• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

I sure hope Gamescon 2019 is an improvement...

Users who are viewing this thread

Shaxx

Squire
John C said:
Shaxx said:
... it is time to consider whether TaleWorlds will even qualify as a game developer anymore if it hasn't released a single game (that was not franchised out) inside of a decade come the end of the year.

They clearly do qualify as a developer, as they have developed a game. Not releasing anything would only be problematic if they were primarily considered a publisher.
Name a released example in the last nine years, the keyword here is 'anymore'.
 

John the Roleplayer

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Shaxx said:
John C said:
Shaxx said:
... it is time to consider whether TaleWorlds will even qualify as a game developer anymore if it hasn't released a single game (that was not franchised out) inside of a decade come the end of the year.

They clearly do qualify as a developer, as they have developed a game. Not releasing anything would only be problematic if they were primarily considered a publisher.
Name a released example in the last nine years, the keyword here is 'anymore'.

I wasn't being entirely serious. But my point was that they are a developer, so they develop. The name itself does not linguistically imply the necessity to release anything. They haven't released a game, but they are developing one, which is enough to satisfy the criteria for being a developer. As I said, a poor attempt at humour.
 
Shaxx said:
Cyberpunk 2077 will be out prior to Bannerlord as Bannerlord is far from feature complete by TW's own recent admission. CDPR's previous project the Witcher 3 has already been out for some time and it started development a year after Bannerlord's began. CDPR has a team size advantage, but not by that much, especially back in 2011 when CDPR was a great deal smaller than they are now.

On top of that the sheer scope of the Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 are greater (and subsequently should take longer to make) than titles in the Mount and Blade franchise, which leaves the only conclusion that Bannerlord is undeniably in development hell as it nears it's 10th year in development.

The Witcher 3 cost over $80 million to develop and Cyberpunk will cost in the hundreds of millions.
 

Noudelle

Grandmaster Knight
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
MountAndMemeButterlord said:
Is it just me or were archers too OP in the skirmish game play we got to see?
Yeah I'd rather they be just OP instead of too OP.

But seriously I also think they were too strong from what little we've seen. Although it may be due to the smaller than average shields that the Aserai team had. And the fact that shields no longer have an invisible hitbox in multiplayer now.
 
Noudelle said:
MountAndMemeButterlord said:
Is it just me or were archers too OP in the skirmish game play we got to see?
Yeah I'd rather they be just OP instead of too OP.

But seriously I also think they were too strong from what little we've seen. Although it may be due to the smaller than average shields that the Aserai team had. And the fact that shields no longer have an invisible hitbox in multiplayer now.

Good point, I don't remember them being as powerful in the captain mode footage maybe it was because of those kite shields and heavy armor the Empire had.
 

Frostic

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Noudelle said:
MountAndMemeButterlord said:
Is it just me or were archers too OP in the skirmish game play we got to see?
Yeah I'd rather they be just OP instead of too OP.

But seriously I also think they were too strong from what little we've seen. Although it may be due to the smaller than average shields that the Aserai team had. And the fact that shields no longer have an invisible hitbox in multiplayer now.

I see your point but I thought that every faction has it's strengts and weaknesses, I think the archer we're op because Batannia has the best archers.
 

Shaxx

Squire
上原亜衣 said:
Shaxx said:
Cyberpunk 2077 will be out prior to Bannerlord as Bannerlord is far from feature complete by TW's own recent admission. CDPR's previous project the Witcher 3 has already been out for some time and it started development a year after Bannerlord's began. CDPR has a team size advantage, but not by that much, especially back in 2011 when CDPR was a great deal smaller than they are now.

On top of that the sheer scope of the Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 are greater (and subsequently should take longer to make) than titles in the Mount and Blade franchise, which leaves the only conclusion that Bannerlord is undeniably in development hell as it nears it's 10th year in development.

The Witcher 3 cost over $80 million to develop and Cyberpunk will cost in the hundreds of millions.
Exactly.

CD Projekt Red has only ballooned relatively recently, in 2011/2010 (around when Witcher 2 was released) they were significantly similar in size. In 2015 that all changed with the Witcher 3, which they could have aimed to make twice as big, twice as long or kept redesigning the game's pine cones for the 87th time ad-infinitum but instead chose not to in order to meet a reasonable release window. They made a ton of denars and hired a metric ton of new employees to make their next game, Cyberpunk 2077 which is set to release early next year despite being a significantly larger project than than the Witcher 3 or even Bannerlord for that matter and all of it is thanks to actually releasing games for people to buy.
 

geala

Sergeant at Arms
I like what the original poster wrote about combat realism, I could concur with a lot. The problem is that realism in a game is difficult to achieve, firstly because of resource restrictions, secondly because of game fun (troop tress for example, which are really nonsense, but fun), thirdly because of multiplayer. For me multiplayer is the direct contradiction to "reality fun" (or fun at all), as it needs balance, and reality is not balanced.

Usually gameplay reasons win. For example in M+B Warband I preferred to play 1268 as my mod. I was really annoyed how vulnerable you still were in top tier armor and greatly increased the damage resistance. On the other hand I let the top tier armored cavalry knights remain in my favorite faction (Irish) although that was not historically correct at all, otherwise my chances to deal with better equipped nations would have been even worse. So game fun/balance won against realism.

Soldiers in M+B by and large use too much armor, or better said, there are too many soldiers with good armor, by a huge number. The troop trees urge to get better and better troops, and all wear the same amount of armor. If the weapons would show the (often bad) effects they had against armor in reality, gameplay with certain units would be not fun for many players. I would like a more realistic behavior, but that would mean also a large random factor in combat (because your impenetrable plate armor was of little use if hit through the open visor, or a badly made or uncovered area, and such things).

 

FBohler

Knight
WBNWWF&S
geala said:
I like what the original poster wrote about combat realism, I could concur with a lot. The problem is that realism in a game is difficult to achieve, firstly because of resource restrictions, secondly because of game fun (troop tress for example, which are really nonsense, but fun), thirdly because of multiplayer. For me multiplayer is the direct contradiction to "reality fun" (or fun at all), as it needs balance, and reality is not balanced.

Usually gameplay reasons win. For example in M+B Warband I preferred to play 1268 as my mod. I was really annoyed how vulnerable you still were in top tier armor and greatly increased the damage resistance. On the other hand I let the top tier armored cavalry knights remain in my favorite faction (Irish) although that was not historically correct at all, otherwise my chances to deal with better equipped nations would have been even worse. So game fun/balance won against realism.

Soldiers in M+B by and large use too much armor, or better said, there are too many soldiers with good armor, by a huge number. The troop trees urge to get better and better troops, and all wear the same amount of armor. If the weapons would show the (often bad) effects they had against armor in reality, gameplay with certain units would be not fun for many players. I would like a more realistic behavior, but that would mean also a large random factor in combat (because your impenetrable plate armor was of little use if hit through the open visor, or a badly made or uncovered area, and such things).

I agree, imagine how "fun" it would be to try and hit the crevices of the enemy's armor.  :lol:
 
Top Bottom