Dev Blog 05/04/18

Users who are viewing this thread

[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_34_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p> <p>Castles are perhaps one of the most iconic images that come to mind when people think of the medieval era. These large and seemingly impregnable structures dominated the landscape in which they stood and projected an image of power and authority that aimed to impress both a lord’s subjects and peers. In last week’s blog we looked at some of the tools of warfare that were used to overcome the defences of these magnificent medieval behemoths and talked about the different ways that players can approach sieges in Bannerlord. In this week’s blog we would like to discuss the thought process that goes into designing castles for the game, from the historical influences we use through to the gameplay related decisions we make, and show you how this all comes together to make a castle for the game.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/54
 
KhergitLancer80 said:
Facebook user:
Will A.I. Characters be able to hit you through other A.I. or NPC characters?
Taleworlds:
no, they won't. No attack will hit you through someone or something else.

I took these from facebook.
So we already know that we will be able to hit multiple people in bannerlord and
this respond confirms that it only goes for human player.

I dont know you guys but I have always hated different rules going for the player and equal NPC characters.
That's uprising actually, because TW repeatedly said everything would be the same for both the character and NPCs. Good news for me though, hopefully that means it won't be an issue if it's modded out.
 
Re: realism and historical accuracy in video game design.

This discussion resurfaces every time a new medieval-inspired fantasy game is announced. The two sides almost always seem to talk past each other.

There is a sense in which a hyper-realistic realistic game would be boring, because it would involve so much tedium. For example, if you want to convey the character renting a room at an inn, sitting down to eat and drink, and then changing clothes before going to bed it would not necessarily make for riveting gameplay to have the player spend several minutes to manually go through the motions. In cases such as these, unless we're talking about sim-level games, I think people would largely agree some degree of abstraction is permissible.

The other concern in favour of dismissing realism and historical accuracy seems to be that researching and creating believable and accurate representations of real objects consumes much of the developer resources that could be spent elsewhere. Again, I think it is intuitively agreeable that major mechanics need to be fluid and working so that the game has some semblance of completion before resources are spent on other things. This is of course not relevant in the case where the studio employs people specifically to deal with aesthetics or research.

However, in order for a game to be immersive, which constitutes a significant part of the experience when it comes to games as a medium, the game ought to give you the opportunity to suspend your disbelief. For example, I can accept that there are dragons in Skyrim because they're basically timelords from another dimension. However, I can't really understand how my horse is capable of traversing mountains at above 90 degree angles. This is not believable, because the game doesn't offer you a reasonable explanation. There are basic physics in the world of Skyrim, and they seem to apply to all races, and nowhere is it suggested otherwise.

Furthermore, there are certain "hinge propositions", on which our understanding of the world relies on. Things we just take for granted, like Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and everything else assumes this. Video game universes usually accept these propositions, although we might ask if we should presuppose that they do, as sometimes these presumptions can be false. For instance, Hesiod tells us that it takes ten days for an anvil to fall from heaven to Earth, and the same time for it to fall through the Earth to the underworld. We might assume that this means Earth is equidistant from heaven and the underworld, but the ancient Greeks had a very different understanding of physics and some phenomena were thought to simply be dependent on where they happen in the world. Maybe the anvil falls faster in Tennessee than it does in Greece just because Tennessee is not Greece, so we can't draw the aforementioned conclusion.

However, it doesn't seem reasonable to forego fundamental assumptions about the world when we play video games, and you don't really have to play long before understanding that barring technical/mechanical limitations, pretty much ever single game is based on a contemporary understanding of physics.

This argument of believability extends into, in this case, the concept of castles. The information we have is something along the lines of: small centers of population, but infinite amount of people. So you might ask how do they feed this many people? There's only one season in the game, but you can clearly see fields and similar being represented in the game. Is this a reasonable abstraction? Perhaps, but everything still points towards individual objects being accurate representations of the real world. What I mean is that humans look human, they eat the same food we do and exhibit similar behaviour to real humans. Why, then, is there a disconnect when it comes to the representation of castles?
I think nobody would have difficulty to accept inaccurate descriptions of castles if the game didn't take itself seriously and didn't aspire to create accurate representations of reality.

This leads us to the following point which is that in the games industry "realism" is often used as a catch-all term, similar to RPG. It's also pointed to as a scapegoat for many poor design decisions. The developers might have a specific vision for their product which is to some degree objectively disagreeable, and they might try to legitimize this vision to their customer basis through vaguely formulated expressions of realism or historical accuracy. This creates a lot of confusion in regards to what realism in games really means and is probably a source for many disagreements over whether or not games can gain something from being realistic.
 
I think you're looking too much into it.

Some people like immersion or get fascinated by cool things. They want things they can believe in. Logically designed things are smart, and some people think smart things are good things. From their perspective, How could it possibly hurt the game if something looked realistic rather than fantastic; It'd improve their game and wouldn't hurt anyone who doesn't really care for such details.

Other people really want to hunker down with the "It's a game!" stance. The pro-real people might not (and usually aren't) proposing something that'd harm or even effect the gameplay, but maybe "smart things are good things" offends them. 
Maybe they really like more fantasy designs, but the focus of posts seems to be on not-wanting realism rather than specifically wanting something unrealistic.

Most people think the bigger than neccessary castles look cool. I think they look cool. I just think they'd be better off if they looked more realistically sized, where they'd still look really cool. 

I can totally understand wanting to go into an artistic style of awesome-overdrive and rule-of-cooling everything. However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

[/i]
 
Cpt. Nemo said:
KhergitLancer80 said:
Facebook user:
Will A.I. Characters be able to hit you through other A.I. or NPC characters?
Taleworlds:
no, they won't. No attack will hit you through someone or something else.

I took these from facebook.
So we already know that we will be able to hit multiple people in bannerlord and
this respond confirms that it only goes for human player.

I dont know you guys but I have always hated different rules going for the player and equal NPC characters.
That's uprising actually, because TW repeatedly said everything would be the same for both the character and NPCs. Good news for me though, hopefully that means it won't be an issue if it's modded out.

I just wish they remove the feature as a whole.
I really dont give a damn about historical accuracy(to some extent I do of course) but physical accuracies ?
Fine for the some physical inaccuracies alright but on purpose ?
Thats really a setback in my opinion.

 
Innocent Flower said:
I think you're looking too much into it.

Some people like immersion or get fascinated by cool things. They want things they can believe in. Logically designed things are smart, and some people think smart things are good things. From their perspective, How could it possibly hurt the game if something looked realistic rather than fantastic; It'd improve their game and wouldn't hurt anyone who doesn't really care for such details.

Other people really want to hunker down with the "It's a game!" stance. The pro-real people might not (and usually aren't) proposing something that'd harm or even effect the gameplay, but maybe "smart things are good things" offends them. 
Maybe they really like more fantasy designs, but the focus of posts seems to be on not-wanting realism rather than specifically wanting something unrealistic.

Most people think the bigger than neccessary castles look cool. I think they look cool. I just think they'd be better off if they looked more realistically sized, where they'd still look really cool. 

I can totally understand wanting to go into an artistic style of awesome-overdrive and rule-of-cooling everything. However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

[/i]

I don't think it was a very deep analysis. Suspension of disbelief is a very basic concept, and it's a cornerstone for the broader RPG genre. It's easier to suspend your disbelief in Ratchet & Clank than in Kingdom Come if you have a degree in history because you know Ratchet & Clank isn't aspiring to be set in a specific universe you have priviledged information of.
 
Innocent Flower said:
Most people think the bigger than neccessary castles look cool. I think they look cool. I just think they'd be better off if they looked more realistically sized, where they'd still look really cool. 

I can totally understand wanting to go into an artistic style of awesome-overdrive and rule-of-cooling everything. However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

[/i]

I just don't accept the premise of your argument. The height of the castle walls looks about right to me.
 
Innocent Flower said:
However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

Well, I can only say that luckily you're not Armagan!

Pushing for full 100% total perfect realism in every aspect of the game (from trees to castles, from fencing to horse breeds, from geography to ballistas, and so on) simply won't add as much value to the game as simply keeping it low fantasy.

In other words: the vast majority of the community don't mind high walls, or poorly studied vegetation, or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game IS FUN TO PLAY.
 
FBohler said:
Innocent Flower said:
However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

Well, I can only say that luckily you're not Armagan!

Pushing for full 100% total perfect realism in every aspect of the game (from trees to castles, from fencing to horse breeds, from geography to ballistas, and so on) simply won't add as much value to the game as simply keeping it low fantasy.

In other words: the vast majority of the community don't mind high walls, or poorly studied vegetation, or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game IS FUN TO PLAY.

Besides, you really want your gritty unfun realistic world where people die from rat bites and infection from dirt then you can just mod it in if you really care about realisim. Meanwhile, the rest of the community is actually going to have FUN.
 
KhergitLancer80 said:
Cpt. Nemo said:
KhergitLancer80 said:
Facebook user:
Will A.I. Characters be able to hit you through other A.I. or NPC characters?
Taleworlds:
no, they won't. No attack will hit you through someone or something else.

I took these from facebook.
So we already know that we will be able to hit multiple people in bannerlord and
this respond confirms that it only goes for human player.

I dont know you guys but I have always hated different rules going for the player and equal NPC characters.
That's uprising actually, because TW repeatedly said everything would be the same for both the character and NPCs. Good news for me though, hopefully that means it won't be an issue if it's modded out.

I just wish they remove the feature as a whole.
I really dont give a damn about historical accuracy(to some extent I do of course) but physical accuracies ?
Fine for the some physical inaccuracies alright but on purpose ?
Thats really a setback in my opinion.
You and me both man.

Rainbow Dash said:
FBohler said:
Innocent Flower said:
However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

Well, I can only say that luckily you're not Armagan!

Pushing for full 100% total perfect realism in every aspect of the game (from trees to castles, from fencing to horse breeds, from geography to ballistas, and so on) simply won't add as much value to the game as simply keeping it low fantasy.

In other words: the vast majority of the community don't mind high walls, or poorly studied vegetation, or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game IS FUN TO PLAY.

Besides, you really want your gritty unfun realistic world where people die from rat bites and infection from dirt then you can just mod it in if you really care about realisim. Meanwhile, the rest of the community is actually going to have FUN.
Where did he post asking for ratbites and infections? Or were you just strawmanning?
 
why are people so scared for army management? I'd honestly love some more mechanics dealing with keeping your army safe and healthy. Building camps, maybe even deciding how they are set up. Setting up a logistic network so your siege of a castle is supplied with fresh troops and supplies. having to deal with raiders and misfortune. It's a lot more fun than killing 235634 sea raiders to get the funds to built productive enterprises.
...
why does the fantasy crowd hate fun so much?
 
FBohler said:
Innocent Flower said:
However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

Well, I can only say that luckily you're not Armagan!

Pushing for full 100% total perfect realism in every aspect of the game (from trees to castles, from fencing to horse breeds, from geography to ballistas, and so on) simply won't add as much value to the game as simply keeping it low fantasy.

You seem to ignore everything people write.

1. It is not 0/1 spectrum of realism vs fun. Noone preaches 100% realism here.
2. Historical accuracy is not realism. Neither should be forced at 100% rate in a fantasy world.

In other words: the vast majority of the community don't mind high walls, or poorly studied vegetation, or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game IS FUN TO PLAY.

At the same time, vast majority of the community would not mind lower walls, better looking vegetaion or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game STAYED FUN TO PLAY. It is just as I wrote with cutting through mail thread: you would not notice the difference.

My english is not so good, but Untitled. explained it very well in his post.

[quote author=SensorZorros]why are people so scared for army management? I'd honestly love some more mechanics dealing with keeping your army safe and healthy. Building camps, maybe even deciding how they are set up. Setting up a logistic network so your siege of a castle is supplied with fresh troops and supplies. having to deal with raiders and misfortune. It's a lot more fun than killing 235634 sea raiders to get the funds to built productive enterprises.[/quote]

Viking Conquest foraged into this territorty and it was great :smile:
 
Rainbow Dash said:
Besides, you really want your gritty unfun realistic world where people die from rat bites and infection from dirt then you can just mod it in if you really care about realisim. Meanwhile, the rest of the community is actually going to have FUN.

I've never pushed for this. Stop making stuff up to suit your silly argument.
 
This is such a fuss about nothing. There is no lack of realism depicted in this blog. The castle looks good for gameplay, and it is also of a realistic scale.

The castle in the screenshot and the gif from the Devblog is big. The castles that actually existed in the equivalent period of real history that the game draws inspiration from were equally big. What's the problem?
 
dr4gunov said:
FBohler said:
Innocent Flower said:
However, I don't think that's right for bannerlord.

Well, I can only say that luckily you're not Armagan!

Pushing for full 100% total perfect realism in every aspect of the game (from trees to castles, from fencing to horse breeds, from geography to ballistas, and so on) simply won't add as much value to the game as simply keeping it low fantasy.

You seem to ignore everything people write.

1. It is not 0/1 spectrum of realism vs fun. Noone preaches 100% realism here.
2. Historical accuracy is not realism. Neither should be forced at 100% rate in a fantasy world.

In other words: the vast majority of the community don't mind high walls, or poorly studied vegetation, or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game IS FUN TO PLAY.

At the same time, vast majority of the community would not mind lower walls, better looking vegetaion or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game STAYED FUN TO PLAY. It is just as I wrote with cutting through mail thread: you would not notice the difference.

My english is not so good, but Untitled. explained it very well in his post.

+1
 
+dr4gunov

I get your point about
At the same time, vast majority of the community would not mind lower walls, better looking vegetaion or flashy swordsmanship, as long as the game STAYED FUN TO PLAY. It is just as I wrote with cutting through mail thread: you would not notice the difference.

but dont forget, such a change would lengthen the developement time for years since TW would have to do every scene again
and I am 100% positive noone including you would want that.

You may save it for M&B 3 though  :lol:

 
Rabies said:
This is such a fuss about nothing. There is no lack of realism depicted in this blog. The castle looks good for gameplay, and it is also of a realistic scale.
Maybe the wall depicted (the one with the horse) is a construction of an older age. But just because someone can build walls that large, doesn't make it realistic

From a gameplay standpoint, it means a lot of movement between fights, more time on the ladder, and it'll give the gameplay a slower pace with more rests. Personally I didn't like the long movements you'd make in taverns to reach the people you wanted to (heaven forbid they spawned upstairs), but this is about castles right now.

The castle in the screenshot and the gif from the Devblog is big. The castles that actually existed in the equivalent period of real history that the game draws inspiration from were equally big. What's the problem?

The game's probably going to have all castles be really bloody big. Oversized, extensive castles were pretty rare.
 
Innocent Flower said:
Rabies said:
This is such a fuss about nothing. There is no lack of realism depicted in this blog. The castle looks good for gameplay, and it is also of a realistic scale.
Maybe the wall depicted (the one with the horse) is a construction of an older age. But just because someone can build walls that large, doesn't make it realistic
Yes, it does. That's exactly what it does make it. If it's possible, it's realistic. It might or might not be historically accurate, but that doesn't matter because the game never purports to accurately recreate real historical places, civilizations or buildings. The real ones are just an inspiration for the fictional world of Calradia, to be drawn on faithfully or to have liberties taken with at the discretion of Taleworlds to fit the world and the gameplay experience they want to build.

Innocent Flower said:
From a gameplay standpoint, it means a lot of movement between fights, more time on the ladder, and it'll give the gameplay a slower pace with more rests. Personally I didn't like the long movements you'd make in taverns to reach the people you wanted to (heaven forbid they spawned upstairs), but this is about castles right now.

The game's probably going to have all castles be really bloody big. Oversized, extensive castles were pretty rare.

The one from the screenshot (with the horse) is a Level 3 castle - it's the biggest one you're going to get in the game. Not all of them are going to be like that. I think it's fine on that basis. It depends how much they cost to build and how long it takes - but they can balance that, and I'd guess that they're not likely to be common until the end-game. And that's fine, too, I think.

If you have the money and resources to build the top level of fortification possible, then you want it to be big and impressive and difficult to assault. You want to deter attacks. You don't want an attacker to think, "That castle is going to be difficult to assault" you want them to think "That castle is impossible to assault successfully so let's not even try." That way you force the attacker into a protracted siege which costs him time, troops and money, and buys the defenders more time to relieve the castle with another army.

I think it's good that the game has the possibility to build very big castles at the top end of the development path (and what we've seen in the blog is not even beyond the scale of what was actually built in the real historical era) - that doesn't mean they're going to be the norm all over the place right from the start, though.
 
Rabies said:
If it's possible, it's realistic.

I think it would be more proper to format it as: "if it's plausible, it's realistic". It's possible to board a spaceship and travel to the moon, but it wouldn't be plausible to implement that into the world of Calradia.
If grand castles were rare during the periods the game draws inspiration from, there's no reason to allege that the same reasons for generally building smaller castles would not exist within the game.

At least the original M&B aspired to be a game without certain "fantasy-inspired" elements when it came to things such as trade goods, equipment, buildings etc. The game did not draw inspiration from only one point in history though, but rather mixed things in from a width of a few centuries.

I think we've established that immersion is quite important in games of the genre. If the game cannot convince you to suspend your disbelief, is that game not doing a poor job? Would there be a drawback to scaling back the forts that compensates for this loss of immersion?
 
Untitled. said:
Rabies said:
If it's possible, it's realistic.

I think it would be more proper to format it as: "if it's plausible, it's realistic". It's possible to board a spaceship and travel to the moon, but it wouldn't be plausible to implement that into the world of Calradia.
If grand castles were rare during the periods the game draws inspiration from, there's no reason to allege that the same reasons for generally building smaller castles would not exist within the game.

At least the original M&B aspired to be a game without certain "fantasy-inspired" elements when it came to things such as trade goods, equipment, buildings etc. The game did not draw inspiration from only one point in history though, but rather mixed things in from a width of a few centuries.

I think we've established that immersion is quite important in games of the genre. If the game cannot convince you to suspend your disbelief, is that game not doing a poor job? Would there be a drawback to scaling back the forts that compensates for this loss of immersion?

You're speaking about this in a very abstract, hypothetical way, when in fact the issue of concern is very concrete.

In this Devblog we have been shown one single example of a design for a castle. There is a .gif which shows the development stages of that castle across three levels; there is also a screenshot of what that same castle looks like at it's highest and largest level of development, from an in-game perspective. The scale of that castle does NOT exceed the scale of the largest castles of the real historical era from which the game draws inspiration.

It is a seemingly authentic design, based on the general size and scale of real historical castles. If they were to scale back the size and height of the largest castles in the top tier of the building tree in Bannerlord, then they would be making Bannerlord's castles smaller than their real-world equivalents, thus making it less historically authentic.
 
I think it's necessary to speak of this in broad terms because we have so little information of what the final product will be like. All of my posts should be read with a "in principle" caveat in mind as we can't really assume much from the little information we have been shown.

But I think the worry persists even if there is tiered system for castles as long as castles can be upgraded along these trees. If each village can have a castle, the player can reach a stage where every settlement has a castle of enormous proportions. We have no idea if the sizes of tier 3 castles are similar across the board, and we also don't know what the in-game timeframe for the upgrading of castles is. There's no word on razing of castles or other mechanics to naturally limit castle growth that I'm aware of, so it seems prudent not to assume them.
 
Back
Top Bottom