, meanwhile Bannerlord still has no public roadmap.
Valheim also released this year, as opposed to Bannerlord.Secondly, it is also important to look at the gamemode. Valheim is a survival game, akin to Minecraft. That game would have massive, as it appeals to a large audience. Also, I highly doubt the roadmap would have any effect on the game, as the Valheim devs just stated that the roadmap they published is no longer applicable to the game. They too are having difficulty with development.
1.6.0 may have been a bigger update than the previously patches/hotfixes, but you'd have to be new to the whole spectacle if you're naive enough to mark that as redemption for eight years of mismanagement and ignorance. I think someone a while back stated it perfectly; some players had been hyped for years, and now they cannot fathom having wasted all those years being hyped for an underwhelming experience, thus they force themselves to play or like the game, and remain as vigilant white knights on the forums. That, if anything, hurts the strength of our feedback and power as customers.
Trust me, I am not that naïve. TW is not redeemed is terms of their communication. However, the point that I was making is that there is now a strategy that works, get prominent members of the community to create a letter, or even get some Youtubers to come together and make a video. There is a strategy that works that will get your voice heard. Because, while they should, why would TW listen to an arguably toxic forum that only makes up a small portion of the community? The strength of your feedback, when just making threads and changing your signature on your profile to a list of features that you want isn't as strong as you think. There are better strategies to use in order to get what is done.

And, my second response to this paragraph, is that I have acknowledged that I know it is frustrating, but reacting with anger isn't really going to get anything done. I have gotten burned by other series that are near and dear to my heart, series that are most likely dead now not going to see a modern game.
Oh man, you don't take into account how the release of Football Manager 2021 led to the logical decrease of players in Football Manager 2020, just as Bannerlord led to the decrease of Warband players. The difference is whilst Bannerlord decreased rapidly post-launch, Football Manager 2021 only lost 20% of it's initial concurrent players and will probably keep that stable ratio until Football Manager 2022 is released, all whilst Bannerlord only has 10% remaining of its initial concurrent players, and to add salt to the wound, led to a further decrease in Warband as well.
You're right, I didn't, and that was my fault. However, you're not taking into account another thing that I have spoken about already, genre. Football manager is a game about one of if not the most popular sports in the world, and lets you take charge of a team and manage them. For a lot of people, this is a dream game.

Also, one other thing I would like to touch on is the bringing up of how popular the game is in terms of SteamDB's most played. Firstly, the game consistently gets compared to the top games, such as TF2 and Football manager. These are not your average games, but the most successful games on Steam. The average game would likely be sitting around 3000 or less players. I will quickly respond to another point from another person before returning to your writing.
I did some digging a while back with web archive to see Warband and Bannerlord rank among most played games throughout the years
Warband rank is starting from 2015 because there is no data before this date.

I was planing to get more data on Bannerlord but for some reason steam db charts and its table stopped loading even if I enabled java script in my browser.
I don't think this drop is acceptable.
No, it is acceptable, and it is understandable. The reason for this is the amount of Steam users. Just from 2017 alone, steam has doubled its total amount of users. Secondly, using the place on the Steam rank among played games also hides something else, the actual playercount. Warband had topped BLs playercount three separate times, in 2014, 2015, and 2020. WB had always had a consistent 10k players, which is respectable, I am in no way shaming it. WB was a very successful game, however BL is just more successful then WB currently.

The drop is acceptable.
The logic in this comment. The situation might not be dire for you, if you love playing the game with all it's issues, bugs and lack of the basic things which made the Mount and Blade-series a success. Personally, I loved the full overhaul mods, and the multiplayer. I played the first game as well as Warband between the release and 2013, then got tired of the game, only to somehow happen upon a YouTube video showcasing the Napoleonic Wars DLC, and since then it's prolonged my stay in the series for an additional seven or eight years. The lack of stuff that will prolong players stay is dire, and that's clearly why the numbers dropped like never before ...Well, in the exception of No Man's Sky.
It isn't that I love the game, it isn't that I loathe the game, it is that I have patience with the game. The issues in the game will most likely be fixed at release or at some point shortly following release. TW isn't stupid, they know issues such as the Siege AI are important and things such as that, so they are going to continue to work on them until it is finished. The game is still in EA, and I know how people rightly dislike that argument, but it is looking like a game in EA right now. It isn't finished.

That is also your experience, even though it is a valid one. However, I really think that your experience here hurts you point. DLC support, such as Napoleonic Wars is going to come, just look at the recent leak. However, this support cannot and should not come until the game is released. You are not going to see support for these until the game is out of EA, as I am sure that BL does not want the game to be in EA limbo. So, this lack of stuff that will prolong players hasn't even come up yet in terms of development, as the base game is being worked on. If you would like the devs to drop the base game now, feel free to crusade on that point.

Finally, this game is no No Man's Sky. While there are a lot of features that are missing, it is nowhere near as bad as No Man's Sky. This isn't a defense of BL, this is a critique of the launch status of NMS.
Oh yes, it's great that the sequel has the same numbers after a year as the prequel had after ten years. If anything it means either not a lot of new players to the series came to remain, or old veterans didn't return. Nothing to be proud of. It's not an accomplishment.
It has larger numbers, not the same. It has nearly double the amount of players as the original. That is an accomplishment.
I do not know of these individuals. I last played, and hosted Swedish server in TF2 back in 2014. However, I've never felt the need to be kept up-to-date on the politics of that game. What I can see from Steamdb is that it's a bad comparison. TF2 has had an stable population since it's release, and as previously said, even increased it's population when it got well-received remarks. In reality, the contrast is huge between the two games.
It isn't just that TF2 has a stable population, it is that it is the seventh most played game on Steam. That is never going to be a fair comparison. The games in the multiplayer letter that were compared to BL were not a fair comparison whatsoever.
The drop would not be happening if multiplayer mods were able to be made. However, Taleworlds refusal to allow modders to use private servers (and the new flag debacle) has led to more and more dissatisfaction. Taleworlds needs to accommodate the modders rather than screwing them. As was said before, an mmo version of the game would be nice. Too bad the PW (Kingdoms) modders are being blocked from doing so. We would not be seeing a drop, we would be seeing an increase.
The drop would still be seen, as the drop was within the first month. You cannot expect the game to not have the drop, or retain the 250k players that it originally had.

Also, the point about screwing modders is getting less and less valid. Following the 1.6.0 patch, we can see that TW does want to help modders, not just screw them over. Unlike what has been stated by others on the matter, it is unlikely that TW has an inferiority complex compared to modders.

Finally, to avoid double posting, I am going to briefly go over the original post of this thread.
Part 1. The Financial Breakdown
The financial breakdown has no weight on whether this game is a grift, it only shows that it was a successful game. If you are made that this "garbage product" made so much money, that is your own grievence.
Part 2. Gameplay Features, or lack thereof

Part 3. Bannerlord Online
These two points contradict. Do you either want support for new mods coming along that TW didn't ask for or do you want them to expand on the game as it is still in EA. You cannot logically expect a game dev to drop their game in order to cater to a popular mod, not when the game isn't even out yet.

Secondly, since there is a lack of a roadmap, we do not even know what will be added in the game pre-release and post-release. If they aren't added, they aren't. If they are, they are. Personally, I believe that there is a substantial amount of gameplayer features, enough for someone to easily get their money's worth out of the product, which that alone means that it is not a grift.
Part 4. Time
Making a game takes time. Making an engine takes even more time. Just look at Halo Infinite, that game has taken a long time for development and it even still needed a delay. Speaking of delays, another game is Cyberpunk 2077. Both of these games were AAA companies, and these games have taken a long time to develop. TW is not making a CoD game every year, they are making a game that is meant to last.

So, in conclusion, no, BL is not a grift. You may feel as if you have been scammed, but that is not the intention of TW. Their intention is to make a good game and make money from that.
 

ShakenSpeare

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
So, in conclusion, no, BL is not a grift. You may feel as if you have been scammed, but that is not the intention of TW. Their intention is to make a good game and make money from that.
No. Their intention is to pretend that they can salvage this mess that they've cooked up, while trying to maximize their profit as much as possible, before bailing. Considering the way the game was advertised, this is most definitely a grift.
 

Phantom425

Regular
No. Their intention is to pretend that they can salvage this mess that they've cooked up, while trying to maximize their profit as much as possible, before bailing. Considering the way the game was advertised, this is most definitely a grift.
This is hardly a mess of a game, so I guess we must be working on different standards. They have given no indication that they will bail on the game, and they have no reason to. They stand to make more money continuously supporting the game and releasing more DLC. I was personally not let down by the game, given that it isn’t finished yet and has yet to receive the same amount of polish that WB has had. This game is very clearly not a grift.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
This is hardly a mess of a game, so I guess we must be working on different standards. They have given no indication that they will bail on the game, and they have no reason to. They stand to make more money continuously supporting the game and releasing more DLC. I was personally not let down by the game, given that it isn’t finished yet and has yet to receive the same amount of polish that WB has had. This game is very clearly not a grift.
I don't agree with the conspiracy theories put out by OP myself, especially when that has been debunked by mexxico in more than one of his posts (and he is not one to shy from criticism of TW, I am pretty sure that if there was a grand scheme to scam people out of their money he would not come out to speak against it).

However, I have a hard time understanding how you do not think that Bannerlord is a mess. The basic fundamentals of this game are broken. Mass combat doesn't work, sieges do not work, hitting units from a horse requires some weird camera tilting to be accomplished, unit levels and armor are irrelevant, collision detection does not work as it should and this is just a few of the issues I can write off the top of my head. All of this has been reported over and over and over in this forum, and it was either ignored or we received placeholder answers such as "we are aware of this and we will let you know when we have news to share on this topic".

And to top it all off, what you say about WB having had more polish than Bannerlord is just objectively not true. Bannerlord has had many more man hours put into it than Warband. It had more man hours put into it than the entire previous Mount And Blade franchise before the EA release, and it probably had more man hour than WB put into it afterwards. Do not forget that the team working on Bannerlord is much larger than the team working on Warband (which is the problem really, they are incapable of managing such a large group and that is why we are in this mess).
 

ShakenSpeare

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I don't agree with the conspiracy theories put out by OP myself, especially when that has been debunked by mexxico in more than one of his posts (and he is not one to shy from criticism of TW, I am pretty sure that if there was a grand scheme to scam people out of their money he would not come out to speak against it).
I don't see it as meaning Bannerlord was literally designed as a scam, I see it as TW screwing up big time, and deciding instead to make as good of a buck off the mess as possible. It is quite clear that they do not intend on meaningfully expanding the game very far beyond its day one release state, except for porting the thing to consoles, and maybe some DLC. (Because there's money in it, my good sir!)
 
I do not believe that improving the game and modding contradict each other. I want the game to be good, native is always fun to play as long as it is good, like in warband. However, I also want mods so that the game can be even more finely tuned to my desires. However, with the refusal of Taleworlds to release private servers, mods cannot be developed (multiplayer mods, which are the only reason I play). So, while you may say that Taleworlds is being more mod friendly, but with zero progress on the private server front, it falls on deaf ears (at least my and multiplayer communities deaf ears). The internal flag stuff (which admittedly I don’t even understand) is just icing on the cake to the mod argument.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It isn't that I love the game, it isn't that I loathe the game, it is that I have patience with the game. The issues in the game will most likely be fixed at release or at some point shortly following release. TW isn't stupid, they know issues such as the Siege AI are important and things such as that, so they are going to continue to work on them until it is finished. The game is still in EA, and I know how people rightly dislike that argument, but it is looking like a game in EA right now. It isn't finished.

Also, the point about screwing modders is getting less and less valid. Following the 1.6.0 patch, we can see that TW does want to help modders, not just screw them over. Unlike what has been stated by others on the matter, it is unlikely that TW has an inferiority complex compared to modders.

Secondly, since there is a lack of a roadmap, we do not even know what will be added in the game pre-release and post-release. If they aren't added, they aren't. If they are, they are.

Making a game takes time. Making an engine takes even more time.
I'll let time convince you otherwise. You can easily see I've been here ten years, you've been here a month. I've been attempting to tell you there was an overwhelming majority of optimists here during the Beta, giving constructive criticism, and wonderful, refreshing ideas, but also suggestions to keep what made Warband great. They soon became cynics, just realizing how little difference their collective voices meant, as you said yourself, even having a bunch of ideas in our signatures, make repetitive threads on the same issues or outright yell at them doesn't work. So what do you actually suggest would work? Sitting quiet in the corner, appreciating whatever comes out of their mess? I tell them of my dislike by not playing the game, just like many others, so please don't use the argument that those who're playing the game mean more than those that doesn't. Either way, your blind optimism is cute. Also, did you really just insult the whole modding community or was that just a poorly written sentence on your behalf?
 
Last edited:

Phantom425

Regular
I'll let time convince you otherwise. You can easily see I've been here ten years, you've been here a month. I've been attempting to tell you there was an overwhelming majority of optimists here during the Beta, giving constructive criticism, and wonderful, refreshing ideas, but also suggestions to keep what made Warband great. They soon became cynics, just realizing how little difference their collective voices meant, as you said yourself, even having a bunch of ideas in our signatures, make repetitive threads on the same issues or outright yell at them doesn't work. So what do you actually suggest would work? Sitting quiet in the corner, appreciating whatever comes out of their mess? I tell them of my dislike by not playing the game, just like many others, so please don't use the argument that those who're playing the game mean more than those that doesn't. Either way, your blind optimism is cute. Also, did you really just insult the whole modding community or was that just a poorly written sentence on your behalf?
I joined the forum a month ago, I bought the game on release. Before I bought Bannerlord, I had been playing WB. I have played both games for the same amount of time. I've seen the whole you'll turn around at some point argument to mean that you just have nothing else to say that will convince as your arguments are weak. Also, just throwing around how long you've been here just to make me shut up and make it seem like my voice is meaningless means nothing. I don't care if you created your account a decade ago or a weak ago, my response would have been the same to either of you, have more patience.

I also don't believe that I ever said just sit back and just take it. My entire point here was to disprove your's, and after I did so you simply just insinuate that I want nothing to happen and the status quo to stay. In fact, if you actually read what I said, I clearly laid out what I think would work. I'm not going to insult your intelligence and assume that you're illiterate, but I will assume you cherrypicked what you wanted to respond to.

Also
Either way, your blind optimism is cute.
Don't insult me again when I am trying to remain civil. I didn't call anything that you did cute or foolish

As for the modder thing, I was referring to Bloc. You can look at his statements about the whole situation for context.
I do not believe that improving the game and modding contradict each other. I want the game to be good, native is always fun to play as long as it is good, like in warband. However, I also want mods so that the game can be even more finely tuned to my desires. However, with the refusal of Taleworlds to release private servers, mods cannot be developed (multiplayer mods, which are the only reason I play). So, while you may say that Taleworlds is being more mod friendly, but with zero progress on the private server front, it falls on deaf ears (at least my and multiplayer communities deaf ears). The internal flag stuff (which admittedly I don’t even understand) is just icing on the cake to the mod argument.
They do, in this case. Firstly, you didn't just say "improve modding", you said that TW was not supporting this mod and that was proof of BL being a grift. I said that contradicted each other as you earlier said there was a lack of features. In order to develop further features, they would have to focus on the game.

As for the multiplayer modding part, you are correct. TW is being very lackluster on that front, but they have made good progress on the singleplayer side of things. Hopefully, they will work to better increase the standards for multiplayer modding, but that still does not prove that BL is a grift.
However, I have a hard time understanding how you do not think that Bannerlord is a mess. The basic fundamentals of this game are broken. Mass combat doesn't work, sieges do not work, hitting units from a horse requires some weird camera tilting to be accomplished, unit levels and armor are irrelevant, collision detection does not work as it should and this is just a few of the issues I can write off the top of my head. All of this has been reported over and over and over in this forum, and it was either ignored or we received placeholder answers such as "we are aware of this and we will let you know when we have news to share on this topic".
I think we just have different definitions of mess. While yes, BL is in a somewhat sloppy state currently, personally I would not call that a mess. Mass Combat has issues, as does sieges, and there are many other problems, but I do think that the basic fundamentals of this game work. Following the 1.6.0 patch, performance is greatly increased. Even though there have been a lot of bugs with the patch, it is not impeding gameplay to a massive degree, albeit sieges are still a bit iffy. When I think of messes, I think of games just chugging along while there are rampant glitches to be seen, and that is not what I see BL as being currently.
And to top it all off, what you say about WB having had more polish than Bannerlord is just objectively not true. Bannerlord has had many more man hours put into it than Warband. It had more man hours put into it than the entire previous Mount And Blade franchise before the EA release, and it probably had more man hour than WB put into it afterwards. Do not forget that the team working on Bannerlord is much larger than the team working on Warband (which is the problem really, they are incapable of managing such a large group and that is why we are in this mess).
I think that WB definitely has way more polish then BL, just by it being a finished game. The amount of hours being put into a game does not mean that it has more polish. BL hasn't even really reached the polish part of the development cycle, they are still currently working on building it. If you look at the two games, while BL has had more work put into it, it does not mean that it is more polished then WB.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I think we just have different definitions of mess. While yes, BL is in a somewhat sloppy state currently, personally I would not call that a mess. Mass Combat has issues, as does sieges, and there are many other problems, but I do think that the basic fundamentals of this game work. Following the 1.6.0 patch, performance is greatly increased. Even though there have been a lot of bugs with the patch, it is not impeding gameplay to a massive degree, albeit sieges are still a bit iffy. When I think of messes, I think of games just chugging along while there are rampant glitches to be seen, and that is not what I see BL as being currently.
We probably do. Combat is the basic loop of this game. You seem to agree that the mechanics of combat are still not working as they should, so you will forgive me if I say that I am a bit confused about what working fundamentals you are talking about.
I think that WB definitely has way more polish then BL, just by it being a finished game. The amount of hours being put into a game does not mean that it has more polish. BL hasn't even really reached the polish part of the development cycle, they are still currently working on building it. If you look at the two games, while BL has had more work put into it, it does not mean that it is more polished then WB.
Right, so it seems like we agree that WB is better game than Bannerlord, with a tiny fraction of the work put into it. What they have done so far clearly has not worked, I am not sure why you expect it to get better when they keep repeating past mistakes.

With all that said, you are of course welcome to have your opinion. If you are happy with how things are going with the game, good for you, we shall agree to disagree, and see where things go in the future.
 

Jarungo

Recruit
WBNWVC
It is quite obvious that the majority consensus from warband players is that the game sucks and should be improved. If you aren’t in this group, feel free to opt out. Nobody said you must be included in the “we” (disaffected warband players) I refer to.
I'm a Warband player. I definitely don't include myself in your made up consensus. Nobody is speaking on behalf of the entire Bannerlord playerbase. You are part of a loud vocal minority of dissatisfied players asking for a different game which is perfectly understandable but don't expect the developers to cater to your vision if they don't share it. The reality is some people jump to ludicrous assumptions the moment something doesn't please them in regards to the state of the game instead of being reasonable and waiting for it to be finished.​

These claims are both false. While the multiplayer may be dying, the game has kept a stead number a players following the after launch drop off. Claiming that the game is dying is is just denying the state of the game in terms of player count.
Imagine stating a game is dying when it's topping the top 50 of most played games on steam.
 
Last edited:

Jarungo

Recruit
WBNWVC
I joined the forum a month ago, I bought the game on release. Before I bought Bannerlord, I had been playing WB. I have played both games for the same amount of time. I've seen the whole you'll turn around at some point argument to mean that you just have nothing else to say that will convince as your arguments are weak. Also, just throwing around how long you've been here just to make me shut up and make it seem like my voice is meaningless means nothing. I don't care if you created your account a decade ago or a weak ago, my response would have been the same to either of you, have more patience.

I also don't believe that I ever said just sit back and just take it. My entire point here was to disprove your's, and after I did so you simply just insinuate that I want nothing to happen and the status quo to stay. In fact, if you actually read what I said, I clearly laid out what I think would work. I'm not going to insult your intelligence and assume that you're illiterate, but I will assume you cherrypicked what you wanted to respond to.

Also

Don't insult me again when I am trying to remain civil. I didn't call anything that you did cute or foolish

As for the modder thing, I was referring to Bloc. You can look at his statements about the whole situation for context.

They do, in this case. Firstly, you didn't just say "improve modding", you said that TW was not supporting this mod and that was proof of BL being a grift. I said that contradicted each other as you earlier said there was a lack of features. In order to develop further features, they would have to focus on the game.

As for the multiplayer modding part, you are correct. TW is being very lackluster on that front, but they have made good progress on the singleplayer side of things. Hopefully, they will work to better increase the standards for multiplayer modding, but that still does not prove that BL is a grift.

I think we just have different definitions of mess. While yes, BL is in a somewhat sloppy state currently, personally I would not call that a mess. Mass Combat has issues, as does sieges, and there are many other problems, but I do think that the basic fundamentals of this game work. Following the 1.6.0 patch, performance is greatly increased. Even though there have been a lot of bugs with the patch, it is not impeding gameplay to a massive degree, albeit sieges are still a bit iffy. When I think of messes, I think of games just chugging along while there are rampant glitches to be seen, and that is not what I see BL as being currently.

I think that WB definitely has way more polish then BL, just by it being a finished game. The amount of hours being put into a game does not mean that it has more polish. BL hasn't even really reached the polish part of the development cycle, they are still currently working on building it. If you look at the two games, while BL has had more work put into it, it does not mean that it is more polished then WB.
You're wasting your time with some of these people. They think because they've invested a bazillion posts complaining about a game on the forums their opinion has some sort of authority or more weight to it. It's the good ol' appeal from authority. Players like these think they are the rule of thumb because they've invested years on the forums, the moment developers ignore them they create a loud vocal echo chamber thinking shouting louder is going to get them the attention they crave.​
 
Last edited:

Bjorn The Hound

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
@Jarungo , @Phantom425 , I am honestly curious, did you guys followed development of Bannerlord at least from 2017 to 2020? Did you read weekly devblogs from Callum for 3 years?

If Bannerlord was half of what is hyped to be from TW, the game would be ranking 20 or 30 in steam right now.
 

Phantom425

Regular
@Jarungo , @Phantom425 , I am honestly curious, did you guys followed development of Bannerlord at least from 2017 to 2020? Did you read weekly devblogs from Callum for 3 years?

If Bannerlord was half of what is hyped to be from TW, the game would be ranking 20 or 30 in steam right now.
There is literally no way of knowing this besides what you think it could have been. The game is successful as is.
 

Bjorn The Hound

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
You did not answer the question though. Because I can not imagine a person who followed development of the game and read all devblog prior to the release think that this game is not a mess. If Bannerlord was improved version of Warband(yes there are some areas that improved), I would have expected that at least quarter of all time peak playercount(248,216) would have stayed. Yet, what we got is current version of Bannerlord, there are missing features from WB, there are missing features from devblog diaries. We are told by Armagan in Gamescom 2020 that content will be in the game even if it is EA. Yet, what we got a soulless game, there is no roleplaying, armor/damage formula is laughable so on and so forth.
 
Top Bottom