[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_56_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>With Gamescom behind us and everyone back in work after taking some much needed time off to recover, we have had the chance to sit down and work our way through the major talking points to come out of this year’s expo. For some of the topics, we plan to expand upon them and explain them in greater detail at a later date in their own dedicated blogs, but for now, we want to clarify some of the things that were said in the interviews that took place during the event.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/76
Dev Blog 06/09/18
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
ArnulfFloyd
Knight at Arms
Oh yeah some not love to be discreet. I watch Youtube but I found LPs useless because I want experience myself than I see how others play games in a stupid and modern way.
I am happy with castles because I am bad at micromanagement(I love strategy games)
I am happy with castles because I am bad at micromanagement(I love strategy games)
On that topic:monoolho 说:
Callum_TaleWorlds 说:
Same here. Never got the appeal of that. I understand how it could be fun for some, it just isn't for me. I want to play the game myself. Though I admit that some streamers make absolutely funny videos, RTGame comes to mind. I too love me some strategy games, but when there's too much micromanaging... I just can't manage it.Arnulf Floyd 说:
Funny enough, I remember that. But criticising taleworlds' game because of that... Very weak, as the user said.The Meddling Monk 说:
[quote author=monolhoo] It's the spirit of the new age, the public zeitgeist of streamers and what-nots. Everyone wants to play online, because they need to be connected to the internet at all times, else they feel they are away from the web world. It's a multi-layered thing that plagued the gaming world, where games are no longer things you play and experience for and by yourself, it's a shared experience with "friends", while streaming it on twitch.tv or youtube, and you get views. You also allegedly earn cool interwebs points for playing a new game while talking to other people... It's the modern way of just showing people you do one thing, without actually doing it (like watching a movie while you browse facebook: you're not actually watching/experiencing the movie, just telling people you are). Nothing against people who do it, I'm just stating that this is the current state of affairs, and people want the tools to do it (I personally don't like it and don't do it, but I honestly do not mind that people do it; their choice, their time, their games).[/quote]
What in the heck is all of this? Co-op games have existed for decades and people have always enjoyed playing games with each other. A desire for coop is certainly not some "twitch viewership" thing or a need to feel "connected to the web world" with a lust for "cool interweb points" and despite your saying you're not against it, this entire paragraph comes off as elitist and dismissive to those who want to co-op, as if they're enjoying video games incorrectly. Furthermore, you can just do all of that now, streaming a SP game of Warband, which makes this viewpoint even more confusing.
I mean, I clearly explained the reason people desire co-op already, and you respond with this condescension? C'mon, man.
What in the heck is all of this? Co-op games have existed for decades and people have always enjoyed playing games with each other. A desire for coop is certainly not some "twitch viewership" thing or a need to feel "connected to the web world" with a lust for "cool interweb points" and despite your saying you're not against it, this entire paragraph comes off as elitist and dismissive to those who want to co-op, as if they're enjoying video games incorrectly. Furthermore, you can just do all of that now, streaming a SP game of Warband, which makes this viewpoint even more confusing.
I mean, I clearly explained the reason people desire co-op already, and you respond with this condescension? C'mon, man.
I meant the constant barrage of "coop when" since 2015 (for bannerlord). I am not criticising the feature of coop itself, but the continuous requests for this feature in any and all games as a whole, which was particularly heavy back in 2016 for Bannerlord. It was pretty much like you announce a cellphone chess game, and people request coop features. And I reinforce it: it's not exclusive to Bannerlord, all modern games suffer from it, that's why we ended up with Assassin's Creed France, and that is one of the reasons why it flopped. It is a condescending critique of the online culture, not of coop mode. But I will fix that.
well I know that it's probably too late for that to discuss but i think that ideally, there should be just one type of settlement that is
growing from little defenseless village to bigger somewhat protected one (maybe with a wooden palisade) then castle that grows to
become town and city. The player could choose to sack or occupy ether castle/town or village or even raze them. I also think that
having gathered the necessary stuff one could build a settlement from scratch in whatever location he chooses. this is real
sandbox: being able to change the map of Carlandia.
I hope the game is almost ready for beta testing by now though.
growing from little defenseless village to bigger somewhat protected one (maybe with a wooden palisade) then castle that grows to
become town and city. The player could choose to sack or occupy ether castle/town or village or even raze them. I also think that
having gathered the necessary stuff one could build a settlement from scratch in whatever location he chooses. this is real
sandbox: being able to change the map of Carlandia.
I hope the game is almost ready for beta testing by now though.
victor.dortaf
Recruit
My big concern is the following :::
We have been waiting for the premiere of mount and blade 2 for at least 6 years. However, if they have been developing the game for 6 years, they still have not given us a release date of at least one DEMO. I am very concerned because games like the so-called Kingdom Come Deliverence have already come out, which in truth is one of the best mediaval combat games although if they could implement the open world as WARBAND would be the best game of all time. In summary, if they announced the game since 2012 and we are already in 2018 by when we will have a real date. Promising games continue to come out as already mentioned and if we are still waiting for maybe when the premiere of Mount And Blade 2 is not so exquisite or so expected, perhaps another take its place. And it is hard after so many years of waiting for this to happen, when we sit down to watch the YouTube trailers we can notice that it has improved a lot compared to its predecessor. WARBAND but it is not so much the difference as to take almost 7 years of waiting and even counting !!! ... Please community fans we hope for but we think that they have delayed too much and apparently are removing functionalities that made WARBAND the BEST GAME.... I hope we do not wait long, other games are taking ideas from WARBAND and are still premieres ...
We have been waiting for the premiere of mount and blade 2 for at least 6 years. However, if they have been developing the game for 6 years, they still have not given us a release date of at least one DEMO. I am very concerned because games like the so-called Kingdom Come Deliverence have already come out, which in truth is one of the best mediaval combat games although if they could implement the open world as WARBAND would be the best game of all time. In summary, if they announced the game since 2012 and we are already in 2018 by when we will have a real date. Promising games continue to come out as already mentioned and if we are still waiting for maybe when the premiere of Mount And Blade 2 is not so exquisite or so expected, perhaps another take its place. And it is hard after so many years of waiting for this to happen, when we sit down to watch the YouTube trailers we can notice that it has improved a lot compared to its predecessor. WARBAND but it is not so much the difference as to take almost 7 years of waiting and even counting !!! ... Please community fans we hope for but we think that they have delayed too much and apparently are removing functionalities that made WARBAND the BEST GAME.... I hope we do not wait long, other games are taking ideas from WARBAND and are still premieres ...
victor.dortaf 说:
Demos? Who does demos anymore?
The only major thing from Warband they have removed from Bannerlord is the independent ownership of villages, the game still looks and seems very much like Mount and Blade. Most of the stuff they have removed were new additions to the franchise, they seemed to have problems be it technical or related to gameplay so they were removed.victor.dortaf 说:
This is not going to be Fallout 3 all over again (i.e radically different from previous entries in the franchise).
victor.dortaf 说:
Yes, other games are taking ideas from warband and dying like flies. It is almost embarassing to be honest. Just like 400+ survival-genre games that keep popping out every day.
ArnulfFloyd
Knight at Arms
Taleworlds have removed new additions because they want to keep spirit of series also updating graphics and models as game looks better visually.
DtheHun
Sergeant Knight
I see that you have reconsidered this statement, but it was a frightening first impression I just can't walk past. Before me and my friends have computers, it was a really healthy thing to play with each other. Maybe with swords made of sticks against imaginary enemies we have seen on TV or heard in tales. In that time if someone just sticked to his desk and played alone, parents were worried. This kind of co-op needed FRIENDS, not "friends". And I see the problem in the dilution of the concept of friendship, not in the claim to play side-by-side with people you like to spend your time if you have any.monoolho 说:
ArnulfFloyd
Knight at Arms
I considers as share experience with others is old as gaming, but this thing become powerfull once with Youtube, also majority of players are more casual, some because RL and others which not want to become pro players. But I am a old fashionable player, I share only screenshoots in rest I experience myself
Sorry for bordering on the off-topic here but: Hence my quoted "friends". It is not that playing with friends is something bad, but the idea that no one bothers with a game if it doesn't have multiplayer capabilities. It's this streamer's paradise where everyone is playing games online, constantly talking to a camera, just to have a "Let's Play" of X game. Again, the coop itself is not the problem, the barrage of people requesting coop because they think that adding the coop tag will make the game better, never thinking on the consequences implied for the developers, and how it might negatively affect gameplay... That is the problem. There are dozens of co-op threads (essentially any form of multiplayer campaign) that delve deeply into the problems and possibilities of doing that, some of them have been up for a couple of years. It is not something to be considered lightly, and as I implied, many people consider it lightly because they just think it'll be better, it'll be cool for their streams or whatever. And I will not go into the dilution of the concept of friends, nor on the concepts of "always on culture", since this is not the place, but that's why I said it's a multi-layered problem, it's not just the streamers, or social media, or whatever, it's everything at once, and that generates a real problem.DtheHun 说:
Maybe late, but here it goes - Question for Burak Dermanlı:
- How "future-proof" is the current engine? Is it possible to implement new stuff into it? Basically: what are its limitations?
- And what are some of the coolest things you can do in it now, that you couldn't before?
Zalera
Recruit
I on the other side would be happy with:
1)Revamp of the arena and the tournaments the brawls should be with fists and all the 40 guys at the same time, the tournaments with categories(sword fights, jousting, archery, etc...), victory odds for betting....
2)To be able to join even temporarily any of the major factions as a mercenary mostly to gather some money and don't get pissed at losing troops to archer bandits
3)I don't know if it was an expansion or mod the bandit groups had one called bandit king that gathers other bandit groups and i think the bandit groups should go from 4 to 30 and they have a chance of killing each other or fuse
1)Revamp of the arena and the tournaments the brawls should be with fists and all the 40 guys at the same time, the tournaments with categories(sword fights, jousting, archery, etc...), victory odds for betting....
2)To be able to join even temporarily any of the major factions as a mercenary mostly to gather some money and don't get pissed at losing troops to archer bandits
3)I don't know if it was an expansion or mod the bandit groups had one called bandit king that gathers other bandit groups and i think the bandit groups should go from 4 to 30 and they have a chance of killing each other or fuse
+1monoolho 说:
No engine has "limitations" in that way. It's just a bunch of code after all, and the developers can theoretically implement anything they want into it. Lots of developers will just update old engines over time as new graphical techniques are invented.
il Condottieri
Sergeant at Arms
I´ve said this many times, and it seems now that it wont be implemented, but...
PROPOSAL:
You should be able to have at leat one extra slot for weapons, maybe unlocked after you get certain perk, certain encumbrance level or maybe (if you are in a horse) after you are able to buy horse armor.
It is ridicoulus not be able to fullfill certain weapons combinations because four-slots limitation.
Imagine you are a horse archer. You are on a horse and you either have small range melee weapon or long range, but you cant have both because you have already spent two slots on bow and arrows. The solution is going out there without a shield, which is even more ridiculous.
Imagine you are a footarcher in a big army. Your main objetive is to keep yourself alive and shooting, most probably behind your infantry. It will be more likely that you should have not one but slots dedicated to ammunition (bolts or arrows). Well, that leaves you without protection (maybe no shield) or without any melee weapon, not even a dagger or knife.
It is clear that usually you dont need a dagger or knife in M&B because game mechanics dont reproduce well close fighting, which is for me the greatest weakness of this game. But after all, to give a closer feel to real battle gear, you should be able to carry a small backup close range weapon. Even the lower soldier of an army will have a knife in his belt. Well, if you are a fighting peasant in M&B you cant... one slot for sickle or chopping axe, one slot for a bag of throwing stones, one for a makeshift shield of some sort and one for a crude staff. That leaves you with no place for your eating-close range combat knife.
PROPOSAL:
You should be able to have at leat one extra slot for weapons, maybe unlocked after you get certain perk, certain encumbrance level or maybe (if you are in a horse) after you are able to buy horse armor.
It is ridicoulus not be able to fullfill certain weapons combinations because four-slots limitation.
Imagine you are a horse archer. You are on a horse and you either have small range melee weapon or long range, but you cant have both because you have already spent two slots on bow and arrows. The solution is going out there without a shield, which is even more ridiculous.
Imagine you are a footarcher in a big army. Your main objetive is to keep yourself alive and shooting, most probably behind your infantry. It will be more likely that you should have not one but slots dedicated to ammunition (bolts or arrows). Well, that leaves you without protection (maybe no shield) or without any melee weapon, not even a dagger or knife.
It is clear that usually you dont need a dagger or knife in M&B because game mechanics dont reproduce well close fighting, which is for me the greatest weakness of this game. But after all, to give a closer feel to real battle gear, you should be able to carry a small backup close range weapon. Even the lower soldier of an army will have a knife in his belt. Well, if you are a fighting peasant in M&B you cant... one slot for sickle or chopping axe, one slot for a bag of throwing stones, one for a makeshift shield of some sort and one for a crude staff. That leaves you with no place for your eating-close range combat knife.
Revverie
Can someone make a list of all this people who say they won't play or that they've lost faith and that crap, to later mock them when they absolutely love this game? Also I've had some nice juice (yes now I add spam in my normal comments, can that get me muted?)xdj1nn 说:
