Community Reviews of Bannerlord

Currently viewing this thread:

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
You missed my point, I agree that TW didn't manage the flow of incoming ideas, neither gave needed feedback.
But they are not responsible for the frustration, as this is something we are supposed to personnaly deal with, by ourself.

I'm struggling to understand how you think that makes sense. If you mean it is the customers' responsibility to properly voice that frustration, I agree. If you are insinuating that TW isn't responsible for that frustration, that's just insane.
 

WhyAmIHere

Veteran
If you mean it is the customers' responsibility to properly voice that frustration, I agree.
It was our responsibility to properly voice our frustration in like, May of last year. Nowadays I struggle to assign any responsibility of that nature to the users that have been consistently ignored for the past year despite the many public promises otherwise.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It was our responsibility to properly voice our frustration in like, May of last year. Nowadays I struggle to assign any responsibility of that nature to the users that have been consistently ignored for the past year despite the many public promises otherwise.

No? Players can voice their frustration at any point in the game development, it isn't a one year timed event. The way some people think about this stuff astounds me sometimes.
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
I'm struggling to understand how you think that makes sense. If you mean it is the customers' responsibility to properly voice that frustration, I agree. If you are insinuating that TW isn't responsible for that frustration, that's just insane.
As I already said here or in another thread, expectations went beyond/against TW vision of this M&B sequel.
During the development, TW decided to change some mechanics, decided to implement other features that were not expected by the "community" (really scary word).
But it was their right to do so no? Why should they be taken responsible for the frustration of people who were expecting, for example, a simple remastered warband?
Frustration is a feeling we have to personnaly deal with, by accepting things.
I understand that this way of thinking may be difficult to apply to some more serious IRL happenings, but I think this is something quite easy to apply when we speak about a game and its development...
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
I'm struggling to understand how you think that makes sense. If you mean it is the customers' responsibility to properly voice that frustration, I agree. If you are insinuating that TW isn't responsible for that frustration, that's just insane.
He's saying someone's frustration is on them. As in, that anger is theirs to manage and is in their control. TW doesn't have control over our emotions, and doesn't have a responsibility to console us. Their responsibility is to deliver a product. Our judgement towards said product, and the emotional reaction that comes from it, is on us.
 

JimmyCakes

Regular
Taleworld's failure to get organized after such a huge financial success that other game companies could only dream of says a lot about the future of this company. It's only a matter of time before someone comes along and does it better.
 

Moton

Squire
People here spending 1200+ hours on games they dont like and act like it's totally normal need to get some help. That is 50 days of effective gaming. That's actually insane if you dont enjoy it through and through.
 
He's saying someone's frustration is on them. As in, that anger is theirs to manage and is in their control. TW doesn't have control over our emotions, and doesn't have a responsibility to console us. Their responsibility is to deliver a product. Our judgement towards said product, and the emotional reaction that comes from it, is on us.
When a group of people are beating you because you are a troll, is it your responsibility to deal with the pain or their responsibility to stop?
Consumers are perfectly within their rights to protest what amounted to false advertising in form of dev blogs and PR statements for the EA release.

Consumers are the weak party here, which is why developed countries have consumer protection laws and organizations, and NOT organizations that protect companies from angry consumers.
Which explains why authoritarian types jump to the defense of Taleworlds on reflex: protect the strong, defend the authority.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
As I already said here or in another thread, expectations went beyond/against TW vision of this M&B sequel.
During the development, TW decided to change some mechanics, decided to implement other features that were not expected by the "community" (really scary word).
But it was their right to do so no? Why should they be taken responsible for the frustration of people who were expecting, for example, a simple remastered warband?

No.

It doesn't matter if TW decided to change things somewhere down the line. They promised a certain sort of product and have ultimately failed to deliver it, whether or not a group of the players expected Warband 2.0, that was on them. So when they failed to deliver, people can and will get frustrated—which is their right as a customer.

This argument is terrible.

Frustration is a feeling we have to personnaly deal with, by accepting things.

If you argued this in a court about a misled/faulty product, it would go just about as terribly as you probably know it would. The creation of a frustration of paying for a product and getting garbage in return is solely on TW. This is like saying if a man buys a TV, takes it home and sees that its display is crappy, the frustration he feels is on him (and he should not express it because "it's his emotion") and not express it toward the TV manufacturer. This is unadulterated nonsense.

I understand that this way of thinking may be difficult to apply to some more serious IRL happenings, but I think this is something quite easy to apply when we speak about a game and its development...

You should not pretend to know the situations of people here to better your argument. Firstly, because horrific things happening elsewhere does not negate the quality of this product and the customers' right. Secondly, I could be missing both my legs and still be incredibly frustrated that 1 year after EA a game I paid a ton of money for is basically the exact same thing it was Day 1. Why? Because I have every right to that frustration as a customer, just as I have ever right to voice it.

He's saying someone's frustration is on them. As in, that anger is theirs to manage and is in their control. TW doesn't have control over our emotions, and doesn't have a responsibility to console us. Their responsibility is to deliver a product. Our judgement towards said product, and the emotional reaction that comes from it, is on us.

Okay, so the second part of my post? The only responsibility of the frustrated costumers is to voice that frustration properly, but it is, without a doubt, TW's fault that frustration exists in the first place. They are responsible for it. I don't have to swallow my tongue because this is just a game. I paid good money for it, after all. If someone is disappointing a customer with a product he paid for, frustration is natural. It is expected. And although I would argue that it must be done in a constructive way, even the frustrated players like MostBlunted were perfectly within their right to voice themselves like that.

People here spending 1200+ hours on games they dont like and act like it's totally normal need to get some help. That is 50 days of effective gaming. That's actually insane if you dont enjoy it through and through.

It's early access. The point is to play it and provide feedback, to make it better, even through the time that it is not pleasant. Your complete inability to grasp this extremely simple concept does not make others insane. Not that anyone should take you seriously of course, but how is pointing out numerous (numerous) valid failures of a 8+ year developed game 1 year after EA launch insane but it isn't insane to defend a game to a blind point that you call other players insane for practicing the point of EA?
 
Last edited:

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
It's early access. The point is to play it and provide feedback, to make it better, even through the time that it is not pleasant. Your complete inability to grasp this extremely simple concept does not make others insane. Not that anyone should take you seriously of course, but how is pointing out numerous (numerous) valid failures of a 8+ year developed game 1 year after EA launch insane but it isn't insane to defend a game to a blind point that you call other players insane for practicing the point of EA?
I'm not sure I buy someone playing 1200 hours of a game out of loyalty and drive to provide feedback... You can finish most games in 30-50 hours; no one needs to play 50 days of something to offer feedback.

Someone who plays 1200 hours enjoys the game (whether they admit it or not) - they just maybe want it to be better (much better) and saying the game is perfect doesn't help that.

Not to say we shouldn't critique the game - we should... I just find the idea of someone playing something they hate for 7 weeks straight a little ridiculous ... No one does that.
 
Last edited:

Ferisko

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
So when they failed to deliver
They didn't failed yet, still work in progress.
This is like saying if a man buys a TV, takes it home and sees that its display is crappy, the frustration he feels is on him (and he should not express it because "it's his emotion") and not express it toward the TV manufacturer
A TV is a finished product, so your comparison doesn't apply.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I'm not sure I buy someone playing 1200 hours of a game out of loyalty and drive to provide feedback...

Well to be honest, it doesn't matter if you do not buy it, it does happen, as indicated by a lot of posters here. Unless you really want to go that extra mile to call them all liars? I'm not saying all of those people have the same issues with the state of the game of course, that would be ridiculous of me to say. I'm certain a lot of them enjoy it 100% without seeing a single fault in the game, at least not something worth coming to a forum to share. Forums tend to draw in only the really dedicated, after all.

You can finish most games in 30-50 hours; no one needs to play 50 days of something to offer feedback.

My apologies, but are you being serious here? I could understand other types of games like say Assassin's Creed or maybe Witcher or other such games (especially thought OUT of EA), but for a game like Bannerlord in EA you cannot get the full scope of the game out of 30-50 hours, nor could you ever possibly hope to contribute meaningfully towards feedback reports such as broken or buggy content, performance issues, suggestions etc etc. The game changes frequently, which means putting in more and more hours.

What methods works for you doesn't mean it works that way for others.

Someone who plays 1200 hours enjoys the game (whether they admit it or not) - they just maybe want it to be better and saying the game is perfect doesn't help that.

Of course? That's the whole point. The hours doesn't indicate complete enjoyment, the argument is nonsensical. I'm incredibly disappointed with the game, very much so, but there are still aspects of it that I enjoy that allows me to tolerate how much is missing, broken etc so that I can still play and provide my feedback. The existence of 1k+ hours does not in any way indicate an absence of disappointment or a largely unsatisfied attitude toward the game. That's just not how it works.

They didn't failed yet, still work in progress.

That's true, not yet. I should word it a bit differently, but you are being dishonest if you do not agree it is failing to meet those expectations one year later.

A TV is a finished product, so your comparison doesn't apply.

It doesn't matter if the product is finished or not here, the argument from him still applies. Frustration is natural and expected from the customer if the product he buys fails to deliver. If the argument then is that players are forbidden from voicing frustration simply because it is an early access game, that makes even less sense, because the entire point of early access is to do exactly that and if that is not enough, should customers wait how many years to voice that frustration on an EA title? 3? 4? 5? 10?

No matter how you cut it, the argument makes absolutely no sense and would never fly in any other sitting. All this is is blind loyalty that disregards the customer.
 
Last edited:

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
When a group of people are beating you because you are a troll, is it your responsibility to deal with the pain or their responsibility to stop?
Consumers are perfectly within their rights to protest what amounted to false advertising in form of dev blogs and PR statements for the EA release.

Consumers are the weak party here, which is why developed countries have consumer protection laws and organizations, and NOT organizations that protect companies from angry consumers.
Which explains why authoritarian types jump to the defense of Taleworlds on reflex: protect the strong, defend the authority.
Looks like you reached real far for that one. If you have a problem with me just say it. You seem to think I'm a brainwashed guy living in a ****ty tyrannical country ever since I mentioned I'm Asian. I merely said what I think Spinozart was trying to say.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
Okay, so the second part of my post? The only responsibility of the frustrated costumers is to voice that frustration properly, but it is, without a doubt, TW's fault that frustration exists in the first place. They are responsible for it. I don't have to swallow my tongue because this is just a game. I paid good money for it, after all. If someone is disappointing a customer with a product he paid for, frustration is natural. It is expected. And although I would argue that it must be done in a constructive way, even the frustrated players like MostBlunted were perfectly within their right to voice themselves like that.
Second part as in this?

"If you mean it is the customers' responsibility to properly voice that frustration, I agree. If you are insinuating that TW isn't responsible for that frustration, that's just insane."

I don't think customers have responsibility to voice their frustration, properly or otherwise. They're free to do so, but they don't have to. Taleworlds didn't pay us to give them feedback. About the part that TW isn't responsible for the frustration, it's quite hard to answer as I think the word "responsibility" is quite tricky. Taleworlds played a big part in causing the frustration, but they have no legal/written/contract responsibility to heal it. At the end of the day, us buying Bannerlord is just a purchase of product. If the product is faulty, people can get frustrated, and the producer has faults in making a faulty product. However, the decision to be frustrated or not lies in the individual, as one can always just cool off by taking a break, or actually like the game.

The discussion on the "degree of faultiness" of Bannerlord is something I'm too lazy to research right now. Digging all those official statements and checking the implementation is too much of a hassle for me.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Second part as in this?

"If you mean it is the customers' responsibility to properly voice that frustration, I agree. If you are insinuating that TW isn't responsible for that frustration, that's just insane."

I don't think customers have responsibility to voice their frustration, properly or otherwise. They're free to do so, but they don't have to. Taleworlds didn't pay us to give them feedback. About the part that TW isn't responsible for the frustration, it's quite hard to answer as I think the word "responsibility" is quite tricky.

No, the later part of that statement, which was "If you are insinuating...".

Well, of course, you don't have to, but to suggest that they cannot or that they do not have any such right to voice frustration with a product they paid for is nonsense. Which is what I was getting either. It makes sense to argue that the customer should voice their frustrations in a proper way, but to suggest that they shouldn't or have no right to—that frustrations are their fault and not the fault of the creator of said product—makes no sense.

At the end of the day, us buying Bannerlord is just a purchase of product. If the product is faulty, people can get frustrated, and the producer has faults in making a faulty product. However, the decision to be frustrated or not lies in the individual, as one can always just cool off by taking a break, or actually like the game.

I think I see what's happening here. You guys are getting too hung up on the term "frustration".

Yes, it is ultimately up to the person to feel frustrated that their money and time was wasted on basic lies (to live and let learn, basically), but whether or not it is up to them to feel that anger towards product that is ultimately failing to meet its promised expectations (and in some ways, duplicitous advertising), the company in charge of that faulty product is to blame for it. They have a responsibility to that frustration and they have to fix it. So whilst someone doesn't have to feel frustrated that their money went to a faulty, buggy and or duplicitous product, it is perfectly natural and expected of them as a customer to reflect that frustration towards those who caused it. Most people even agree with this sentiment, as such the reason there are reviews, critics, lawsuits etc etc that reflect the right and power of a customers opinion on said product. To insinuate that that frustration is wrong on the customers' part is equally wrong as insinuating that TW isn't responsible and thus voicing frustrations at them is wrong.

And what sort of solution is that though? Either take a break from the falsely advertised game (abandon it or realize you were scammed?) or "just like it"? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. I shouldn't have to give up and like the crap state it is in right now because ultimately I'm the one who can either get angry or not over my wasted money and time. An argument could be made that people should never trust EA, but that again is transferring the problems from the company to the customer, which is wrong.

Taleworlds played a big part in causing the frustration, but they have no legal/written/contract responsibility to heal it.

Yes they do? They promised a certain quality product. People bought the product on that statement. They are failing to deliver upon that product. It is their job to change those peoples' opinions, to listen to that frustration, and change course to that content which was promised upon. Otherwise, it is false advertisement, and I shouldn't have to explain how that's a problem.

In the end, these sorts of arguments is just removing the responsibility of the company and exporting it to the customer, which is ludicrous.

The discussion on the "degree of faultiness" of Bannerlord is something I'm too lazy to research right now. Digging all those official statements and checking the implementation is too much of a hassle for me.

Could you perhaps explain what you mean here? What sort of official statement could disregard the failure of this EA title or the rights/expectations of the customer? If I misunderstood you here, please let me know.
 

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Well to be honest, it doesn't matter if you do not buy it, it does happen, as indicated by a lot of posters here. Unless you really want to go that extra mile to call them all liars? I'm not saying all of those people have the same issues with the state of the game of course, that would be ridiculous of me to say. I'm certain a lot of them enjoy it 100% without seeing a single fault in the game, at least not something worth coming to a forum to share. Forums tend to draw in only the really dedicated, after all.



My apologies, but are you being serious here? I could understand other types of games like say Assassin's Creed or maybe Witcher or other such games (especially thought OUT of EA), but for a game like Bannerlord in EA you cannot get the full scope of the game out of 30-50 hours, nor could you ever possibly hope to contribute meaningfully towards feedback reports such as broken or buggy content, performance issues, suggestions etc etc. The game changes frequently, which means putting in more and more hours.

What methods works for you doesn't mean it works that way for others.



Of course? That's the whole point. The hours doesn't indicate complete enjoyment, the argument is nonsensical. I'm incredibly disappointed with the game, very much so, but there are still aspects of it that I enjoy that allows me to tolerate how much is missing, broken etc so that I can still play and provide my feedback. The existence of 1k+ hours does not in any way indicate an absence of disappointment or a largely unsatisfied attitude toward the game. That's just not how it works.



That's true, not yet. I should word it a bit differently, but you are being dishonest if you do not agree it is failing to meet those expectations one year later.



It doesn't matter if the product is finished or not here, the argument from him still applies. Frustration is natural and expected from the customer if the product he buys fails to deliver. If the argument then is that players are forbidden from voicing frustration simply because it is an early access game, that makes even less sense, because the entire point of early access is to do exactly that and if that is not enough, should customers wait how many years to voice that frustration on an EA title? 3? 4? 5? 10?

No matter how you cut it, the argument makes absolutely no sense and would never fly in any other sitting. All this is is blind loyalty that disregards the customer.
I respectfully disagree. I think 50 hours is more then enough time to provide feedback on a game of nearly any size. 100 is overkill. I agree that I don't believe hours spent correlates to direct enjoyment of a game. i have more hours on DOTA 2 then I am proud of... but I do believe there must be enough content there to make a player spend that much time on it...

You are fully entitled to be disappointed - you should of seen me physically groan when i saw EA strapped to the title. I do believe some peoples attitudes towards the game are unreasonably negative (or unreasonably positive) given the value of their time they are willing to place into playing the game.

Regardless this argument is largely meaningless - we are all tecnically on the same side. No one wants Bannerlord to be a failure - and I don't think anyone believes it is perfect. All we differ on is our patience and tolerance for the work done so far.

I also don't think being angry is unwarranted - but I do think it makes this forum an aweful place to spend time without achieving anything towards improving the game.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I respectfully disagree. I think 50 hours is more then enough time to provide feedback on a game of nearly any size. 100 is overkill. I agree that I don't believe hours spent correlates to direct enjoyment of a game. i have more hours on DOTA 2 then I am proud of... but I do believe there must be enough content there to make a player spend that much time on it...

You are fully entitled to be disappointed - you should of seen me physically groan when i saw EA strapped to the title. I do believe some peoples attitudes towards the game are unreasonably negative (or unreasonably positive) given the value of their time they are willing to place into playing the game.

Regardless this argument is largely meaningless - we are all tecnically on the same side. No one wants Bannerlord to be a failure - and I don't think anyone believes it is perfect. All we differ on is our patience and tolerance for the work done so far.

I also don't think being angry is unwarranted - but I do think it makes this forum an aweful place to spend time without achieving anything towards improving the game.

I also respectfully disagree. I have hundreds of hours in Warband but I certainly did not feel the scope of the game with just fifty. There are different games though, so of course fifty makes more sense there, but for large sand-box titles with hundreds of hours of content behind it? I disagree entirely, especially when that title is in EA and undergoes monthly changes, which only requires more and more time (and often, new saves). And so would all those who came in here to say the same. In the end though, the hours put into a product certainly does not indicate total adoration.

And I don't really think there are sides here, just one explaining to another that the way they express themselves or how they feel about the game is as they say it is and is of course legitimate. I would hope in the end we all just want the same thing for Bannerlord.

I do not see any problem with most of the people here and how they voice their anger/disappointment. It is only really awful when people can't control how they voice their anger, though sometimes it does provide some entertainment (e.g, when someone completely loses it). :lol:
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
that frustrations are their fault and not the fault of the creator of said product—makes no sense.
What I was trying to say is, no one is fully responsible for it. Taleworlds made faults in not living up to their promises, but frustrated fans have faults in not being wise enough to handle their expectations and emotions. Having faults itself is not wrong, it's normal as nobody is perfect, so people really shouldn't be that mad when they're told they have some. Again, note that I didn't rid Taleworlds of blame at all.

Yes they do? They promised a certain quality product. People bought the product on that statement. They are failing to deliver upon that product. It is their job to change those peoples' opinions, to listen to that frustration, and change course to that content which was promised upon. Otherwise, it is false advertisement, and I shouldn't have to explain how that's a problem.

In the end, these sorts of arguments is just removing the responsibility of the company and exporting it to the customer, which is ludicrous.

Could you perhaps explain what you mean here? What sort of official statement could disregard the failure of this EA title or the rights/expectations of the customer? If I misunderstood you here, please let me know.
What I meant is, what counts as promised quality, false advertisement or scam is very specific. For example, if they said Bannerlord will have "fun siege", the promised "fun" is subjective for each individual and hard to pin down by law, as there's no clear definitive definition. Unless they said "fun for everyone", which is very easy to prove wrong by just having one person not having fun with. If they didn't have siege, then that's a clear violation and you can roast them for it, but a janky siege AI doesn't really count because technically it has a "working" siege.

Now, one would have to dig all official statements like dev blogs, Steam page and stuff and point out the promises and compare them to the implementation to decide if Taleworlds actually scammed us or not. Did they promise player-hosted servers for multiplayer? Did they promise anything about siege AI? etc etc. It's a hassle.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
What I was trying to say is, no one is fully responsible for it. Taleworlds made faults in not living up to their promises, but frustrated fans have faults in not being wise enough to handle their expectations and emotions. Having faults itself is not wrong, it's normal as nobody is perfect, so people really shouldn't be that mad when they're told they have some. Again, note that I didn't rid Taleworlds of blame at all.

Except someone is fully responsible for it. Taleworlds. The fault lies entirely on them. It would be one thing if this EA was open to everyone and didn't cost a dime, but it isn't. People paid for it (and the promise of what was). When TW fails to deliver upon those promises, they become responsible for the duplicitous means in which they advertised the game and sold units through.

Finding that fault in someone is no indication of a person's quality, either, so it has nothing to do with being perfect. It only has to do with holding the responsible party responsible for the product they sold.

What I meant is, what counts as promised quality, false advertisement or scam is very specific. For example, if they said Bannerlord will have "fun siege", the promised "fun" is subjective for each individual and hard to pin down by law, as there's no clear definitive definition. Unless they said "fun for everyone", which is very easy to prove wrong by just having one person not having fun with. If they didn't have siege, then that's a clear violation and you can roast them for it, but a janky siege AI doesn't really count because technically it has a "working" siege.

No, promising content and then not delivering it is false advertisement, because "fun" is completely subjective, but missing promised content is not. For example, even if they said "it will have merry-go-rounds that will shoot you into space where space dragons dance around you" and not have that promised content, that is false advertisement. Why? Because they told people it would be this and that, and have this and that, which influences customers to buy based off that advertisement. When it fails to deliver one or half of all it promised, the argument of false advertisement or duplicitous advertisement is 100% reasonable to throw out against TW.

Now, one would have to dig all official statements like dev blogs, Steam page and stuff and point out the promises and compare them to the implementation to decide if Taleworlds actually scammed us or not. Did they promise player-hosted servers for multiplayer? Did they promise anything about siege AI? etc etc. It's a hassle.

Castle-building mechanic was a feature until they decided nah. There are plenty of things cut from the promised features and or not implemented yet, when it was said it would be in EA. I guess you could argue EA isn't over yet, but at one point does waiting and waiting entail complaint and voiced expectations? I should think a year would suffice.

This might be helpful. If this isn't what you meant, I'm certain there is a thread out there with a compiled list available.

 
Top Bottom