M&B had peaked with F&S, apparently

Users who are viewing this thread

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
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.
JSTOR is an outside source is it not? His hand-picked articles do not prove me wrong. That article itself was written because the site which he linked caused outrage among British Historians. I was not wrong with anything I said. And if you read what I wrote correctly, these were the reasons we started the Middle Ages, Dark Ages. from 500CE to 1500 CE, which were then proved wrong, and dropped from usage by majority. This games historical frame of reference is 9th-10th century. That makes his usage again, incorrect.

And you are using a fallacy, good. I don't need to argue when someone just goes the lengths to use fallacies to disprove what is correct.

sSdYN5.png


ZA8aA9.png
 

Gambles

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
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.

Wat? History is classified as a social science and there are definitely historical facts, and also opinions. The National Research Council classifies history as a social science.
 

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
Wat? History is classified as a social science and there are definitely historical facts, and also opinions. The National Research Council classifies history as a social science.
Don't bother mate, he just uses fallacies and twists your words to fit in his argument.
 

Meraun

Regular
I'm emphasizing the ideas they tried to implement. The fact that they even made an attempt to add those features mean they realize their potential which gives me hope now that people are once again suggesting those features be added to Bannerlord and even suggestions as to how it could be implemented. There is no excuse not to.

And by the way, I too have played Bannerlord for around 150 hours now but I almost never play the singleplayer mode again, the recent patches have disappointed me even further to the point where I only play BL to duel for an hour or two and leave. Whereas in Warband I would happily spend my days in front of the screen even in singleplayer. Actually I probably still would it's just that I don't have the time unfortunately.

Bannerlord just got boring really quick and if they don't surprise us - in a good way - soon, I don't see myself visiting BL SP any more for the year.

i havent even begun to play Multplayer... Bannerlord and its Mods will entertain us for 10 Years. Just like Warband did.
 

pRaX

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Could you sissies just stfu or come back on topic? Like.. holy ****...

WFS: Good on paper. Badly executed.
Bannerlord: No paper. The executable has crashed.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
Wat? History is classified as a social science and there are definitely historical facts, and also opinions. The National Research Council classifies history as a social science.

How can a science use opinion and not fact? Oh snap...I guess that is why many do not call it science since it doesnt use anything remotely close to the scientific method.


Here I go with that actual "Evidence" again while that other guy uses opinion only and then ignores everything that goes against his comment which is that NO ONE calls it the Dark Ages anymore or for any reason other than the one he gave.
 

Gambles

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
How can a science use opinion and not fact? Oh snap...I guess that is why many do not call it science since it doesnt use anything remotely close to the scientific method.


Here I go with that actual "Evidence" again while that other guy uses opinion only and then ignores everything that goes against his comment which is that NO ONE calls it the Dark Ages anymore or for any reason other than the one he gave.

Jesus Christ that link you just linked calls it science as well, it just infers social studies (the umbrella history is under) should be more scientific. Do you even read the **** you post or what? Get a grip. You're wrong while also being a completely intolerable and ignorant person while sharing links that say the opposite of your point. Go away.
 

Watly

Grandmaster Knight
WB
How can a science use opinion and not fact? Oh snap...I guess that is why many do not call it science since it doesnt use anything remotely close to the scientific method.


Here I go with that actual "Evidence" again while that other guy uses opinion only and then ignores everything that goes against his comment which is that NO ONE calls it the Dark Ages anymore or for any reason other than the one he gave.

You clearly have no idea what social science entails and did not even bother looking it up.
 

Gambles

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
You clearly have no idea what social science entails and did not even bother looking it up.

He doesn't even read the stuff he links, he googles a random article he likes the title of and links it. It's ridiculously moronic, I've blocked em. Can't have a conversation with that kind of individual.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lemme say 1st, WFAS is very cool and if you haven't played it you should.... but so much of what OP is praising is not as good in the context of the game.
Capturing of castles has become more difficult
Everyone is a rhodok sharpshooter with no shield. Let that really sink in about not just sieges, but this games combat in general.

wagon fort
You want to shoot fish in a barrel or be the fish in a barrel?..... it's cute but.... see point 1

town academies
it's okay but you can't get their skills very high because exp in general is very low in this game.... better build your char to max what you want.
Keep in mind their is little requirement for using good firearms so there is no reason not to build an INT char with tones of skills.

organize their own Merchant Caravans
It's okay but A: you have to escort them yourself and B: there's not much bandit money to be made so you kinda are forced to do caravans and trading... which takes the fun out of it, especially in second game..... plus if you know what you're doing you can just trade normally for easier gains.

Everything about recruiting special troops
You HAVE to use the merc camps to get guys and you HAVE TO pay to upgrade their gear, you can't recruit any peasants and make a good army.... so being forced to use the merc system (and later the recruit from faction constables) kinda undermined the fun of having mercs.

Also you can't make your own kingdom.
TLDR all the cool stuff in wfas is like cherry toppings for ice cream but they dumped your ice cream on the floor first. A bowl of cherrys is good but it's not ice cream. All sound good on paper but in game it's just a different kind of game progression and not an addition.
 

pRaX

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
He doesn't even read the **** he links, he googles a random article he likes the title of and links it. It's ridiculously moronic, I've blocked em. Can't have a conversation with that kind of individual.
I couldn't block him. He's my polar opposite. He gives me purpose. I need purpose. Any purpose. Without purpose, what's the point?
cane.gif


In all seriousness though. I think he's hilarious. Let him grow on you.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
He doesn't even read the **** he links, he googles a random article he likes the title of and links it. It's ridiculously moronic, I've blocked em. Can't have a conversation with that kind of individual.
You should start responding with mockery and memes, most people do not even know what they are talking about, and when that happens, it is nearly impossible to prove them wrong because they start to get emotional.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
You clearly have no idea what social science entails and did not even bother looking it up.

So opinion is in the scientific method? Still waiting for you to prove that there is only one single use for "dark ages" and all modern historians stopped using it. Waiting? You will never post it because you were talking out of your backside and like all actual uneducated people, you will choose to fight to stay in your ignorance instead.
 
@Kniggit said: 0/10 OP writing about a game they haven't even played, and comparing it to a game that isn't even complete yet.

To which, @adrakken said: /THREAD

To which:
I thought you believed in constructive posting?
:roll:
Actions always speak louder than self report.

Kniggit's response to OP was pretty much on the money. OP retorted asking for a demonstration of how he had compared the games, which seems odd to me since the entire premise of his post was that the F&S features he listed sound cool and aren't in Bannerlord, thus F&S represents the peak of the series because of those features. The comparison is inescapably implicit.

Fair enough I suppose that other people who also haven't played F&S (or read extensively about it) might not have been aware that the features didn't work out as well in practice as they look on paper, and that the game as a whole just wasn't as fun or engaging as some other M&B games. This thread thread existing and people talking about it was a way to expose those facts.

But you could also argue that successuflly killing the thread with a fundamental summary would have been constructive by saving us all from pages of raging off topic debate about the suitability of the term dark ages.
 

adrakken

Sergeant
M&BWBNWVCWF&S
Fair enough I suppose that other people who also haven't played F&S (or read extensively about it) might not have been aware that the features didn't work out as well in practice as they look on paper, and that the game as a whole just wasn't as fun or engaging as some other M&B games. This thread thread existing and people talking about it was a way to expose those facts.

Can one call a thing a fact without having personal knowledge of it in a case like this?

If you read extensively about a place serving great food and you just list what they serve, can you say as a fact that they serve great food? How about just listing the food they serve compared to a list of another place, is that proving one is better than the other?

The OP claimed a game he never played was its peak and did so by comparing it to an incomplete game. There were no facts involved, not even an educated opinion. It was a clear troll post and was summarized as such by @Kniggit.
 
The OP claimed a game he never played was its peak and did so by comparing it to an incomplete game. There were no facts involved, not even an educated opinion. It was a clear troll post and was summarized as such by @Kniggit.
You must be in an argumentative mood as your tone suggests you took issue with something I said, when I agree 100% :smile:

The "facts" I was referring to were the consensus of F&S not being as good, and its features not turning out as well in practice as they looked on paper. Those needed to be surfaced at some point for the people who didn't already know them to appreciate the applied accuracy of Kniggit's summary.

Let us never forget the Internet specific adaptation of Clarke's 3rd law: "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a legitimate kook."
 
Fire and Sword when "finished" was almost as broken as Viking Conquest on release lol.

Like, it was feature rich sure but nothing worked and you could randomly break something in a save that was utterly beyond repair.

Don't get me wrong I loved and played both games to death but it's hard not to get frustrated when a 1xx+ hour playthrough gets borked.
 
Fire and Sword when "finished" was almost as broken as Viking Conquest on release lol.

Like, it was feature rich sure but nothing worked and you could randomly break something in a save that was utterly beyond repair.

Don't get me wrong I loved and played both games to death but it's hard not to get frustrated when a 1xx+ hour playthrough gets borked.

Bannerlord is going to need some sort of reforged edition to meet my expectations.
 
Top Bottom