Current state - Realism

[FBohler]

Look at the poll results. The vast majority thinks the balance is already good, no need to change the level of realism of the game.
Anyone who voted "The game is too realistic" may say that we need ninjas, dragons, combat choppers, lightsabers, etc.
And you know what? They are as entitled to their opinion as any realism fan.
Both groups are requesting the game to change, but in different ways.

Back to the scabbard (no pun intended ):
Many people are okay with it hanging on the back of the character, and some people like me actually think this looks good. There are a few people that get their immersion destroyed by this little feature and are asking the developer to remove it. They think their opinion is more valuable than other's, because of realism, just for realism's sake. This is a fallacy.
On animation and rigging: they may just use the one-handed animations that already exist for sheathing and drawing the sword, it might work with a little IK setup. They'll only trash the set of animations that was created to support weapons hanging on the back.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

Look, I also voted for that.
This pool is about realism and fun balance.
The scabbard on the back or belt is about realism and coolness(and that is a subjective thing) balance.

People are afraid that the game will lose its fun if devs go too realistic.
Making the trees more realistic for example, it will not damage the fun factor because noone will be less entertained just because the made the trees more realistic right ?

Same with the scabbards just because they placed it to belt people wont get less amused.

I may be wrong but I believe majority chose the one in the middle thinking the one about more realism meant sacrificing gameplay, including me but why wouldnt we go for more realism if we arent going to sacrifice any gameplay ?

 

[Honved]

I'd have to agree that the poll is a bit simplistic and useless.  There's an obvious "middle ground", and extremes that are made to sound like you'd have to be either 100% dedicated to realism at the expense of gameplay and development time, or else looking for a pure fantasy game with wizards and dragons.  In either of the extreme cases, I'd have to ask "So why are you playing M&B?"  I'd have used at least 5, if not 6 choices.

The current state of the game is:
- Much too realistic
- A bit to far to the realism side
- Perfectly balanced
- A bit short on realism
- Far too unrealistic
- None of the above (explain)

Personally, I'd lean toward "None of the above", because we haven't seen enough of the game (other than some clearly set-up combat footage) to form a valid opinion.  I prefer something more-or-less realistic, but clearly some liberties need to be taken for the sake of gameplay (and programming expenses) and to extend its appeal somewhat to a crowd more accustomed to Hollywood and fantasy portrayals.  This isn't a "historical" game, after all.  On the other hand, I hate to see a lot of development time being put into "features" which are inherently silly and unrealistic.

The current poll is next to meaningless, in my opinion.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

I'd have to agree that the poll is a bit simplistic and useless.  There's an obvious "middle ground", and extremes that are made to sound like you'd have to be either 100% dedicated to realism at the expense of gameplay and development time, or else looking for a pure fantasy game with wizards and dragons.  In either of the extreme cases, I'd have to ask "So why are you playing M&B?"  I'd have used at least 5, if not 6 choices.

The current state of the game is:
- Much too realistic
- A bit to far to the realism side
- Perfectly balanced
- A bit short on realism
- Far too unrealistic
- None of the above (explain)

Personally, I'd lean toward "None of the above", because we haven't seen enough of the game (other than some clearly set-up combat footage) to form a valid opinion.  I prefer something more-or-less realistic, but clearly some liberties need to be taken for the sake of gameplay (and programming expenses) and to extend its appeal somewhat to a crowd more accustomed to Hollywood and fantasy portrayals.  This isn't a "historical" game, after all.  On the other hand, I hate to see a lot of development time being put into "features" which are inherently silly and unrealistic.

The current poll is next to meaningless, in my opinion.

Agreed.
This poll can mislead the devs.
For me the choices should be
-Absolute realism
-More realism but not crossing the line of fun(my vote here)
-It looks balanced
-Some realistic stuff should be taken out
-Far too realistic

Like I say everywhere M&B was/is/will be very successful even though it doesnt have the sources of big companies.
Because they really have a diamond formula in their hands.
Now the key thing to do is to decorating it without changing its essence.
Making trees better, more complex architectures etc.
Why would any of us object it (except the fact that they may find it needless to spend resource and time on, that is a valid arguement)

Now if we suggest stuff that will effect the combat system in a bad way or nerf/buff a troop type therefore breaking the balance of the multiplayer I would object it before anyone but why objecting putting the scabbard to the correct place I dont understand it.

 

[Honved]

Some of the unrealistic gameplay suggestions I've seen lean heavily toward the "Mortal Kombat" end of things, and are almost hilariously impractical to pull off in combat, if not totally impossible.  I DON'T want to see "Ninja" moves (leaping over battle lines, rolling between an opponent's feet to bounce upright behind them); such things are only possible (if at all) in staged situations without any encumbrance and with an actively complying "opponent", not in full armor while someone is trying to kill you.  Other things I can agree to live with if it doesn't chew up valuable development assets to include, but I personally have no use for them.

A sword sheathed across the back is a purely "cosmetic" thing which does nothing for me, but if enough people really want it, it won't break the game for me.

 

[FBohler]

Let's put it simple: TW can't cater every fan request that pops in this forum, right?
I think we might agree with this statement, so I'll go on:
The fact your personal request will make the game more realistic doesn't mean that it's more valuable than the current state of the game for everyone.
It will add value to your personal taste. That's it. Saying more realism equals better game is a huge fallacy. Realism for its own sake doesn't add anything to the game.
Not everyone is pleased by perfect vegetation, not everyone is HEMA expert, not everyone cares at all to historical accuracy. That said, allocating resources on these matters may be a huge waste.
Last time I checked, M&B was still a video game, so I think it's okay to have some flashy video-gamey features, and I think TW is doing a very good job at it.

Some people ask for Mortal Kombat features, some people ask for Assassin's Creed features, and let me tell you that their wishes are just as valuable as yours, because realism doesn't make your opinion better than anyone's.

Realism vs fun vs coolness (call it what you want) is a balance needed when making a game so grounded in reality and history like M&B. If they decide to add MK style moves, maybe it's too over the top for the target audience, but whining over a scabbard hanging on the back of the character is too much.

Tl;dr- you're doing a great job TW, no need to listen to the naysayers and nitpicking folks.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

+FBohler

Are you alright ?

Would you like me to apologise for typing here my thoughts ?
This forum is for us to make suggestions to Taleworlds as veteran players not just praising them all the day.
We do that quite often too and they deserve it to the end.

I can suggest here anything I want and as long as I dont spam anything or obviously troll noone can criticize me.
Ofc, feel free to critise my opinions/suggestions thats another thing.

I write here the things that I think the game lacks and if Taleworlds gets convinced they may or may not do it.
It is their game after all.

On a side note scabbards or trees were just examples I was just stating that game can be as realistic as it can get until it hurts the gameplay and fun.

 

[Tabitja]

Reading this thread gives me headaches. You guys fight over nothing, create problems over non-excisted (attacker imagined) thoughts.

I hope they will seal the thread. then bury it.

then dig it up and burn it.

Grind it and mix it with gasolin and light it up.

Serve the remanings to the enemy lords on King's feast.

 

[FBohler]

On a side note scabbards or trees were just examples I was just stating that game can be as realistic as it can get until it hurts the gameplay and fun.

That's just your opinion, based on your personal taste, and you're entitled to it.

Mine is: vegetation and scabbards are great, no need to change them, TW should allocate resources on more important things.

In project management there's something called "over-designing", that means focusing your resources on something that's already done, for perfection's sake.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

+FBohler

I am not entitled to it.
YOU are the one who is entitled to its opposite.

I have already said that not spending more resources and time on this is a valid arguement.
I was, from the start, against the arguement that making the game more realistic is pure bad.
Trees being better would not hurt anyone uninterested while satisfying those who care.
At this point yes, they would have to redo that stuff therefore it is illogical.

But I just gave it as an example to support my point.
Making the game more realistic isnt bad as long as it doesnt hurt the gameplay&what people like about the game.

Also, let the devs decide where to use their time and resources on, not you.I can simply suggest them to delete the whole game and redo all of it. They dont have to care about my suggestions and you can critise my suggestions but not me for suggesting.

 

[FBohler]

I'm not the one telling the devs what/how should they do. Quite the opposite.
I'm not telling their trees are bad, I'm not calling the combo system too Hollywood, I'm not nitpicking scabbard position, I'm not criticising faction architecture, I'm not asking for real geography on the overworld map.

I'm just telling TW that they are doing a great job.

Why would I do that???

Because the part of the community asking all these changes is a loud minority. Many people love what they are seeing in devblogs (me included), but they aren't as vocal as the complaining minority. I'm trying to be as vocal as the realism demanding folks, simple as that.

PS: I think you are having trouble with the meaning of the word "entitled" in that context. Hint: it isn't something bad.

 

[jamoecw]

this is a rather blanket thread rehashing old discussions from back when M&B was originally in development. take the scabbard discussion for instance. about 12 years ago there was a discussion about scabbards for great swords. historically they lacked scabbards, but in hollywood they put the scabbards on the backs of people, though this means the swords are a bit smaller and things don't quite work out in a battlefield quite so well. people were asking where the sword goes when swapping weapons as one historically would drop it, but people didn't want to drop it because they wanted to be able to switch back to it. the answer some thought was a hollywood scabbard. others hated the idea because it was unrealistic and broke their immersion. the discussion expanded to include polearms and other things that didn't normally have a scabbard and were dropped when switching weapons historically. in the end it was decided that they would simply not have a scabbard and things would magic themselves into being so that one could switch weapons and not have some sort of weird extra thing to model and have visual issues with. that solution had no noticeable affect on the quality of the game or the sales in the end. so realism won out, except in the parts that would hinder gameplay (hindrances like only being able swap back to small weapons that had a scabbard, assuming you took the extra time to put it away properly).

the only real changes i'd push for are the ones that were left on the cutting room floor due to technical reasons, anything else is just gravy (unless they mess with the original formula in a negative way).

 

[Bjorn The Broken]

I think this discussion is done

 

[Honved]

So, by not having to create an alternate unrealistic form of scabbard and the associated "draw" animations for weapons strapped across the back, the game instead unrealistically conjures the weapons from inventory and back again by magic.  In essence, development time won out over both "fun" and "realism", and we're none the worse for it.  Some times "common sense" wins out over both "perfection" and "cool".

Here's a salute to common sense, although I'm not sure why it's called "common" when it's apparently such a rare thing.

 

[FBohler]

So, by not having to create an alternate unrealistic form of scabbard and the associated "draw" animations for weapons strapped across the back, the game instead unrealistically conjures the weapons from inventory and back again by magic.  In essence, development time won out over both "fun" and "realism", and we're none the worse for it.  Some times "common sense" wins out over both "perfection" and "cool".

Here's a salute to common sense, although I'm not sure why it's called "common" when it's apparently such a rare thing.

The decision is up to TW, not us. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to mod the game or even make their own from scratch.

 

[jamoecw]

So, by not having to create an alternate unrealistic form of scabbard and the associated "draw" animations for weapons strapped across the back, the game instead unrealistically conjures the weapons from inventory and back again by magic.  In essence, development time won out over both "fun" and "realism", and we're none the worse for it.  Some times "common sense" wins out over both "perfection" and "cool".

Here's a salute to common sense, although I'm not sure why it's called "common" when it's apparently such a rare thing.

The decision is up to TW, not us. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to mod the game or even make their own from scratch.

people did in fact do this, it was quite popular with bows. the bows would be slung without a scabbard. for a brief time the weapons without scabbards were just stuck to the back, though this didn't last long and i don't know of any mods that did this past release. this is one huge benefit of a game being easy to mod as well as being super moddable.

 

[Yaga]

I'm not judging people, I'm using arguments against ideas that I find not good. I have no problem with the owners of such ideas.

If you think M&B melee combat is poor, maybe it isn't a game for you.

I think you are having trouble with the meaning of the word "entitled" in that context.

I'd have to agree that the poll is a bit simplistic and useless.  There's an obvious "middle ground", and extremes that are made to sound like you'd have to be either 100% dedicated to realism at the expense of gameplay and development time, or else looking for a pure fantasy game with wizards and dragons.  In either of the extreme cases, I'd have to ask "So why are you playing M&B?"  I'd have used at least 5, if not 6 choices.

The current state of the game is:
- Much too realistic
- A bit to far to the realism side
- Perfectly balanced
- A bit short on realism
- Far too unrealistic
- None of the above (explain)

Personally, I'd lean toward "None of the above", because we haven't seen enough of the game (other than some clearly set-up combat footage) to form a valid opinion.  I prefer something more-or-less realistic, but clearly some liberties need to be taken for the sake of gameplay (and programming expenses) and to extend its appeal somewhat to a crowd more accustomed to Hollywood and fantasy portrayals.  This isn't a "historical" game, after all.  On the other hand, I hate to see a lot of development time being put into "features" which are inherently silly and unrealistic.

The current poll is next to meaningless, in my opinion.

+1

 

[FBohler]

Could you please elaborate?
I'm really confused how could you help in a language issue if you don't even speak english.

PS: please stop making attacks ad hominem.

 

[jamoecw]

Could you please elaborate?
I'm really confused how could you help in a language issue if you don't even speak english.

PS: please stop making attacks ad hominem.

it is more of a missing the point of one's argument and thinking that their ideas are wrong because of the person's viewpoint. so it isn't exactly attacking the person, but you tend not to argue against a person's ideas either. maybe he thinks that since you aren't countering their idea that you are attacking the person, or maybe he is pointing out that you aren't countering the ideas. in this regard he is not in fact attacking you ad hominum, but pointing out that you are not actually countering any arguments about your poll, which technically would be you arguing ad hominem.

i get that you want TW to not lose heart or to get bogged down in trying to appease minorities' desires for realism, and that this is the point of the thread. i also get where the other people are coming from as well. this isn't new, if TW has the same staff as they did during the first game then none of this is new or hasn't exactly been brought up and resolved before. if it is the same staff then your thread is unnecessary, if the staff is new then these discussions helped to pull the game in a more realistic direction, without being overly complicated, and is a big reason why it did so well. other games ended up trying to copy the success by increasing realism over mount and blade, or going the same sort of art direction without the realism, both have not met with the same level of success. in the end bannerlord is really the proving grounds for the company, if they fail to capture what made the first so good then it was just a perfect storm, if they succeed then they know how to handle their dedicated fans in order to judge how to make a really good game.

 

[vicwiz007]

I think Bannerlord strikes a great balance. As far as i can tell , people seem to be dying realistically. Unarmored people are dying to one hit in the face or upper torso and overall feels much more realistic than warband.

However, i have some issues. For one, the big axe wielders who could hit through two horses at the same time and kill both people? Not realistic, and not fun. The other is that heavily armored cavalry men seem to e dying in just one hit. Now im not sure if this is because of the physics of the horse moving and causing extra movement bonus damage, but a guy that heavily armored would not die so easily.

Now i cant speak for the campaign really, but all the diplomacy options look to make it much more realistic while adding many more options to how you deal with AI in the world. I feel for TW because they do have to find a perfect balance that will appeal to people, but it seems like theyve done it right for the most part.