There's also the issue of finding bugs on different systems. I've playtested for PC and console and the PC testing team has a much harder job because some bugs are hardware related and it's not as simple always as needing more memory etc. Especially on older chipsets.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
It needs to be stated.
- Thread starter RenegadeAngel
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
CryptidByte
Recruit
Absolutely fair statement. But Campaign AI and save bloating seems to be a thing everyone suffers from. Infinite loading for the sea raiders prior to fix?
I kinda like this game. A lot. But the game breaking issues I hope get resolved soon, so I can continue playing Calradia.
I am a developer (though not in games franchise) and if I had the option to sell the game early with the context that all the buyers are fine with accepting to get an unfinished game with loads of bugs then I would do so ASAP. Alone for the extremely valuable feedback these people can and many will provide. You get a giant testing bed of varying configurations of soft- and hardware. That is the thing you cannot test for easily in your development environment.
I have 9 hours of gameplay time, having played everyday for a few hours since release. I still have the very same savegame running.
I do not have experience any crashes and any save game corruptions. And I was save scumming hard for tournaments on release day already.
Now if I cannot replicate the crashing issues on my side, the devs might have not experience them either. I dread the thought of looking through the code, hopefully with the help of crash reports and looking for that one thing that might be the issue. I did the same with bug reports in my previous workplace. The only thing I can verify afterwards is, if my game is still running as it should. Can't even tell if the patch works till the affected people have tried it out unless I am able to obtain the same environment as the user (getting the customers data(base), exact software version, etc). But that is not always possible.
I am lucky my current workplace is selling software as a service so no worries anymore about the environment issues because we control the environment.
So yes, early access is definitely the way to go.
Could TW have caught some of these issues with more testing? Probably, some of the issues since release would have not been too hard to find. Others probably not. And you can only test so much and the testing environment might not even produce the bug. At some point you either deem a feature really is bug free or it is not but you cannot keep testing indefinitely. There are deadlines to keep. If TW would shine some insight on their development/testing process, it would help either justify or pacify everyone's opinion. But in the end there is no use to cry over spilled milk, it's more important that you clean it up quickly. Even if its gallons of milk and you know you are in the right to be angry about it flooding the place, cleaning it up is what has to happen so better focus on that.
I am still glad we can playtest this stuff. Not only for bugs but for balancing as well.
I have 9 hours of gameplay time, having played everyday for a few hours since release. I still have the very same savegame running.
I do not have experience any crashes and any save game corruptions. And I was save scumming hard for tournaments on release day already.
Now if I cannot replicate the crashing issues on my side, the devs might have not experience them either. I dread the thought of looking through the code, hopefully with the help of crash reports and looking for that one thing that might be the issue. I did the same with bug reports in my previous workplace. The only thing I can verify afterwards is, if my game is still running as it should. Can't even tell if the patch works till the affected people have tried it out unless I am able to obtain the same environment as the user (getting the customers data(base), exact software version, etc). But that is not always possible.
I am lucky my current workplace is selling software as a service so no worries anymore about the environment issues because we control the environment.
So yes, early access is definitely the way to go.
Could TW have caught some of these issues with more testing? Probably, some of the issues since release would have not been too hard to find. Others probably not. And you can only test so much and the testing environment might not even produce the bug. At some point you either deem a feature really is bug free or it is not but you cannot keep testing indefinitely. There are deadlines to keep. If TW would shine some insight on their development/testing process, it would help either justify or pacify everyone's opinion. But in the end there is no use to cry over spilled milk, it's more important that you clean it up quickly. Even if its gallons of milk and you know you are in the right to be angry about it flooding the place, cleaning it up is what has to happen so better focus on that.
I am still glad we can playtest this stuff. Not only for bugs but for balancing as well.
CryptidByte
Recruit
That's sorta fair, and yet...
I feel like I need to stop myself, but it's arguments like yours that make me want to push the other side so much. Why do Betas exists? Or Alpha? Alpha testing? Why was there a Multiplayer Beta, but no Singleplayer one? Do you not think, perhaps, before going into EA there should've been a Beta of the Singleplayer?
And on a broader vision, do you think if Fallout 76 had released as "Early Access" on steam, it shouldn't have gotten the criticism it did?
I feel like I need to stop myself, but it's arguments like yours that make me want to push the other side so much. Why do Betas exists? Or Alpha? Alpha testing? Why was there a Multiplayer Beta, but no Singleplayer one? Do you not think, perhaps, before going into EA there should've been a Beta of the Singleplayer?
And on a broader vision, do you think if Fallout 76 had released as "Early Access" on steam, it shouldn't have gotten the criticism it did?
It's worse. 8 years of development. Bare-bones, shallow content. TONS of missing content. Obvious bugs. Really BAD design decisions. Do they even play their own game FFS????
They had closed testing (was it MP only? I don't remember). And they release this at full price?
Even if it was half price I'd still consider it a net loss for me, as I'm basically paying to be their tester.
I have contemplated getting a refund, but I don't think I will, since it's a hassle.
Taleworld better fix this mess or else I'm going to dedicate my life to s****ting on them.
They had closed testing (was it MP only? I don't remember). And they release this at full price?
Even if it was half price I'd still consider it a net loss for me, as I'm basically paying to be their tester.
I have contemplated getting a refund, but I don't think I will, since it's a hassle.
Taleworld better fix this mess or else I'm going to dedicate my life to s****ting on them.
They have only 4 or 5 QAs. They stated it on their website. So I'm not surprised at all.
And after 8 years of development I suspect that they were really running out of cash. They had to push it out to release to get some money and keep the project running. With all the sales success now they are able to hire more people, invest money in different fields. Also, having a good engine and framework (Warband was technically a joke), they can add content much faster and with better variety, also being play-tested by community with a lot of feedback. A lot of things that need to be balanced are easily tweaked via configs.
And after 8 years of development I suspect that they were really running out of cash. They had to push it out to release to get some money and keep the project running. With all the sales success now they are able to hire more people, invest money in different fields. Also, having a good engine and framework (Warband was technically a joke), they can add content much faster and with better variety, also being play-tested by community with a lot of feedback. A lot of things that need to be balanced are easily tweaked via configs.
Yes it does seem to have affected negatively on it, but who really knows.
For over 8 years of development I expected more, to be honest. Even for a EARLY ACCESS...
There are so many things in the game that are broken, missing or really bad designed.
Balancing them will take more than a year but it´s possible if taleworlds listens to us, the hardcore Mount and Blade fan community.
So instead of whining around, I will help the developers as much as i can to help complete this game, that has so much potential.
Today I will start a new game (my first one had a game save crash) and try hopefully to get to the endgame.
In a couple of weeks I will post my game analysis of every aspect in different threads, so that the developers can easely differentiate them.
The rest is up to taleworlds, let´s hope for the best !
There are so many things in the game that are broken, missing or really bad designed.
Balancing them will take more than a year but it´s possible if taleworlds listens to us, the hardcore Mount and Blade fan community.
So instead of whining around, I will help the developers as much as i can to help complete this game, that has so much potential.
Today I will start a new game (my first one had a game save crash) and try hopefully to get to the endgame.
In a couple of weeks I will post my game analysis of every aspect in different threads, so that the developers can easely differentiate them.
The rest is up to taleworlds, let´s hope for the best !
I'm not going to read through the whole thread, but I have much of the same thoughts as the OP. It has become clear to me that TW does NOT have a dedicated QA team or process. As things were implemented and added to single player, they were simply not rigorously tested before continuing with more features. They must not have good testing practices, and fail to do regression testing in any meaningful way. In TW's defense, they are a small company, and this is their biggest project so far. In addition (as has been stated by a developer), they are in Turkey - they don't have access to very experienced project managers and they admit much of the past 8 years has been spent on learning how to develop a game of this scope.
The game is still fun, and I am sure it will get better over time. I hope people also remember that native Warband wasn't exactly a highly polished game to begin with (lmao). Nonetheless, TW has demonstrated their ability to make a fun game and expand on it. Bannerlord clearly has a good framework, and after working out the current kinks, I am sure they will begin to add features and make it better.
The game is still fun, and I am sure it will get better over time. I hope people also remember that native Warband wasn't exactly a highly polished game to begin with (lmao). Nonetheless, TW has demonstrated their ability to make a fun game and expand on it. Bannerlord clearly has a good framework, and after working out the current kinks, I am sure they will begin to add features and make it better.
CryptidByte
Recruit
This. Most of us want to see Taleworlds succeed. But it doesn't help trying to insult consumers for complaining about things. Let's hope we can all enjoy the game they envisioned soon.
I feel like some people don't exactly understand what EA is. No, they didn't release a broken game and sold it to you for 50 bucks.
They released an EA and allowed you to join for 50 bucks + 10% discount in first weeks and additional 10% discount if you own a previous M&B game.
Now what is exactly EA? It's a betatest that you pay for. It's that simple. If after so many years of EA existing you still didn't grasp it, then it's your problem. EA is an opportunity for players to support the developer both with money and effort that goes into testing the game and reporting the broken features in exchange for trying out their beloved game earlier and a chance to affect the development process.
It's not the first time I'm supporting a developer that I like in that way and definitely not the last, because that's how indie companies can make a living without going under a greedy publisher that will strip off their creativity and make them develop something trendy and "profitable" instead. I don't want that, I want to play games that had a lot of passion put into them and Bannerlord definitely feels like one.
They released an EA and allowed you to join for 50 bucks + 10% discount in first weeks and additional 10% discount if you own a previous M&B game.
Now what is exactly EA? It's a betatest that you pay for. It's that simple. If after so many years of EA existing you still didn't grasp it, then it's your problem. EA is an opportunity for players to support the developer both with money and effort that goes into testing the game and reporting the broken features in exchange for trying out their beloved game earlier and a chance to affect the development process.
It's not the first time I'm supporting a developer that I like in that way and definitely not the last, because that's how indie companies can make a living without going under a greedy publisher that will strip off their creativity and make them develop something trendy and "profitable" instead. I don't want that, I want to play games that had a lot of passion put into them and Bannerlord definitely feels like one.
Mawotb
Recruit
Good framework? I disagree. Brownie points for not screwing up like Bethesda did and use an old engine. They made a new engine +1 point. They went for physics based animations and combat +1 point. That's where it ends. Yes they are a small company, yes they are inexperienced but no they have not been honest, quoting them saying it is irrelevant. They said two years ago they planned on a hard (full) release. They bit the bullet and said its not ready yet, they didn't stay honest from that point until now. The game should not be full retail price with no guarantee a full game will ever be released. There are countries like mine, that have constitutional law stating a product must be delivered as intended whole and complete. This is not. They screwed up because they chose MP to be their marketing strategy. That is what they used in their press releases. Next they chose to completely rework the map and factions (rp/lore content not core functional content) and recently were completely focused on sieges. This is why they are screwed. They made the cardinal sin of focusing on aesthetics and graphics and not core content for game play. I would rather have got a 1 for 1 copy of war band with a new engine and physics system with all the old content just to start with. That alone would have kept everyone happy while they did streams and dev blogs and what not while they make NEW content. It is infinitely more important to get all of the concepts into the game instead of balancing businesses and economy aspects before its all implemented. They are going to handle the same problems multiple times and they are going to repeat the rust, league and many other game developers mistakes of letting players test content that is incomplete. Saying they mentioned **** is broken and then outright capping it as a patch isnt consistent. I just worked out how to break the game from the get go with smithing. I mean literally day 1 new playthrough making compounding amounts of money without leaving a city. Only possible because they put in stuff for their marketing campaign and then never touched it again.
Really hard to say anything definitive without knowing full context of Bannerlords development so far.
I also find 8 years are a long time in which plenty would and should have already been done and working properly. If everything went as planned. Doubt that TW planned to develop 8 years till they produced anything usable so I can only suspect a lot of experimentation and setbacks. It's why you never give a release date unless you are confident to finish it till then. TW are their own publisher so they have no one breathing down their necks except themselves. I can only imagine what would have been different if they had an actual publisher, that brought in money but also had expectations set for the release. If they had to work till a fixed release date (which likely would have been some years ago), I assume we might have gotten something vastly different than today, maybe better, maybe worse. Or maybe nothing. Plenty of studios go the way of the dodo or get bought up if they cannot deliver.
Having the option to stay independent long enough to develop and experiment freely till you get where you want to be is a luxury.
I agree with alpha and beta testing and if there would have been an option to do so for Bannerlord then I would have welcomed that. I can only speculate that TW finally needed some money and going early access was the most sensible choice. Get money, get feedback, get bug reports.
I am not saying people should stop offering critique and feedback because it is early access. Getting bugs and crashes or encountering design choices that you find weird or bad are all valid complaints. But I think your expectations should not be to get a perfect game for early access. The expectation should be that your feedback gets considered and used to improve the game. I think it is bad that the current state of Bannerlord has so many issues. But I also think it is great that TW is immediately on it to fix those things. I do not support all design choices and I am curious to see if they get improved but other things are already looking good. I do not feel betrayed in my expectations when I bought into the early access. Maybe others are because of different expectations. And this is perfectly fine, really. But this is a risk that you have to take if you buy into early access. If you do not trust TW to change the game for the better, you should consider refunding as long as you can and wait till you feel comfortable to buy the game. The only other option is to trust, offer feedback and wait if the game improves for you. If we would have not gotten an early access option I would have been fine with waiting even longer if this instead had resulted in a working finished game. Not sure if I would have like that game then, that would have been for alternate reality me to decide.
The me right now at least is happy to play the current state and see if I like it and also see if I or rather we as a community can get this game to the point where as many of us as possible are happy with the outcome.
But of course, opinions differ and this is a discussion after all. It is why I offer my own input about this topic and see what others have to say. I only find it worrying that people often get so over zealous with this.
And F76 would have gotten the same critique no matter if EA or not. What matters is, that you address the issues your buyers have with the game, this is valid at all times, no matter if EA, alpha, beta or full release. If F76 would have gone with an EA release, promising to consider the players feedback and still would have managed to produce the same outcome what it became upon its release. Now that would have been a reason to get the pitchforks out immediately.
Mawotb
Recruit
I will say only one thing to you - failing business ventures ARE MEANT TO FAIL. The first step to identifying a problem is acknowledging there is one. This is why some businesses have to be bought up and put under new management to not fold. These guys need to outsource and look for assistance in managing their business. They have internet and forums and plenty of access to intelligent people that can identify core issues and problems they need to be aware of, yes its nice that they are passionate and want to produce a quality product, but when they are too uptight about quality and not enough about quantity and cant get enough product content out, they will burn out. THAT IS THEIR FAULT. There is nothing they could not have dont to improve where they are now. I would have happily worked for them for free to help with development direction and planning remotely just to have my name added to the credits. I have owned M and B for goddamn ages and sunk so much time into it. I could have in one day given them insane amounts of content and focus points to massively accelerate their development as well as helped them significantly improved on their deliverables and deadlines. I have said this about many other games, no body gives a **** about graphics, what makes or breaks a game is its functional content. Arguing in favour of EA leads to jokes like Rust. It has a tiny market compared to legacy and not nearly the same success.
Mawotb
Recruit
The whole construction of a criticism is taking 'what is' and comparing it to what it 'could be'. Ie peoples expectations of the 'perfect game'...
/Facepalm
People should maybe understand the Early Access tag as what it is: All warranty voided. Products may or may not be finished to warrant the price at some point in the future only.
And by early access standards and ignoring the entire production baggage the game is in a decent state overall. But yes, only if you evaluate it as early access and not finished.
Mawotb
Recruit
You are legitimately arguing that anyone should be allowed to make people pay for something that has a risk of never being completed. Don't go there. Ever. It is literally illegal in countries. Also plays in part to arguing that businesses should be allowed to defraud people of money promising a game or product that may never be finished. You should be intelligent enough not to bark up that tree.
I'd rather frame it as taking 'what is' and comparing it to what 'you want it to be'. Expectations differ from people to people after all.
Maybe I really really like how hideouts are working right now and I do not want that to change. Pretty sure that I would be a minority with that.
