Silent_but_violent
Recruit
If anyone remembers around 2012 when SC2 came out (or was it 2011...) , everyone was so excited. It was 3d graphics, new units, new maps, matchmaking system, everything... yet the same good ol' gameplay!... or was it?..
SC2 brang with it a new engine, one that turned out to be complete trash. It had weird unit movement, they clumped into balls, this made micro way less important and basically turned micro from a multi-dimensional skillful skill into a one dimensional boring and dumbed down version. The units didn't space out.. they moved too "quick"... there were many subtle and also not so subtle changes to the actual game play mechanics itself, the most basic ones, that it made sc2 a crap game which no one cares about now.
Yet... broodwar is still played and people like me still play it everyday. It had excellent mechanics, unit movement, and balance.
I found this parallel in many games... smash bros Melee, world of warcraft, counter strike... it seems as though when these companies do a remake, they kind of destroy what made these games really good.
I just want to ask taleworld devs to look back and please try not to ruin mount and blade.. this game is an extreme amount of potential, which will be completely squandered if you change the mechanics in a bad way, rather than ADD ONTO them, or if you cater towards console or super casual players while harming the competitive scene... remember: A good game that casuals play is easy to pick up, but insanely hard to master.
This is what gives the game ACCESSIBILITY and LONGEVITY. This is what warband did... it was easy to pick up... you just press right click to block, left click to attack, yet it had a tremendous skill cap which gives a lot of replayability and incentive to play more, even for casuals. At the moment bannerlord feels even hard to kind of pick up, because the animations are really wild, and the strange sluggishness is hard to grasp... warband felt very reactive and very much in control, while bannerlord just feels so slippery and strange. This is another example which is similar to SC2 and broodwar... broodwar units although they are "hard to control" had a very direct way of moving, that was satisfying and intuitive. SC2 the units moved too quickly and they moved too smoothly, this took control AWAY from the player and made the game feel bad.
Same thing here.. if you limit the way the player moves too much it will cause bad gameplay.
I really like a lot of the features, especially siege mode, matchmaking (if a ladder and solo queue/teamqueue is gonna come in the future) and obviously the new graphics and stuff. It would be so sad if it all goes to waste due to bad gameplay.
SC2 brang with it a new engine, one that turned out to be complete trash. It had weird unit movement, they clumped into balls, this made micro way less important and basically turned micro from a multi-dimensional skillful skill into a one dimensional boring and dumbed down version. The units didn't space out.. they moved too "quick"... there were many subtle and also not so subtle changes to the actual game play mechanics itself, the most basic ones, that it made sc2 a crap game which no one cares about now.
Yet... broodwar is still played and people like me still play it everyday. It had excellent mechanics, unit movement, and balance.
I found this parallel in many games... smash bros Melee, world of warcraft, counter strike... it seems as though when these companies do a remake, they kind of destroy what made these games really good.
I just want to ask taleworld devs to look back and please try not to ruin mount and blade.. this game is an extreme amount of potential, which will be completely squandered if you change the mechanics in a bad way, rather than ADD ONTO them, or if you cater towards console or super casual players while harming the competitive scene... remember: A good game that casuals play is easy to pick up, but insanely hard to master.
This is what gives the game ACCESSIBILITY and LONGEVITY. This is what warband did... it was easy to pick up... you just press right click to block, left click to attack, yet it had a tremendous skill cap which gives a lot of replayability and incentive to play more, even for casuals. At the moment bannerlord feels even hard to kind of pick up, because the animations are really wild, and the strange sluggishness is hard to grasp... warband felt very reactive and very much in control, while bannerlord just feels so slippery and strange. This is another example which is similar to SC2 and broodwar... broodwar units although they are "hard to control" had a very direct way of moving, that was satisfying and intuitive. SC2 the units moved too quickly and they moved too smoothly, this took control AWAY from the player and made the game feel bad.
Same thing here.. if you limit the way the player moves too much it will cause bad gameplay.
I really like a lot of the features, especially siege mode, matchmaking (if a ladder and solo queue/teamqueue is gonna come in the future) and obviously the new graphics and stuff. It would be so sad if it all goes to waste due to bad gameplay.
