Why is an endless game a good thing?
Because I enjoy playing the same narrative, the same character (or family), the same setting. I'm sure many others do too. It's partially why Fallout 3 Broken Steel was the best DLC for that title. It allowed you to play on with the same character past the 'ending'.Why is an endless game a good thing?
The Bannerlord story is built around a single player rags to riches narrative. The story is centered around your initial character about how you find the dragon banner and unite the kingdom or form your own. It has 8 kingdoms to take over. It's very reasonable to rule everything in 15-30 years. But let's contrast that with the CK series which has gigantic maps and 100's of kingdoms, principalities, duchies etc to take over or ally with. It could take 100's if not 1000's of years before you could ever be expected to rule even a majority of everything in a CK game. It has court intrigue, spying, assassinations, allying and betrayal of other kingdoms but Bannerlord has none of that. Those are some a big differences.Regardless it's a completely optional feature. This discussion should be regarding adding a 'fast exp' mode if anything; not removing something people genuinely play and enjoy that is already in the game.
Oh I understand; but I think it adds value to many players regardless. It's a nice thing to have - tacked on or not.The Bannerlord story is built around a single player rags to riches narrative. The story is centered around your initial character about how you find the dragon banner and unite the kingdom or form your own. It has 8 kingdoms to take over. It's very reasonable to rule everything in 15-30 years. But let's contrast that with the CK series which has gigantic maps and 100's of kingdoms, principalities, duchies etc to take over or ally with. It could take 100's if not 1000's of years before you could ever be expected to rule even a majority of everything in a CK game. It has court intrigue, spying, assassinations, allying and betrayal of other kingdoms but Bannerlord has none of that. Those are some a big differences.
The CK series is designed around generational game play from the start. But this feature feels tacked on in Bannerlord without any real thought to how it makes the game better, almost like someone decided to tick of a check mark on some feature list instead of actually giving real thought of how it adds value to the game and why it should be added, just my 2 cents.
I would argue the sieges are both too short and long. Making them simply a grueling endevour that can't be sped up in any manner is hardly a enjoyable solution to the problem.The sieges may also be too fast, but I know little about the actual pace of dark age sieges and whether bombardment was as effective as it is in-game.
That a kind of possible dynasty system is implemented (and it is) is something fine. Finally Bannerlord will be a game clear 'playable' but also clear made for possible modding... with tools. As far i read there are still not all tools present or not accomplished, but for many fans mods will be the interesting stuff, also for creating world-necessary maps. It is nearly the same like for Warband. As par example crpg or 1257 were playable i never had thoughts again about the vanilla versions, only if there were updates and hopefully preferred mods still functioning.The issue is that, as far as dynasties go, the map is too small. Dynasties require a diplomatic system that this game just cannot give. The issue is this: the game is too fast, even with a very short year (or because of how short the year is*), for it to be a multi-generational build to an entire dynasty. The map is tiny. I've talked before about how quickly you can circumnavigate it. If you just started the game at Sargoth, went south to the desert, hit every city going around the Mediterranean-esque sea, up the eastern edge of the map, across the frozen wastes of the north, and back around to Sargoth in less than a month. In the Middle Ages, without ship travel it would have taken years to trek across the northern edge of Africa, up the Levant, all the way to the north sea, back across the northern edge of continental Europe back to Spain. Maybe a decade depending on setbacks and such.
This is a tiny world. Conquering it doesn't take centuries. Conquering Brittany in Crusader Kings takes decades if you don't start as a kingdom. That's 6 fiefs. There are 120 fiefs in Bannerlord that can be besieged but the game can be conquered in less than 30 in game years.
*If it were a longer year they could slow movement speed to make the world feel larger but if it took half a month to get from Ocs Hall to Charas as it would if the the travel were mapped to France (Ocs Hall sitting to the northeast but not all the way on the coast maps well to Paris and Charas on the southern coast maps well to Marseille). 16 days for a single traveler to cover 481 miles on a horse is fairly good travel time before cars or trains or carriages even. But with the shortened year that is an 8th of the entire year.
Sure size of maps are often a matter of taste. If someone wants a game he can 'win' the whole 'world' in one gamesession the existing Vanilla map is toooo bigYeah, most probably, mods will turn this feature something more relevant for the players than it is now. The map is being big enough and maybe decreasing the days in a year.
I think also the vanilla map is not really small, clear also not huge. Finally all need to wait, but modding will make the possibility of huger or even smaller maps. Sure, i like more the big gamingworlds (for M&B style) so if i start in a historical setting as par example ''english'' or ''pereslawl rus'' i must not explore, visit or beat then folks from Sicily or Portugal. If i want to play those different regions i start another game or if i want to be a worldconqueror then i try that... should be anyway a bit difficult and not the main goal.It is definitely big for my taste. But the points EverKira making do make sense for this particular feature.
I wonder how player death in combat may fit into this... with careless gameplay you might end up going through characters quite quickly (though respecc is a lfieline for that). I'm certainly interested to try it out.
Also makes that Brother, Wife and list of companions a little more important; as they might end up being your main character!I wholeheartedly agree. It's gonna be an option ofcourse but one that I'll check. Right now offspring is an afterthought. Being at risk of dying will encourage a more careful gameplay style and also add some pressure on producing mini-me's. I like it!