I still do not get why they would sell the EA at full price since they are selling an unfinished game.
Yes, sure, Taleworlds will run away with our money. Another argument ?Younes123 said:LeChat said:
Having games like these have always been a risk to getting dropped by devs, or just end as bad games. Studios can just run away with the money with unfinished games.
TheItalianoX said:Wise and polite words.
I also think we shouldn't come to a point where Callum or a tw member has to come here and tell everyone the obvious only to remark we're free to do things. I feel a little bit embarrassed.
However, keep up the great work! Personally I'm 100% sure to buy it in early access.
JustinTime49 said:Breezy Tee said:JustinTime49 said:snip
OH NO YOU DIDN'T! hahahaha
We've got an ETA, please quit the whining for now, leave it to when the game is actually in EA and judge it after the fact.
My only complaint about TW regarding M&B2 BL has always been a lack of ETA or even a somewhat unofficial guess of an ETA. That translates into absolute lack of Deadlines, which translates into Infinite Loop Development: "do stuff, stuff gives new ideas, remove stuff, do new stuff, new stuff give new ideas, remove new stuff, do new new stuff..." You get the point.
As for quality, M&B turned out pretty good, and it has been one of the pioneer games to actually use Early Access since ever, and it was done right. If you are worried about that, for real, you're but a fool, if not I'd say you're a troll
Ok, where to start.
If the only problem you had with the current state of the game was the lack of ETA, thats fine! If everything checks out on your bucket list gameplay wise, thats fine! I don't think its fair to call people 'foolish' for worrying about the current state of gameplay though, especially when many concerns voiced throughout the forums have been confirmed to be features.
Take the class system for example, regardless of the continuous negativity towards the its implementation, TW have decided to stick with the system, to the dismay of many. I could go on with formations, encyclopedia... but you get the point. Your opinions aren't fact, which is why this thread is called 'Bannerlord Worries'.
"As for quality, M&B turned out pretty good" I more or less agree, and i'm sure bannerlord will be even better content wise, but the irony is still present(if you bothered to read the point of the OP anyway).
Years of like you said, infinite loop of development, claiming to release a full complete product only to sell off an incomplete game at full price so that the community can help fix it sounds awfully desperate in the context of potential development hell.
Breezy Tee said:I understand, though I've been warning that this was a risk with the way they were conducting business during development, I had no inside information, just observable facts that would come to general knowledge over the years. I've said more than once that this model of game development (no-deadline free-for-all do whatever you feel like doing) is basically asking for trouble, so much so that Bioware has been doing the same for years and they're pretty effed right now, and they are waaaaay bigger than TW with better financial security and a much larger "mistake" tolerant funding... Once I've seen that BL is actually going into EA I've felt better, that means Deadlines are being implemented and they have objective goals, it's not a complete chaos anymore, and that's good. Given their capabilities, this translates into a much higher roof for the quality of the game itself. As you yourself have stated, opinions over features are opinions, not actual quality measures, that being said, we should cut them a slack and wait, anything that doesn't work will be remove, subbed or improved most likely, but if they wish ti bet into features, that's in their own right, and I fully support it, given that each and every single one of those features have quality in them, regardless of nostalgic conservative ideas of keeping the game the same as M&B.
I've always felt that the lack of specificity towards character builds were awkward in M&B base game, I do, however, understand the wanting of making our own builds to be anything, but usually that takes away from the experience, so having classes isn't a big deal, it may (or may not) actually make BL better than M&B just with a sad little feature like that tbh.... If it was me I'd actually make it possible to have each and every common sense build variation possible within said system, and I'd also slap in extra options for "realistic" builds, like Archery being based off strength, while sword lovers being basically dexterity. Giving more attention to actual weapons of war and less towards swords (weapons of Hollywood). So on so forth. They were a step in this direction with base M&B, if they push further with it it'll make the game quite unique.
Realistic examples would be simple to give too, Crossbows should not be attached to any attribute, instead they are the weapons for the weak and less trained, so much so that this was the only reason for crossbows to actually stay relevant throughout the entirety of the middle ages (since they were created for the first time). This is just one isolated example, but there are more, today it's easier to find information about that due to the growth in HEMA interest plus the amount of content creators who are in love with medieval times. In fact, you can learn everything about what was actually real during middle ages in a few days watching videos from these people. Hollywood, which was the inspiration for most video games, is a chaotic bs mess regarding these themes, in fact there are absolutely zero films that portrait the middle ages even slightly correct, everything is an absurd fiction... So much so that there are even documentaries that are considered ridiculous by most of the community who studies these things. So giving the opportunity to turn your character into a specialist of sorts doesn't sound bad at all.
Cordor said:My biggest complaint from just observing what they are trying to do with the multiplayer, is make this into an esport thing and failing at it. This won't be a big competitive game anyways and their attempts seems to just be souring the overall experience.
The thing that made Warband have a competitive scene is that you have a natural sandbox of a multiplayer experience, everyone has a playstyle, everyone can make their own layout and build, everyone can play the way they want, which is fun, which is why mordhau has the same custom layout option, because its fun
No one will play your competitive game if it's not fun. The competitive scene was born because the game was fun and had a space for a variety of play styles.
Make the game fun, let the competitive players create a competitive scene, then mold the esport/competitive aspect around it with their help.
JustinTime49 said:As for crossbows, though they were generally fielded by untrained, fodder type units, there are a multitude of expert crossbow users such as the genoese mercs. To treat them as simply an early game weapon would severely limit gameplay options, as well as lessen their threat. With calradia representing global peoples into a condensed land, having vlandian crossbows(the only crossbow faction) treated as weak or inferior, especially in scenarios where they would be preferred would be a mistake IMO.
i ve seen the posts , the only thing that should bother us right now is one i think .In terms of content, the EA release will have plenty of stuff for you to do, including all of the core features and mechanics that you would expect of a Mount & Blade game. We would refer to things that we plan to add later to be supporting features that aren't essential parts of the core game loops. As we get closer to the EA release we will share more info about what to expect and what will come later. And again, we would say that if you have any doubts hold on to your cash, watch some videos from content creators and make an informed decision on whether or not to buy the game.