Vonpritz
Recruit
No clue on actual time but it was barely any, of Warband, probably about 600-700 hours of PW, which is irrelevant to my opinion of whether I’m enjoying Bannerlord.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord was a grift
- Thread starter Roy1012
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
Recruit
What are yours? We know literally nothing. TW has been working on the game for the past year through Covid and it is still in EA, with a delay to Q2 2022. We don't know what they will do, however, it is safe to say that they probably aren't going to be listening to community suggestions on features until the game is out of EA.
And they're working on it still, evidenced by a recent patch that covered it. Progress was made. I really don't get how this shows that they're just gonna drop the game after it releases.
Yeah, the MP front is bad, I can't deny that. However, suggesting that a company completely uproot its entire MP system in favor for another when there are countless other issues as well as features that need to be added is asking for a lot, not matter if the community is right.
So I was "right", like that you only have like 1-10 hours played the SINGLEPLAYER, as you´ve said yourself a few days ago.
I´m not interested in MP, that´s why you won´t find A SINGLE POST from me related to MP. Because I can´t judge the MP.
Warband doesn´t matter, Warband is my 2rd or 3rd most played game overall. But Warband is some years old....we are talking about Bannerlord. Nobody here is saying that Warband is a bad game. It´s the opposite.
Vonpritz
Recruit
For ****s sake, I said one hour of warband.
I just stated my current time in bannerlord.
Not really, but ok.
Maybe it´s time for a new account again?
Maybe it´s time for a new account again?
Vonpritz
Recruit
dude….
“I think my first statement was I only bought bannerlord hoping for a new PW mod. I was bored and gave the single player a try, and in the past week have put in about -15-20 hours and I’m enjoying it.”
So you didn´t delete any "old" posts?
Callum is that your accont?
Callum is that your accont?
Vonpritz
Recruit
lol no, and a moderator is welcome to take a look at and share my post history.
No need for this, even if the mods are huge fan of me.
I value your opinion as a new player.
Blunted, why do you need to hound him like that? You can get your point across without doing that, you know, and get a better discussion out of him without acting like that. lol
I'm aware that other games have drop offs, but we're not talking about other games. This doesn't reflect on Bannerlord. What works or doesn't work for other games doesn't automatically file Bannerlord under it.
There you are with yet another assumption. If they had initial positive things to say about the game and haven't come back to play it, why would they rewrite an old review? Do you know how many people actually do that? Very little people do this, because they don't care do to do much more than that, which can been seen in numerous other games. That's why you can look through games and see thousands of reviews talking about an issue that is no longer even in the game, because an overwhelming amount of people write one and they are done. That's what's great about the new Steam features, too. We can see when they edit reviews, or if they have at all.
Oh yes, I'm well aware of where the reviews site right now in terms of positivity. There's no need to repeat it, when I'm arguing it doesn't mean absolutes like you seem to think that it does. As if people can't change their mind and are all caring enough to come back and update their 1yr/6+ reviews for a game they don't even play anymore.
That was more toward the commentary earlier, about forum goers hating the game and whatnot, and how people who "hate" something won't play it. Which is undoubtedly incorrect.
Reviews are a great way to help determine these things, but you shouldn't use them as if they mean the world. You can see people on this forum alone talking about how they liked the game, or made good reviews and haven't touched it in months etc. All this means is that people who jump in for a few hours like what they are seeing, it doesn't mean the majority of them are "fine" with the current state of the game. It's early access. They're going to praise what it's doing right and continue to play until it reaches the stage the game promised. It's the whole point of EA progress. That's why you see people with 2k hours talking about how bad it is. Just load up the reviews for the game now. You'll see quite a few new ones talking about how they like the game but still give it a thumbs down, people that range across 50 to 400 hours. You can't use reviews and player count as some absolute sign that they all are fine with the game just because they left these reviews months ago or put in 50 and left it alone.
I don't recall saying that all of them felt that way. I only ever pointed out that 50k+ people leaving a game within just 2 months of release should say something about the game. Whether they hate it, found it boring or whatever. These things matter more than you care to admit it.
Really? There's "literally" reviews stating why they (all players who no longer play it) left the game, when they haven't touched them in months? Go on and show me then. I'd love to see these reviews explaining why they left the game. As far as I can see, I don't see anything like that. Not a single review, positive or negative, in which a reviewer said "Well, I've enjoyed it and now I won't play it anymore". Or did you misunderstand what I asked?
Well, there's the fact that the game steadily drops in players, peaking usually only during their "content patches" and then dropping again. Multiplayer is practically a corpse right now (try and tell me different) and SP is so modifified by the general player base it's not even the game they're selling at this point. The official forum and steam forums constantly flooded with negative threads (somehow they don't matter). Youtubers videos flooded with angry and frustrated customers. Comments on the official devblogs. The actual voice of the people being given across multiple media platforms. But hey, reviews were made largely by people who don't even play it anymore or haven't touched it since about a year ago clocking in usually around 50hrs, so obviously the game has to be good and there's nothing going wrong with the development. ?
I guess we disagree on this then.
That's exactly when they should be listening to their customers, what are you talking about? lol I think you're confusing post-release expansions with vital EA progress. They should absolutely be looking into the customers' opinions during EA and making vital changes to appease them BEFORE release.
I'm aware that other games have drop offs, but we're not talking about other games. This doesn't reflect on Bannerlord. What works or doesn't work for other games doesn't automatically file Bannerlord under it.
There you are with yet another assumption. If they had initial positive things to say about the game and haven't come back to play it, why would they rewrite an old review? Do you know how many people actually do that? Very little people do this, because they don't care do to do much more than that, which can been seen in numerous other games. That's why you can look through games and see thousands of reviews talking about an issue that is no longer even in the game, because an overwhelming amount of people write one and they are done. That's what's great about the new Steam features, too. We can see when they edit reviews, or if they have at all.
Oh yes, I'm well aware of where the reviews site right now in terms of positivity. There's no need to repeat it, when I'm arguing it doesn't mean absolutes like you seem to think that it does. As if people can't change their mind and are all caring enough to come back and update their 1yr/6+ reviews for a game they don't even play anymore.
That was more toward the commentary earlier, about forum goers hating the game and whatnot, and how people who "hate" something won't play it. Which is undoubtedly incorrect.
Reviews are a great way to help determine these things, but you shouldn't use them as if they mean the world. You can see people on this forum alone talking about how they liked the game, or made good reviews and haven't touched it in months etc. All this means is that people who jump in for a few hours like what they are seeing, it doesn't mean the majority of them are "fine" with the current state of the game. It's early access. They're going to praise what it's doing right and continue to play until it reaches the stage the game promised. It's the whole point of EA progress. That's why you see people with 2k hours talking about how bad it is. Just load up the reviews for the game now. You'll see quite a few new ones talking about how they like the game but still give it a thumbs down, people that range across 50 to 400 hours. You can't use reviews and player count as some absolute sign that they all are fine with the game just because they left these reviews months ago or put in 50 and left it alone.
I don't recall saying that all of them felt that way. I only ever pointed out that 50k+ people leaving a game within just 2 months of release should say something about the game. Whether they hate it, found it boring or whatever. These things matter more than you care to admit it.
Really? There's "literally" reviews stating why they (all players who no longer play it) left the game, when they haven't touched them in months? Go on and show me then. I'd love to see these reviews explaining why they left the game. As far as I can see, I don't see anything like that. Not a single review, positive or negative, in which a reviewer said "Well, I've enjoyed it and now I won't play it anymore". Or did you misunderstand what I asked?
Well, there's the fact that the game steadily drops in players, peaking usually only during their "content patches" and then dropping again. Multiplayer is practically a corpse right now (try and tell me different) and SP is so modifified by the general player base it's not even the game they're selling at this point. The official forum and steam forums constantly flooded with negative threads (somehow they don't matter). Youtubers videos flooded with angry and frustrated customers. Comments on the official devblogs. The actual voice of the people being given across multiple media platforms. But hey, reviews were made largely by people who don't even play it anymore or haven't touched it since about a year ago clocking in usually around 50hrs, so obviously the game has to be good and there's nothing going wrong with the development. ?
I guess we disagree on this then.
———————
That's exactly when they should be listening to their customers, what are you talking about? lol I think you're confusing post-release expansions with vital EA progress. They should absolutely be looking into the customers' opinions during EA and making vital changes to appease them BEFORE release.
Last edited:
Guess I´m just stupid and I want to be Bannerlord a better game than Warband.
If Bannerlord wouldn´t have better graphics/engine/potential I wouldn`t care at all. I´ve said it some time ago, Bannerlord could be THE game in it´s niche genre. (as it seems that niche isn´t even that small @ TW)
But for me Warband has more gameplay depth overall compared to Bannerlord. But I just can´t play it anymore after I´ve seen what is possible with mods for Bannerlord. And there is still some hope left.
Give me a Warband with the Bannerlord engine (500v500) and those graphics but with Warband options and I would love it. Bannerlord also has some good QoL features.
It's not about that, just saying if you do not hound him like that, the discourse between you two will be better. And I think everyone here wants Bannerlord to be better, even if they think it's good now.
I agree a bit with you on the later parts. If it weren't for the better graphics and engine, I wouldn't have given BL so many tries, but I'm sure eventually it will get there. I'm just frustrated that we've gotten really no where since release. lol I also think Warband has more depth even right now, despite the things it does wrong.
I just want to voice my opinion but he is lying.
Nothing in life is certain. However, creating a new account to only post in this mis-guided thread seems bizarre.
It is to show that this isn't a new thing. Drop-offs happen with SP games. BL isn't special in this regard. I don't care if we are or are not talking about other games, this is literally how you show how the drop-off seen by BL isn't a drastic thing.
The point of bringing up other games when speaking about the drop-off is to show that it shows, quite literally, nothing.
They wouldn't rewrite the review. I never said anything about rewriting a review. If people had a bad experience with the game, they would leave a negative review.
The basis for this argument is to assume that some of the positive reviews are only there because players don't care to change their reviews. This assumes that instead of just moving onto different games after having their fill with the game, they actually don't like it and want to change their positive review to a negative but simply don't care enough to do so.
They give a look into what a majority of the fanbase wants. And since a majority are positive, a majority are, at the very least, fine with the game. I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. I don't think that this makes everyone a total fanboy for TW, but to deny that they show anything into what a majority of the community thinks is absurd. Consistent positive reviews mean that consistently more people find the game to be fine rather than lackluster.
Also, loading up the game and looking through those who have put 100 or more hours into the game, they are positive throughout the past month.
Except it has been shown that massive drop-offs tend to happen with SP games after the first month. The 50k people doesn't mean anything for BL, is it simply par for the course. These things don't matter as much as you wish they did.
Because why would someone say that? Both you and I are making assumptions about why people leave the game, you state that they leave because they are not satisfied with the product, and I state that they leave the game because they have had their fill with the game and that's typically what people do with SP games. One is making a larger assumption than the other. People move on to different games, not everyone is a M&B super-fan who will put in hundreds if not thousands of hours into the game.
This is genuinely normal.
I don't think people typically post on forums to state how much they love the game. Typically forums are for asking questions, getting advice, finding answers to bugs, and the like. I don't know what type of fan would just post on a Steam forum "Hey man, I just really like this game". That's just not what you do. So of course the Steam forum will have more negative threads than positive. It will be players reporting bugs and asking when a feature they want is out.
Also, a part of the negativity is the vocal minority aspect. Fans who are scorned by the developer will become massive detractors to the series, and that's what you see. I don't deny that a good portion of the WB fans are unhappy with BL, and the unhappiness over the past year can turn into posting negative comments on anything BL related. There are more positive reviews than hate threads.
If you want big fan suggestions to be added in the EA period, then the EA period will have to be longer. And seeing the reaction to the current delay to Q2 2022, I doubt TW will want to do that.
BL isn't a totally loved game nor a totally hated game. Its player count follows the same patterns as other SP games. The game needs fixes, but one issue that the game does not have is the fanbase at large. The fanbase for BL is very clearly strong, and to deny that is absurd. There is a reason why it still pulls 10-20k players a day.
Edit:
I doubt that we are going to come to some sort of agreement, so you can feel free to respond to this post but I highly doubt anything will come of it.
The forum population is a small portion of the player base. The rest of that paragraph is a comical strawman.
Games can have problems--even glaring ones--and still be fun. We would see that more clearly if we had custom servers in BL, because we would be able to enact "house rules" of a kind to work around (some) problems. This was the de facto M.O. in Warband, where Khergits were not allowed in competitive play and typically removed or voted out on pub servers. It's also a pattern of behavior observable in many games where players will "ban" something from play for being OP/broken/unfun. Enjoying the game doesn't imply that the game is perfect or that you are blind to its flaws.
Wrong. Very wrong. Saying that Mount and Blade is a typical single-player game is like saying Ru Paul is a typical female. If you squint and you don't think about it too much... it sounds legit.
But, no. Very no. Mount and Blade, Warband, With Fire & Sword and Viking Conquest are genre-defying cult sandboxes with a bazillion mods between them. It's not comparable to any typical SP or MP game. And the opposite isn't true either. BL can't be compared to a typical MP game, because the fanbase is overwhelmingly focused on the SP campaign.
The only thing you can compare BL to is MB. And the original M&B had a smaller fanbase, but it maintained that smaller player base much more than Bannerlord did - never experiencing a similar drop-off - and sold many more copies too.
And lest I repeat myself into an early grave:
This does not mean that Bannerlord is a failure. It just means that everyone pointing to player counts or Steam reviews to smear all the normal fans in this forum who have criticisms of the game as crazy people are full of ****.
Your contention may be correct, but I doubt it.
The only way to REALLY be sure of whether the forum is representative of the fanbase is if TW were to officially announce that the game is releasing as-is. If fans lose their everloving ****, then I'm right. If they say that it's still a good game as-is, then I'll take my lumps.
Considering how screechingly-mad people outside this forum have been when I've explained to them how many features likely will not be making it into the final release, I'm betting that we're right. The current evidence indicates that the fanbase is willing to be extremely patient but expects significantly more before final release.
Yeah Fallout has replay value, but not the same replay value as a M&B game. M&B games are open-ended sandboxes and Fallout games are story-driven RPG's. Once the story is over, the story-driven RPG doesn't have as much staying power as an open-ended sandbox.
Are you kidding me? I just posted you a laundry list of "Most Helpul" reviews from the last 6 months explicitly saying that the game isn't finished and is buggy as hell. I didn't even have to go back to 2019 for that stuff!
Aight I'm cool with that. I wish @Phantom425 hadn't decided to jump on that "All the haters are a tiny minority" crazy train AGAIN after the last time I explained this to him 3 months ago, but that's life. I guess we'll see in another 3 months.
The current player stats are effectively meaningless and can be argued either way. I *will* say that the Steam reviews are clearly evidence in favor of the game being poorly-received, though. For a product from a non-garage developer, 87% positive is pretty pathetic and most of the positive reviews clearly admit that the game isn't finished.
People still get furious on Steam and Reddit when I quote stuff and link the devs have said here. A lot of positivity out there is driven by complete ignorance of what is actually planned to be in the game on release.
Same here. My buddies hit me up every couple months with "Has it stopped sucking yet? No? Oh well."
Like I said a few pages back, I'm pretty impressed that this convo has kept going for months in absence of my regular bumps
For the billionth time, the entire point of an EA period is for fan suggestions. TW also literally said this explicitly multiple times.
Are you suggesting that they LIED? If they LIED, why should we trust them to finish the game?
I have le doubts. IDK if there have been more updates in the recent past, but it sounded to me last I checked that TW is releasing this thing in Q4 2021 - Q1 2022 come hell or high water. They need to release the PC version before they can monetize the console port.
Bruh like one page ago I posted a list of quotes from the "Most Helpful" "Very Positive" Steam reviews from the last 6 months. Most of them explicitly and painfully detail the fact that the game is broken but they're hopeful that it won't be as busted on release.
Of course it isn't a new thing. No one even tried to insinuate that. And it not only happening with BL doesn't mean a thing. This "well, what about other games?" isn't much of an argument.
I did say it though, and you made a comment against it, so I expanded upon it. If someone has an experience they want to share, they share it, sure. But my point was that you can't just assume all of those reviews, especially those 1yr/6month reviews, are still how they feel simply because they didn't update them to say "Well, yea, I'm disappointed". People generally don't do that. However, we can see that a concerning amount of these people stopped playing it within just a few months or about 50 hours at average, and that's obviously for a reason.
Not entirely, but it is important to note that people who haven't played since 2 months from launch or only have 50 hours in the game and haven't touched it since shouldn't be your absolute indicator that everyone playing is so sweet on the game. If they move on due to the state of the game, they aren't going to update their review and tell the world they're leaving and for so and so. Expecting that would be ridiculous. Most people don't even review their games, let alone come back after a while to keep it updated after they've realized it is going nowhere. Which is crucial to an EA game. It isn't like a regular AAA game, like the Witcher or something, where one can experience what it has to offer because it's all been complete. These reviews are made as if the game is static, and it isn't, it's in early access and constantly under going changes. Reviews ought to reflect its evolving state, and they don't, yet you want everyone to believe these old reviews are still reflecting the over all perception of the game. Or will this fundamental development difference between Bannerlord and these other SP games going to be ignored too?
Ok.
They do actually, it's just more people are apparently displeased with it than they are pleased, and so they bring it up. Often. If there weren't people willing to announce they like something, positive reviews wouldn't be a thing, nor would you see Steam forums have what others would call "white knights" fighting with opposing sides in every thread. I mean...just look at you and a few others here. Obviously the people who post that they like something exists, they just aren't as numerous.
Why is that the all places that see this negative activity always down played by the positive purists? You say we're a minority, but it's quite obvious we're not, just looking at this forum alone.
Of course, but that would be if they were even doing it in the first place. If they would listen and do what is asked of them, no one is going to care if it sits in EA longer so long as something is coming of it.
Bannerlord isn't solely a SP game, you know that, right? Not that it being SP has anything to do with anything, but it is definitely not just a SP game.
Okey-dey, that's cool.
My point was that the forum population isn't the only people displeased with the game, that's why I brought up the "only ones" bit. I could have worded it a bit better, looking back at it now. My bad.
And I never said games that have problems cannot still be fun, or that liking it makes it impossible for you to acknowledge its flaws. So I don't know where that came from, but okay?
It's a bit depressing. lol expected so much, got very little. Ouch to reality.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="bonerstorm, post: 9741684, member::
This does not mean that Bannerlord is a failure. It just means that everyone pointing to player counts or Steam reviews to smear all the normal fans in this forum who have criticisms of the game as crazy people are full of ****.
[/QUOTE]
That sums these last 67 pages up nicely. In conclusion: If you like the game, good for you. If you dont and believe it’ll keep improving like it has the last couple months, good for you. If you dont and dont believe the game will ever be specifically made for your particular taste, why are you still here.
This does not mean that Bannerlord is a failure. It just means that everyone pointing to player counts or Steam reviews to smear all the normal fans in this forum who have criticisms of the game as crazy people are full of ****.
[/QUOTE]
That sums these last 67 pages up nicely. In conclusion: If you like the game, good for you. If you dont and believe it’ll keep improving like it has the last couple months, good for you. If you dont and dont believe the game will ever be specifically made for your particular taste, why are you still here.
- Status
Similar threads
