M&B had peaked with F&S, apparently

Users who are viewing this thread

Its early access, the game will be broken for at least another year. I remember when the Forest came out in EA and **** wasn't even playable, now its meh kinda good. At least they aren't pulling Bethesda by letting the modders fix the game or No Man's Sky released the game outside EA that just isn't no where close to done
 

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
So if a thing is not upheld by 100% of all historians...no one upholds it and it magically makes everything else other historians say magically disappear and not exist...So long, thanks for placing yourself into the same uneducated category as the person I replied to.
Yes, that is how science works. If your information is wrong or disproven, which in this case is, we disregard that. There are many historical records from the Middle Ages, there are no LACK OF HISTORICAL RECORDS as you claim.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
Yes, that is how science works. If your information is wrong or disproven, which in this case is, we disregard that. There are many historical records from the Middle Ages, there are no LACK OF HISTORICAL RECORDS as you claim.

Except X group of people just can't say "it's disproven" and then pull a Picard and say "Make it so." It's an ongoing debate, nothing is disproven, lol.
 

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
Ignorance of what? Not agreeing with your hand selected list of experts?
I do not need to hand-select my list of experts, because that includes most of the academic circles. On the other hand you do.

Except X group of people just can't say "it's disproven" and then pull a Picard and say "Make it so." It's an ongoing debate, nothing is disproven, lol.

The people you call X group of people are the majority. I believe you know, how majority and minority work, yes?
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
Yes, that is how science works. If your information is wrong or disproven, which in this case is, we disregard that. There are many historical records from the Middle Ages, there are no LACK OF HISTORICAL RECORDS as you claim.

History is not science and NO that is NOT how science works. 100% of all scientists rarely ever agree on any one thing. There are even scientists that say Darwin was wrong. The Deniable Darwin is a book of studies done that question it.

You have this thing called a "all or nothing" attitude.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
I do not need to hand-select my list of experts, because that includes most of the academic circles. On the other hand you do.



The people you call X group of people are the majority. I believe you know, how majority and minority work, yes?

Can you cite a study with exact numbers that list everyone with a background in the field and their opinions on it? What you are likely reffering to is an assumed majority based on an particularly outspoken vocal minority. :smile: If you want to be "technical."
 

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
History is not science and NO that is NOT how science works. 100% of all scientists rarely ever agree on any one thing. There are even scientists that say Darwin was wrong. The Deniable Darwin is a book of studies done that question it.

You have this thing called a "all or nothing" attitude.
History not being a science does not mean we don't use the scientific method in academic studies which history is a part of. For something to get disproven, it needs the majority of a scientific field to agree to it, which is the case with Dark Ages.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
History not being a science does not mean we don't use the scientific method in academic studies which history is a part of. For something to get disproven, it needs the majority of a scientific field to agree to it, which is the case with Dark Ages.

Again please show me the numbers on this.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
History not being a science does not mean we don't use the scientific method in academic studies which history is a part of. For something to get disproven, it needs the majority of a scientific field to agree to it, which is the case with Dark Ages.

Look, you got proven wrong. Deal with it. You can never hope to provide proof that your statement is correct as YOU must PROVE that no modern historian uses the term Dark Ages anymore where as I already have proven that they DO still use it because YOUR PERSONAL understanding of how and why it was used was LIMITED to ONE thing and you did not know the OTHER reasons why it is still used. The onus is on YOU...so go on and use the scientific method and maybe then you will see you are wrong lol...also really loved how you are still trying to act like historians use the scientific method and agreed to use it. wow.

Will eagerly await your next reply which provides zero evidence to back your statement. Hey, who uses evidence again? Science...and historical evidence which you provided 0% of in this thread while I provided 100% of it in this thread. Less see more of nothing more than your hollow opinion.
 

Helz

Knight
WF&S had some interesting single player stuff, it was ambitious but also quite buggy.

The multiplayer was fantastic though. It had Captain modes and an Invasion type mode that were both a lot of fun. Also, pikes and spears had an overhand thrust that worked beautifully.
 

Jhaerik

Banned
Look, you got proven wrong. Deal with it. You can never hope to provide proof that your statement is correct as YOU must PROVE that no modern historian uses the term Dark Ages anymore where as I already have proven that they DO still use it because YOUR PERSONAL understanding of how and why it was used was LIMITED to ONE thing and you did not know the OTHER reasons why it is still used. The onus is on YOU...so go on and use the scientific method and maybe then you will see you are wrong lol...also really loved how you are still trying to act like historians use the scientific method and agreed to use it. wow.

Will eagerly await your next reply which provides zero evidence to back your statement. Hey, who uses evidence again? Science...and historical evidence which you provided 0% of in this thread while I provided 100% of it in this thread. Less see more of nothing more than your hollow opinion.

Actually a cursory look around the net was all it took to find a couple sources.

 

Fuileadan

Recruit
To the OP - most of what you talked about for Fire and Sword was covered in some sense by VC and by modders in their full conversions. IE: A world of Ice and Fire, you could send spies into towns to poison the water to weaken the garrison. In Pendor you could create your own "faction guard" and gear and design them.

Taleworlds does a fantastic job at building a AA sandbox platform and opening up the game to "mod it your way". 95% of the hours I have in Warband were not playing Native. it was the player adaptions that drew me in. Most of the old school fans know this and as such we're not really bothered by it. We are looking at the potential and waiting for our Lord of the Rings Mods and stuff to take us into immersive worlds we love.

That isn't to say Taleworlds shouldn't make a complete game, they absolutely should and they will. But to expect them to make the perfect game for you? Well sadly, no. This isn't happening. The game is for mass appeal, if you don't like it the way it is, you want later era stuff, wait for conversions of 1257AD or Crusaders. If you want japan, wait for the Gekokujo style mods. If you want warhammer-esk fantasy wait for the fantasy mods or warhammer mods. If you want full realism of history you probably should wait for historical mods and not purchased a game set in a fictional world that uses real-world for inspiration not for historical accuracy.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
Actually a cursory look around the net was all it took to find a couple sources.


Yep. He must prove that ALL historians no longer use the term Dark Ages for any other reason. All of them. His statement was universal to try to condemn your use of the term. I already have proven that there are 2 other reasons why the term is used and that they still use it for those reasons. Not only that, he must prove that no historian still calls it the dark ages for the reasons he says they stopped using it for.
 

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
Nope. He must prove that ALL historians no longer use the term Dark Ages for any other reason. All of them. His statement was universal to try to condemn your use of the term. I already have proven that there are 2 other reasons why the term is used and that they still use it for those reasons.
The majority does not mean ALL, you are twisting my words to fit your own argument. Even the article linked above limits the usage of Dark Ages to the 5-7th century. So, his usage still would be incorrect. And you can go check publications from 2010 to 2020 at JSTOR. Most publications that include Dark Ages, A) Include it to prove dark ages in fact, not dark ages, B) Re-publications of old books, C) Are not talking about Middle Ages.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I have about 200 hours in F&S and about 5k in Warband. It had a lot of good ideas but many of those ideas just never really worked properly and I got bored of it very easily.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
The majority does not mean ALL, you are twisting my words to fit your own argument.

The premise of calling Middle Ages, Dark Ages started with the notion that there was a societal collapse, no cultural or technological development in Europe. Today, we know that such a notion was not true. There were cultural and technological advances and there was no societal collapse. This means your education is not up to date and lacking, which makes your education questionable at best.

Your words are clear. You state there is only one reason it was called the Dark Ages, which has been proven wrong. And then you attacked his education...which was laughable considering how little you knew about the topic. Again, you were proven wrong and cannot hope to prove yourself correct as any single thing that goes against what you said proves you wrong. That happens when you use absolutes.

But I do thank you for once again NOT posting anything to prove yourself correct with any outside source. No scientific method on your part. I am really disappointed...no chance to use my big gun on you before growing tired with you so I will just end my post with it to slap down any possible post by you later on.

First historian is nicknamed which of the following "Great finder of truth via evidence" Or, "the Father of LIES".
What is the correct common expression for history? "Historian is written by the one that finds the evidence first" Or, "History is written by the victor".

Yeah, scientific method. History and factual evidence has as much to do with each other as your original comment that started this and...facts. Have a great day, thanks for the laughs.
 
Top Bottom