I honestly understand his frustrations that people are accepting and willing to defend a mediocre game and worse sequel.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Disappointed
- Thread starter Mamaduke
- Start date
-
- Tags
- disappointed
Users who are viewing this thread
I honestly understand his frustrations that people are accepting and willing to defend a mediocre game and worse sequel.
VanHoven
Veteran
the game in its current state is gameplay and mechanic wise certainly less fleshed out than mount and blade. i think noone would argue against that. what people like me dont understand is why people act like this will be the final version of the game and that tw is somehow betraying their fans with putting out an early access version of their game. it seems to me that most complainers never actually participated in an early access game and dont really understand what it means for bannerlord to be in early access.
And yes, I know about games that exploited their customers with meaningless updates over the years while promising fleshed out features they never were going to implement. but thats the exception, not the norm. and most importantly, no one is able to tell if this will be the case with bannerlord. all we have is the history of taleworld, its not their first game and they supported mount and blade for a long time.
I mean, it's fine if you have to vent bc you expected something better at this point. i get it. i would have loved to player bannerlord right now in a fully developed state, especially with so much free time on our hands right now. But being frustrated at tw or people for telling you that the state of the game is in is indeed normal for an early access game and doesnt mean the game will continue to be this shallow is just not warranted.
VanHoven
Veteran
i agree that the price for the game in its current state is way too high.
I totally agree with you on the point that TW isn't, in fact, betraying anyone, they have been upfront all the way with developer blogs, they openly raised issues that they currently had problems with. They are now at a unique position, where they can get actual real-time feedback from players, to help them iron out issues with the engine in general, and also playtest the features currently implemented. Players play the game the way they like, which helps them balance the game. One of the current problems in the game is prosperity for settlements, they couldn't have had so much data from players to help them fine-tune the systems if they didn't go to EA-release. Getting all this feedback from players is going to create a better game at release than if they don't include us. And this is IMO the best way to make a game that all players are going to have that feeling, that their money is well spent. (Sorry for the long comment on your post)
+1
Do u realise that modders can "fix that things" because devs put a lot of resources on doing the game moddable??
And it's not about the opinion, it's about the way you tell it. I am sure no one of you would like to see how ppl despise a proyect you have been working for years without any education
Revverie
Well with the coronavirus outbreak I definitely understand the lack of people working. These are though times for any businesses
To be fair, we did have a series of threads of this nature where other OPs with hours old accounts were obviously trolling (e.g. there was a guy that kept insisting that TW had abandoned their game because we didn't get a patch last week). So I would not have worded it the same way but I can see where @R4MPZY is coming from.
I 100% agree on the need for a roadmap though. And I don't understand why we can't have at least an official thread with indications of what is in the works. That by itself is making me start to lose trust in the development process, mostly because it makes me wonder if this is going to go about as well as the pre EA development went.
Some parts of the game are in worse state right now than they were at release. Not many, but some. Simulated battles against looters for example.
Perks still don't work (Yes, i know they are getting a complete overhaul)
But a month of non-working perks still feels pretty horrible ingame.
The rate of small patches and hotfixes are incredible for an EA game.
But this game needs a lot of thicc patches and at the current rate i fear it will take a long long time.
They could indeed hire more people, at least a couple of playtesters.
The first couple of major updates will be very telling, but i fear for the game.
At least there still will be good mods in a couple of years.
Perks still don't work (Yes, i know they are getting a complete overhaul)
But a month of non-working perks still feels pretty horrible ingame.
The rate of small patches and hotfixes are incredible for an EA game.
But this game needs a lot of thicc patches and at the current rate i fear it will take a long long time.
They could indeed hire more people, at least a couple of playtesters.
The first couple of major updates will be very telling, but i fear for the game.
At least there still will be good mods in a couple of years.
You make good points, however, just to be fair #4 is not as simple...
Even if they use the money to hire more engineers (not devs... devs are "just-out-of-college-I-can-write-hello-world"), it would take probably 1-2 weeks of interview to find the right candidate, and even say they did hiring in a week 1-2 engineers, it will take those engineers not less than a month to get up to speed with their:
1. Development workflow
2. Prob ticketing system, review process, continuous integration and deployment proccess etc,
3. Their tools, IDEs, Inhouse tools
4. The actual code base, and the architecture model
among a few things that come to mind. Now depending on the seniority of engineers hired (their experience) that time could be as little as a month, or up to 3 months.
All other points are very very valid however on #6, maybe that is why they haven't release another overnight patch in a while? just maybe.
And some "devs as defined above" would say... a month? I can read their code in a day and produce a bug fix... no... not really, you can read a book in a day, but can you remember all the important details? how the characters progress in the book? If you can then great, you are on the spectrum like myself... however, 99.9% of people are not autistic
merced256x
Recruit
Generally, I am disappointed with Bannerlord as well. However, i know i'm going to get my money's worth out of the game after the mods come in and fix everything. Obviously the vast majority of the 7+ years of development time were put in to the engine and not in to gameplay features or character development.
I'm baffled by the fact that no one could really play WB in the later years without some version of Diplomacy installed, and yet Bannerlord releases to EA without any of those features. I've given up on single player, even with the DiplomacyFixes mod, theres too much else wrong with the game. Clans were an interesting idea, but we see how poorly implemented they were with the voting system and the 3 candidate cap.
Honestly, i did just want a reskinned warband with a robust implementation of diplomacy built in. Hopefully some talented modders get us there soon.
I'm baffled by the fact that no one could really play WB in the later years without some version of Diplomacy installed, and yet Bannerlord releases to EA without any of those features. I've given up on single player, even with the DiplomacyFixes mod, theres too much else wrong with the game. Clans were an interesting idea, but we see how poorly implemented they were with the voting system and the 3 candidate cap.
Honestly, i did just want a reskinned warband with a robust implementation of diplomacy built in. Hopefully some talented modders get us there soon.
There are a lot of things that you aren't considering.
1) They had to pay their staff for 10 years to develop this game, without any source of income, so most of the money they earned through EA probably went to re-stock their cash reserves and I wouldn't be surprised if much of it didn't go into paying off loans they took out to keep things running over those 10 years without any real source of income.
2) A lot of those things that you claim the devs broke are only broken from your limited perspective of things. For example, we all griped about the nerfs to caravans but it is pretty obvious that it is too easy to make money in this game. Also in another thread someone was complaining about how looters can now kill your troops instead of just wounding them in autocalc battles, however, when you consider that the troop quality of a players army is 10 times better than the troop quality of a NPC army, there needs to be some mechanics introduced to make it harder for Players to field Elite armies or else the game becomes too easy.
3) Modders fixing things. Well first of all I will point you back to what I said in 2 above. Modders fixing things is just a perspective. A lot of those fixes, actually break what the devs are trying to accomplish with Bannerlord. Also, the game is meant to be modded so of course there are going to be things we perceive as improvements and many are beyond the scope of what the devs have as intentions for their vision of the final version of the game.
My point here is that just because it feels like the devs are moving in the wrong direction, it doesn't mean they actually are. We as players tend to have a very limited view of things and rarely look at the big picture, devs on the other hand tend to work toward the big picture and their vision isn't likely going to be the same as ours.
Also being real as you mention, means trying to look at things from the standpoint of a developer who has had very little income for the last 10 years that this game has been in development, yet has still had to pay their developers, buy and maintain equipment, pay rent and keep the lights on. Sorry, the answer isn't to hire a bunch of new people, most of who you will have to lay off rather quickly. It also isn't to spend all your income when it could be another 10 years before the next product of your comes out. The money they made in EA has to last until the next product.
After much deliberation I agree with the general disappointment. While keeping in mind that it is an EA, still I expected more, not a half-assed an unfinished port from warband into a new engine. And my expectations were fed by the neverending dev blogs.
I expected life, city life,catching thieves and chopping their hands off, real working combat ending affecting tactics, injure an npc and watch him crawl away while I get my two handed maul out combat gore and horror and maybe an occasional task an NPC would give me. When a 500vs500 trained troops battle doesn't last nearly as long as I do in bed (a solid 1 minute or so), and the cities are not what we have been shown in the blog, shouldn't I feel ... misguided? Or have I been spoiled by other games since the release of Warband?
I am considering myself a fanboy of the title, but I am missing hope and clarity from the devs. I simply see no way the kingdom management would become anything remotely close depth wise to EUIV or Crusader Kings, I see no way city life would be anything close to KCD. While I understand the game was never supposed to be any of those titles, it makes me realize that something that was once "a golden title of astonishing 700 MB" with new revolutionary content never seen anywhere, is now sadly miles behind.
I expected life, city life,
I am considering myself a fanboy of the title, but I am missing hope and clarity from the devs. I simply see no way the kingdom management would become anything remotely close depth wise to EUIV or Crusader Kings, I see no way city life would be anything close to KCD. While I understand the game was never supposed to be any of those titles, it makes me realize that something that was once "a golden title of astonishing 700 MB" with new revolutionary content never seen anywhere, is now sadly miles behind.
Similar threads
