I really didn't want to be this disappointed

[BlackRainZ]

Yes I cheated to check it out as well. You also can't declare war or make peace, you just have to wait for other factions to start a war with you. I also can't access any of the options like creating armies etc because I don't have influence. I don't know if it is possible to get influence yet or if this is missing, too.

I don't know about influence yet either, it says you get it fighting in wars though?

 

[Noviix]

"Early access, also known as early funding, alpha-access, alpha founding, or paid-alpha, is a funding model in the video game industry by which consumers can purchase and play a game in the various pre-release development cycles, such as pre-alpha, alpha, and/or beta, while the developer is able to use those funds to continue further development on the game." - Wikipedia

The game is still very much in development. You're criticizing it for not having the features they promised to be in full release. There's a big difference.

I'm criticizing it for missing features that make a game. Early access after such an amount of time is super upsetting. It's almost like they're charging $10 less than full price for triple A games. $40 If you own Warband, $40 and you get an Early Access. early funding, alpha-access, paid-alpha/beta.

They haven't done enough to justify asking for $50 dollars right now, ARK for example was never $60 dollars until it released. Which was met with severe backlash because the game had already been out for years in early access at a far reduced price point. Warband took 8 years, came out the gate with a high price point, and now they can't be criticized for missing core features because they said it'd be there when the game is finished.

So we can't criticize anything in early access because we have no idea how it's going to be when the game is finished, got it.

 

[naiski3]

1. No bad perfomance for me, my game runs smoothly, of course is hasnt been optimiced for low-mid build pc's i highly doubt they where plannign to do it before full release, first you write the code then you optimice it
2. They have added many many more castles, villages, hideouts appear more often so yeah invalid point
3. AI in Warband is NOT better, in Bannerlord infantry protects archers, they try to get to high ground if they see enemy cavalry going their way or they get into the water so the cavalry looses their speed buff. Im just thinking you haven't played that much so you made up your mind on this one...
4. Gang system, caravan system, army system, romours on where to buy/sell system, hereditary system, dead system, growing system, having babys, and much more i dont remember or i didnt found out
5. I don't even know what to say to the animations being the same as warband... have you played bannerlord even? Hair physics, cloth physics, death animations completly new (now it actually shows where you did that killing blow aka different death animations for different parts of the body)
6. That might be true for some people, i have done like 10 sieges and have had 0 errors of that sort so maybe im just lucky
7. Personality is not inconsequential, I agree with you that now it is like 20% if what it should be, but lords have different dialogs depending on their personality (again, we dont have in EA all the dialogs there would be in the full release), you have that mini game where you try to charm or convince an NPC about something and the right answers relates with their personality, so yep i think you are wrong there.
8. Again its because of the EA, devs said that castles and towns are not done so you can get that "bug" in a few towns but there are others (likely the ones that are 90% developed) that feel preety much alive to me, with NPCs doing animations like speeking with each other, a captain Guard giving orders or complaining to his guards, etc.

1. I have a GTS 2080 and an i7. Sieges drop a lot of frames at battle size 500. I never had any lag in Warband.
2. Pretty sure the number of properties in both games are about even but whether one game or the other has a few more is irrelevant. They're exactly the same as the last game -- there's nothing new about the map.
3. The AI in fields seems better, the AI in sieges is completely busted.
4. Most of that already existed in Warband. There is new stuff like the hereditary system but Bannerlord is still (currently) missing more stuff from Warband than it added.
5. Yeah the death animations look a little better that's true but it is a pretty small improvement and I couldn't care less how the game looks. This game is all about gameplay to me.
7. You always get the same dialogue options, you just get slightly better chances based on personality. As you said, it is largely inconsequential and about 20% of what it should be.
8. I know it's in EA but you asked me to compare it to Warband so what can I do other than compare what exists right now?

 

[naiski3]

I love how we have now gone to "NO KINGDOM MANAGEMENT" to some of it is there but not all. lol

Virtually all of it is gone if you can't get "influence". If someone can figure out how to get "influence" then it seems only most of it is gone.

 

[enridem]

OP here. I am happy to see that so many others agree with me and if you don't then that's also okay. I would however ask why some of you are defending the state of the game so vehemently. I am not concerned with promises of future content and I understand the concept of early access. That being said, there is no denying that the game in its current state doesn't reflect the wishes many of us had given a decade has passed since the original title. That timeframe alone sets high expectations as gaming technology has improved dramatically. I am not asking for something unreasonable. I simply think there is ample reason for many players to be disappointed. Liking the game is fine but attacking or insulting others because they don't feel the game delivers on its potential is quite frankly disappointing.

 

[Noviix]

I love how we have now gone to "NO KINGDOM MANAGEMENT" to some of it is there but not all. lol

I love how half your posts have been "don't say this until you know" and then you're just saying the "well do we know its not there?" when you don't even know if it's there or not.

If you want to poke holes in people's arguments against missing features, maybe check for yourself if they're actually there or not before you claim they're there in full, like Kingdom Management.

 

[enridem]

Ask and you shall receive.

Graphics are good but nothing crazy compared to any modern title nowadays, it's just kind of expected at this point. These graphics were the same graphics shown off years ago in this video from 2016, recorded probably earlier.

The map is literally Warband + and many modders have done similar feats, not that the map is bad, definitely it's an improvement but come on the map? It's got better graphics and other than that it runs the same way as Warband, functions the same way as Warband, it is the same as Warband.

The AI, sure it's far improved and far harder to cheese. But they are not free of critique, the AI for archers are aimbots. If you ever fight the Khuzait Horse Archers I wish you the best of luck unless you have a lot of archers of your own or a lot of fast cavalry.

Considering you didn't really name any systems I'm just going to skip this one because I don't feel like they've really added a whole lot in the vague systems category.

The new animations are good yes, you would hope that the sword swinging and thrusting and the like would look far cleaner and smoother than that of it's decade old counter-part.

The sieges are without a doubt a cool addition but lack the polish needed to really emphasize them as a prominent feature in the game. I was in a 1600 stack Empire army about to siege a Sturgian castle, we built the siege camp and all that, and then the army disbanded and left without a siege. That's not very inspiring.

The clan system is kinda just the same as Warband lol idk what you mean.

The personality systems? Oh you mean when I do the 30th blood feud quest for random named citizen so they give me gold and I can recruit more troops from them. Yes very cool, better than Warband's lack of one no doubt, but come on bruh it's not that crazy.

The new cities... Half the time they're bugged and everyone is in the same spot. Yeah I've seen the same woman walking around with a basket over her head like 500 times now. They're cool yes, better than Warband slightly yes, but they lack actual content aside from the nice visuals.



My point of view is that Early Access is simply a term. The game is made by a group of hardworking individuals who had the capacity in my opinion to create something greater in the span of time provided but they didn't. I understand that that point can have a "YET" added to it and a lot of people will start cheering that the game is in a good state and TW did it again, Warband mk 2. But looking in the future I just don't see the same success chance as I saw in Warband and that's where I'm coming from. I think far too many people are just excusing criticism and not criticizing at all simply because it's early access. I don't think the game should have 20,000 positive ratings right now, I think it's misleading as to what's actually there. It's a hype train. The same hype train of No Man's Sky.

Basically, don't shut down criticism just because it's early access and because they've made a few dev blogs regarding what will be there and what won't. Their lack of transparency on certain topics is driving people crazy. Singleplayer got way more coverage than MP even during the MP beta.

My prime example is going to be the MP class discussion thread. There were pages upon pages of well put responses as to what could have been done to improve or substitute the class system to be way more viable for what people wanted, and we barely got answers. The only thing that I can vividly recall being repeated is that it will not change and that the devs thought this was the best decision. How can I argue with that? I can't. And that's annoying to me. If you have entrusted people to come and test your game for you and the majority of people who are playing it are telling you they prefer the old way and you tell them "No this is our decision sorry" yeah people are going to be upset.

I'm not sitting on the forums writing paragraph after paragraph because I don't like the game or TW and I don't want it to succeed, I'm doing it because all I want is a good game state fit to count as a sequel to the great Warband. If you think I want anything less, I'm sorry but you're dead wrong.

This is a well-formed argument. Thank you Novix

 

[Orbit-]

I'm just disappointing at how demanding the game is on my PC
Never had trouble running any game but bannerlord is so laggy

Yeah, Im more concerned about the performance than bugs tbh. A good optimization patch fixing the memory leak and decreasing the burden on CPUs a little would be awesome. This should be first priority because sometimes the game becomes unplayable.

 

[BlackRainZ]

I love how half your posts have been "don't say this until you know" and then you're just saying the "well do we know its not there?" when you don't even know if it's there or not.

If you want to poke holes in people's arguments against missing features, maybe check for yourself if they're actually there or not before you claim they're there in full, like Kingdom Management.

Actually since you are the ones making the statements, you need to prove it. That is how an argument works. You can't just go around saying "Missing features" and then it is up to other people to prove you wrong. You especially seem to know very little about the game and should probably not be talking. Nice way to fail logic though. I am still seeing a lot of broad statements without any actual facts to back it up or mere conjectures.

 

[Noviix]

Actually since you are the ones making the statements, you need to prove it. That is how an argument works. You can't just go around saying "Missing features" and then it is up to other people to prove you wrong. You especially seem to know very little about the game and should probably not be talking. Nice way to fail logic though.

Every conclusion you've come to about Kingdom Management has been in accordance with my first statement. Kingdom Management is missing. You can FORM A KINGDOM but you cannot MANAGE THE KINGDOM.

You seem to know a lot about logic, false logic.

 

[ricewind]

1. I have a GTS 2080 and an i7. Sieges drop a lot of frames at battle size 500. I never had any lag in Warband.
2. Pretty sure the number of properties in both games are about even but whether one game or the other has a few more is irrelevant. They're exactly the same as the last game -- there's nothing new about the map.
3. The AI in fields seems better, the AI in sieges is completely busted.
4. Most of that already existed in Warband. There is new stuff like the hereditary system but Bannerlord is still (currently) missing more stuff from Warband than it added.
5. Yeah the death animations look a little better that's true but it is a pretty small improvement and I couldn't care less how the game looks. This game is all about gameplay to me.
7. You always get the same dialogue options, you just get slightly better chances based on personality. As you said, it is largely inconsequential and about 20% of what it should be.
8. I know it's in EA but you asked me to compare it to Warband so what can I do other than compare what exists right now?

Map is the same as warband :

You serious? hahahah Again you can like it more or less but you can't say its the same, Castles and Towns are now "interacting" with their placement in the Map not just placed there.

4. Ehm I might have been playing another Warband then because as far as i know the only system implemented in warband of the ones I said is maybe the sell/buy info? And implemented in another very much different way so i really dont get you.

7. Yes you always get the same dialog options because as I already said dialogs are like 10% implemented in the EA they are NOT fully implemented I mean who in the world could think that if you have right now just like 3 options when speaking to a NPC...

Again all I want to say is that you cannot just say random facts about bannerlord (most of them are not true) just because it is not the wonderfull game you have been expected, part from it because its not even fully released its EA aka Alpha stage of a proyect. Proyects have Alpha-Beta release and post production/maintenance. The game is not even in a Beta stage because being in Beta stage means you product has every feature you thought about implemented and sorry guys but this is not the case and we have been warned, is not like they sold us the idea that they were releasing the game 100% done thats just the wrong idea that some of you guys had in your mind

 

[Lord of Shadows]

1. I have a GTS 2080 and an i7. Sieges drop a lot of frames at battle size 500. I never had any lag in Warband.
2. Pretty sure the number of properties in both games are about even but whether one game or the other has a few more is irrelevant. They're exactly the same as the last game -- there's nothing new about the map.
3. The AI in fields seems better, the AI in sieges is completely busted.
4. Most of that already existed in Warband. There is new stuff like the hereditary system but Bannerlord is still (currently) missing more stuff from Warband than it added.
5. Yeah the death animations look a little better that's true but it is a pretty small improvement and I couldn't care less how the game looks. This game is all about gameplay to me.
7. You always get the same dialogue options, you just get slightly better chances based on personality. As you said, it is largely inconsequential and about 20% of what it should be.
8. I know it's in EA but you asked me to compare it to Warband so what can I do other than compare what exists right now?

1. Performance issues will surely be fixed by the time of the full release.
2. Wrong. There are a lot more towns/castles/villages in Bannerlord. Can't remember the exact numbers but I guess you can count them yourself. Or just open both games and eyeball it. Not to mention the extremely detailed campaign map.
3. Again, will be fixed eventually.
4. Most meaning 1 thing (trade rumors)? I don't remember a clan system in Warband. Or the army system. Or the whole death/aging system.
7. Again, I'm sure they are working on it.
Regardless, comparing half a game to a whole game still isn't fair.

Edit: Looks like ricewind and I had the same idea.

 

[BlackRainZ]

Every conclusion you've come to about Kingdom Management has been in accordance with my first statement. Kingdom Management is missing. You can FORM A KINGDOM but you cannot MANAGE THE KINGDOM.

You seem to know a lot about logic, false logic.

Wow, now we are going in full circle back to the you don't know how to read properly comment. I never said it was in, go back and read my original comment. However, some of it is in, just not all of it. The button for example is there, it shows who you are at war with and peace with. You can set governors for your fiefs from there, etc. It shows the clans present in your kingdom, it has the buttons for most things. Also, it is not 100% certain you can't get influence yet. My whole argument was that you are making conjectures when you don't know for sure. As we went along, we found out more things as we experimented. Well I did, all you did was complain and whine. Also, I don't see this as an issue to begin with because they already made it clear there are things which still need to be properly implemented.

 

[Gand]

- Which brings me to the cost. Why on earth would you charge so much for a title that is in all respects simply v1.5 of your original game?

Lol what? Are you complaining that we all got 20% off? Off an already $50 game? holy cow man I can't take anything you say seriously after reading that. This is the best $40 I have ever spent on an EA game, and I'm fully in the camp that the game needs a lot of work.

 

[ricewind]

Edit: Looks like ricewind and I had the same idea.

we should coordinate together to reply to the false statements people are writing here ?

 

[Noviix]

Wow, now we are going in full circle back to the you don't know how to read properly comment. I never said it was in, go back and read my original comment. However, some of it is in, just not all of it. The button for example is there, it shows who you are at war with and peace with. You can set governors for your fiefs from there, etc. It shows the clans present in your kingdom, it has the buttons for most things. Also, it is not 100% certain you can't get influence yet. My whole argument was that you are making conjectures when you don't know for sure. As we went along, we found out more things as we experimented. Well I did, all you did was complain and whine.

I complain and whine? I said Kingdom Management wasn't a thing, and it's ****ing not. In my opinion it's not. You're making the equivalent argument of feeding someone a bite of white bread and then saying "DInner is served, you ate didn't you?" Yeah please go experiment some more and tell me when you can declare war, peace, manage armies, gain influence to do literally any Kingdom action, etc. I'll wait for your scientific research and hypothesis to come back around. In the meantime I'll whine some more.

 

[Lord of Shadows]

So why exactly did you buy Early Access? What did you expect out of it?

 

[BlackRainZ]

Lol, now you are assuming what I meant and adding words to my mouth so to speak. Why am I not surprised?

 

[ricewind]

Yeah please go experiment some more and tell me when you can declare war, peace, manage armies, gain influence to do literally any Kingdom action, etc. I'll wait for your scientific research and hypothesis to come back around. In the meantime I'll whine some more.

They will add those features and probably many more, don't worry ?

 

[Noviix]

They will add those features and probably many more, don't worry ?

Yeah that's fine I get that. I just don't appreciate when people try and make petty insults against me (not you btw) and make my arguments out to be flawed when the features I'm saying aren't there, aren't there.