Not quite true, the game didn't start full development until post 2010.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
It has not been 8 years...
- Thread starter Tastesslikevictory
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bannerlord
Users who are viewing this thread
Not quite true, the game didn't start full development until post 2010.
Then why does turning off shadows and other graphical settings make a game run better? The engine just can’t handle 1000 troops and Witcher 3 graphics.
There is a difference between outright turning off features, and the overall artistic look of a game. Removing shadows makes games look worse, but that doesn't mean that bad looking games somehow run better. What you're suggesting by saying "bannerlord has too many NPCs in it to look like the Witcher" is that someone in the development team made a decision to make uglier textures and reduce the colour coherence to make the game run faster. That's the equivalent to painting flames on a car to increase its max speed. Optimisation doesn't work this way at all.
I'm glad you picked The Witcher 3 because that's a good example of a game where the art direction is far, far more important than the texture size, the shadow quality or the graphical techniques it relies on. For instance, for a third person game released in 2015 it actually has some pretty bad or mediocre environmental modelling and texture work -- some of it is worse than warband.
And if you look at some of the individual stuff in the screenshot below, it's also not that great. The tree is a blotchy mess, the resolution of the shadows is pretty low, and there isn't any subsurface scattering (light passing through the leaves). The sand texture on the left looks awful.
But none of that really matters because the main thing carrying the game's look is the colour composition. The quality of the technical stuff doesn't really matter at this scale because the main thing you're seeing is the striking contrast between colours. This is what makes games (or paintings, or films) look good. Not the raw GPU power.
If you think I'm talking out of my ass, here's a screenshot of my game which runs at a comfortable 60fps right now:
The thing preventing games from having 10,000 troops isn't the graphics, it's the CPU.
I'm glad you picked The Witcher 3 because that's a good example of a game where the art direction is far, far more important than the texture size, the shadow quality or the graphical techniques it relies on. For instance, for a third person game released in 2015 it actually has some pretty bad or mediocre environmental modelling and texture work -- some of it is worse than warband.
And if you look at some of the individual stuff in the screenshot below, it's also not that great. The tree is a blotchy mess, the resolution of the shadows is pretty low, and there isn't any subsurface scattering (light passing through the leaves). The sand texture on the left looks awful.
But none of that really matters because the main thing carrying the game's look is the colour composition. The quality of the technical stuff doesn't really matter at this scale because the main thing you're seeing is the striking contrast between colours. This is what makes games (or paintings, or films) look good. Not the raw GPU power.
If you think I'm talking out of my ass, here's a screenshot of my game which runs at a comfortable 60fps right now:
The thing preventing games from having 10,000 troops isn't the graphics, it's the CPU.
Doktor Barber
Recruit
i really wish this was common knowledge, it bothers me so much when i hear some people even saying its been 10 years or saying its just a warband reskin... just talking out their asses
actually, it is more like 10 years. When they've announced it, it was close to 2 years in developement already 
I get that this is EA, but they should drop the price for now as it is not playable for so many people. Fortunately, I can play it and only suffer memoery leaks and occasional freeze when trying to enter siege, but nothing else really. But I get that some people are pissed off.
I get that this is EA, but they should drop the price for now as it is not playable for so many people. Fortunately, I can play it and only suffer memoery leaks and occasional freeze when trying to enter siege, but nothing else really. But I get that some people are pissed off.actually, it is more like 10 years. When they've announced it, it was close to 2 years in developement already
I don't think they started actual development in 2010, considering Warband was released the very same year.
they did, believe me. I was around here back then. Warband was just regular M&B with added multiplayer and few enhancements taken straight from mods (like diplomacy). They were already working on M&B 2 by then.
I was also here mate, and Warband kept them pretty busy even after release.
sure it did, but they've admitted they've started developement roughly 2 years before announcing it. Not much to discuss here? You can dig the forum if you want. 8 or 10 years, they should charge less for us to do open beta
Doktor Barber
Recruit
you press x to switch weapon mode
I honestly don't see the relevance. I don't care if they took 8, 3, 20 or 55 years. I care about the end result. To me Bannerlord is a game that is very rough around the edges, but definitely enjoyable to play even in its current states. And I see them working hard to release patches to address issues, and right now they are taking steps towards the right direction relatively quickly.
My guess here that 7.5 of those 8 years were spent running around in circles. Then they kind of figured out how to do things towards the end. Judge them all you want for that, I sure won't because I have done the same thing in the past (heck, I am "working from home" right now). I am just happy that the product has a solid core that they can work around, and that they are actually doing it. Just like they did with the original Mount and Blade and Warband.
My guess here that 7.5 of those 8 years were spent running around in circles. Then they kind of figured out how to do things towards the end. Judge them all you want for that, I sure won't because I have done the same thing in the past (heck, I am "working from home" right now). I am just happy that the product has a solid core that they can work around, and that they are actually doing it. Just like they did with the original Mount and Blade and Warband.
I totally get the argument with the engine, but that being said there's a bunch of things that just don't add up:
-I assume they were still somewhat able to create scenes since very early on even though other parts of the engine was still being worked on, video from 5 years ago:
So what have the level designers been doing all this time since they're not done with all the scenes yet ? I assume they were not just sitting idle by for years so this is quite the mystery.
-Same argument goes for sounds, music. Heck they even bought music from a third party which is used as well in the game Guild 2 if you know that (Kind of weird to hear music you associate with another game in Bannerlord). I'm not against buying licensed music at all, but what was the deal of hiring a composer then? (one of the very first devblogs) Also no simple voice overs is quite weird could be simple sentences like "Greetings milord", when talking to your villagers.
-There's just something that doesn't add up with this, because it looked like years ago they had more or less the core systems worked out and to a certain degree working.We saw combat, battles, campaign map and even the gangs in actions I understand of course they wouldn't show us the buggy parts of these if there were any, but that would still mean they had 3+ years to fix all these and test the campaign which at times it seems no one bothered to do.
I have a theory until very lately they had Co-op included but couldn't really get it to work properly, hence why it feels like stuff is missing/put together last minute.
-I assume they were still somewhat able to create scenes since very early on even though other parts of the engine was still being worked on, video from 5 years ago:
So what have the level designers been doing all this time since they're not done with all the scenes yet ? I assume they were not just sitting idle by for years so this is quite the mystery.
-Same argument goes for sounds, music. Heck they even bought music from a third party which is used as well in the game Guild 2 if you know that (Kind of weird to hear music you associate with another game in Bannerlord). I'm not against buying licensed music at all, but what was the deal of hiring a composer then? (one of the very first devblogs) Also no simple voice overs is quite weird could be simple sentences like "Greetings milord", when talking to your villagers.
-There's just something that doesn't add up with this, because it looked like years ago they had more or less the core systems worked out and to a certain degree working.We saw combat, battles, campaign map and even the gangs in actions I understand of course they wouldn't show us the buggy parts of these if there were any, but that would still mean they had 3+ years to fix all these and test the campaign which at times it seems no one bothered to do.
I have a theory until very lately they had Co-op included but couldn't really get it to work properly, hence why it feels like stuff is missing/put together last minute.
I think a lot of that development time could've been cut down with a proper QA team. Bannerlord to me is enjoyable, but it's clear to me that there seems to have been a lot of management level trickery that significantly slowed the pace of the project, seems to me that there was no substantial feedback mechanism to inform the devs of the solidity of the core gameplay loop, or the art direction, or optimization. I could be wrong of course but that's just how it looks to me looking at the sheer quantity of bugs and baffling balancing decisions.
Can someone explain me why we have 5 Modules (CustomBattle, Native, SandBox, SandBoxCore, StoryMode)?
If you check SandBox and SandBoxCore you will notice that certain Scenes, for example vladia_village or aserai_castle, are divided into two modules without any logical reason.
Bannerlord has Star Citizen level of mismanagement all over it.
If you check SandBox and SandBoxCore you will notice that certain Scenes, for example vladia_village or aserai_castle, are divided into two modules without any logical reason.
Bannerlord has Star Citizen level of mismanagement all over it.
Agreed
Most studios have 2000+, and as of right now they have 70ish (and employee counts janitors and other staff as well).
sure it did, but they've admitted they've started developement roughly 2 years before announcing it. Not much to discuss here? You can dig the forum if you want. 8 or 10 years, they should charge less for us to do open beta
No they can charge what they think it's worth, as we're all adults and don't need our hands held to make decisions.