Making a game simple doesn't make it better neither accessible

[Goyyyio]

I think the mentality of making sequels simple is a damaging ideal. "We have this feature, but could it be more simple?" it's not a good approach, in my opinion, wouldn't "let's make a feature more engaging" a better ideal to follow? Having this in mind, how much from Warband wasn't translated to Bannerlord, just to make it "simple".

Making notice on many UI fixing, and QoL's, I think there are many features that in this attempt to simplify lost the engagement players had with the world and destroyed an important portion of the gameplay. Here is in my opinion and example of this, I'll write more on the go, but it can be translated to many other features in Bannerlord

-Companions: Wouldn't it be simple you just skip the chit chat and just jump into hiring this character? Now in Bannerlord you can just pick pocket people with their obvious names that describe their jobs so you don't have to take the effort of caring about them.
This has completely destroyed my engagement with the world. Even if companions had not a lot of brains in Warband, the simplified version drew it apart and away from the players, and what's supposed to be a QoL lost it's caring for a companion, and the way you engage with them. Reading their stories is not important, because it's not always related to what they can do, what they do it's on their names, and not only that, since they are "simple" now, they don't really really care about your choices, I never had a companion complain a lot or even attempt to leave for their discontent. In Warband you had to read their stories to understand how they may be useful, but also how will they'll react to your choices, and that they won't forgive your mistakes or choices they disagree with. Now that's a very missed engagement mechanic. Even if they (rarely) die, you can just hire the next one, they don't even do any dialog, they are just bonus passive points for your party. (If you just wanted bonus passive points on Warband, you could have it it too, if that was your piece of cake)

I invite you to watch at least some of the points of this video, that describes how a classic was dumbed down for the worse, going from an excellent game to a "fine" game, and it's exactly what happened from Warband to Bannerlord:


(I know it's 3 hours, but just in less than the first hour you'll get my point)

 

[MostBlunted]

I think the mentality of making sequels simple is a damaging ideal. "We have this feature, but could it be more simple?" it's not a good approach, in my opinion, wouldn't "let's make a feature more engaging" a better ideal to follow?

The one who shall not be named:

 

[Horked]

Watched it already and I agree to most of the points made in the video.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" should be written on every artists wall. What does this quote even mean?

If you simplify something and it turns out to be worse than original, its not a simple version, its an entirely different version.

Its very hard, prolly the holy grail, to keep things that is essentially complex things, simple. This is why its the ultimate sophistication.

Sequels to smash hits will always suffer from the success, its very hard, if not impossible, to live up to a massive hit. No matter what you do, you will always dissappoint. *Elton John has entered the chat*


Good post!

 

[Honved]

There is a critical difference between "simple" and "intuitive". Something can be simple without being intuitive, such as having all skill increases do nothing but boost damage output. It can be intuitive without being simple, and in fact it may take a fair amount of complexity to make something intuitive, where one factor affects several different things, or several things are affected by the same factor, possibly to different degrees. Taking away complexity runs the risk of making things "simplistic", where something is unrealistically and unintuitively limited to only one cause or one effect.

For example, having Strength affect damage output, the effect that encumbrance has on speed, and jumping height is a lot more complicated than only having it affect damage, yet it's easily understood and remembered, so it's still "easy" in spite of the added complexity. I favor complexity, as long as it can be managed without making things unintuitive and awkward to remember or do. Unfortunately, a lot of the drive for "simplicity" appears to be entirely based on making it easier to code and test, no matter how shallow and boring the end result.

 

[anoddhermit]

Haven't they already said they're going to have more fleshed out companion characters in addition to the RNG ones?

The option to skip dialogue is great, though. People who don't care about dialogue in games, or have already seen it all, find it very tiresome to have to wait around or take a bunch of extra steps for no reason. I think this is good simple, not stupid simple. It doesn't take away from people who want to go through the dialogue.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Haven't they already said they're going to have more fleshed out companion characters in addition to the RNG ones?

The option to skip dialogue is great, though. People who don't care about dialogue in games, or have already seen it all, find it very tiresome to have to wait around or take a bunch of extra steps for no reason. I think this is good simple, not stupid simple. It doesn't take away from people who want to go through the dialogue.

I don't know, I think I've seen the vague "continuing to improve...", but if they're making different companions or re-vamping it that'd be great. I agree with skipping dialogue only in the context of starting 100+ games over 2 years of EA. I would really like for when the game is done to take more interest in each back story and savor it. It be cool if each type had a couple quests that could trigger too, 1 as a clan member and 1 if you make them a vassal. Could be more then that but at least 2 would be great.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

The hiring process for Companions in Warband and Bannerlord is literally identical;

1) You find them in a tavern.
2) You proceed through a number of conversation prompts where you have the opportunity to continue or tell them to sod off/
3) They join you for a fee.

Sure in Warband the very first time you play you may not know their exact stats - but this is gone for every subsequent play-through.

Beyond that Warband Companions had 2-3 lines of dialogue when you do something they dislike and 2-3 lines of dialogue for other companions.

This is just a huge amount of rose tinted glasses. I sometimes wonder if people who post this stuff actually played Warband...

 

[archaicwarrior]

The GREAT aspect of BL, over all other games, is it's battles - fluid and smooth. So realistic. Unfortunately they are too simple, making them quickly repetitive and boring.

HC left flank, HI center, Skirmishers front center, LC right flank. Repetitive battle ensues...

What's needed is a bit more complexity .

HC1 Right Flank (place of honour), HC2 reserve center Elite nobles, 5 x HI groups in center battle line (one unit elites), Javelin skirmish group infront of HI line , Archer group behind HI line. LC group Left flank,

This adds far more variety in ordering (yes AI will need major update), with far more interest.

Of course, If TW just wants a great BASE game, that modders will add to, then that's also a valid option.

.

.

 

[Goyyyio]

The hiring process for Companions in Warband and Bannerlord is literally identical;

1) You find them in a tavern.
2) You proceed through a number of conversation prompts where you have the opportunity to continue or tell them to sod off/
3) They join you for a fee.

Sure in Warband the very first time you play you may not know their exact stats - but this is gone for every subsequent play-through.

Beyond that Warband Companions had 2-3 lines of dialogue when you do something they dislike and 2-3 lines of dialogue for other companions.

This is just a huge amount of rose tinted glasses. I sometimes wonder if people who post this stuff actually played Warband...

Weird you say they are exactly the same while ignoring every other point, and then proceeding to point out the difference too, which makes your argument contradictory in it's entirety.

"Beyond that", meaning, the thing actually makes it a completely different system, the companions had lines, and it also had a meaningful choice. I don't know if you play this game like a robot, but I enjoy playing a character when I play the game, in Warband I used to do so, and I chose my companions based on ideals. The system is rough, is of course something it could be improved upon, instead, Bannerlord chose to make it "simpler".

The point of the post is what makes the game engaging, and how most of the features in Bannerlord are rarely engaging at all, including the companion system. I know you like to defend this game at all cost, but please try to pay attention to the points being made before you make weird points that contradict themselves.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Weird you say they are exactly the same while ignoring every other point, and then proceeding to point out the difference too, which makes your argument contradictory in it's entirety.

"Beyond that", meaning, the thing actually makes it a completely different system, the companions had lines, and it also had a meaningful choice. I don't know if you play this game like a robot, but I enjoy playing a character when I play the game, in Warband I used to do so, and I chose my companions based on ideals. The system is rough, is of course something it could be improved upon, instead, Bannerlord chose to make it "simpler".

The point of the post is what makes the game engaging, and how most of the features in Bannerlord are rarely engaging at all, including the companion system. I know you like to defend this game at all cost, but please try to pay attention to the points being made before you make weird points that contradict themselves.

So let me get this straight; you believe about 3 sentence of text completely changes the entire way the system works?

Also... you missed the part where that function does exist in game (in part). I've had bannerlord companions complain for fleeing a battle before; I'm not sure on how implemented it is - but there is something there under the hood.

It's an extremely small hill to die on is all I'm saying.

 

[Goyyyio]

So let me get this straight; you believe about 3 sentence of text completely changes the entire way the system works?

Also... you missed the part where that function does exist in game (in part). I've had bannerlord companions complain for fleeing a battle before; I'm not sure on how implemented it is - but there is something there under the hood.

It's an extremely small hill to die on is all I'm saying.

I'm saying the system could have been expanded instead of cut out or "simplified"

 

[AxiosXiphos]

I'm saying the system could have been expanded instead of cut out or "simplified"

Agreed.

But as I have said 1000x before; let's not pretend what Warband did was vastly better.

 

[Goyyyio]

Agreed.

But as I have said 1000x before; let's not pretend what Warband did was vastly better.

It was something, and in the post I mean that features being simplified or disappearing from the game (like inquiring with lords, end up challenging lords to build relationship's with others, dueling lords that insult you for being a peasent, feasts, relating with ladies) all systems that could have been expanded but got cut out or just got worse in Bannerlord

 

[AxiosXiphos]

It was something

It was pretty much the same something we have right now in bannerlord... You can argue that after X many years of development that's not good enough - but I'm stubbornly against making Warband out as something it was not.

 

[Goyyyio]

It was pretty much the same something we have right now in bannerlord... You can argue that after X many years of development that's not good enough - but I'm stubbornly against making Warband out as something it was not.

Read my previous edited post. Warband had a lot of minor/invisible features that expanded the gameplay. Relationships with towns, villages too. Now simplified to one person. Warband was like a rough diamond that needed a lot of pulling, Bannerlord is as rough.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Read my previous edited post. Warband had a lot of minor/invisible features that expanded the gameplay. Relationships with towns, villages too. Now simplified to one person. Warband was like a rough diamond that needed a lot of pulling, Bannerlord is as rough.

A relationship with a town is just a relationship with the notable. It's primary purpose was providing higher number and quality of recruits... Again it's the same system. You are looking at two systems that are extremely similar and trying to tell me they are apples and oranges because the name changed slightly.

Warband didn't even have battle continuation after player K.O.; we need to stop pretending it was perfect.

 

[froggyluv]

Warband didn't even have battle continuation after player K.O.; we need to stop pretending it was perfect.

Except no one here pretends Warband is perfect .Merely that it had a better skeletal frame and gave the illusion thru simple means to have a functioning and interesting world. Gamers dont need a deep rich lore like a Morrowwind half the time -sometimes just a simple reaction line of text from an NPC is enough. Used to play those old EA open ended games in the 80's and 90's in which you would invest 100's hours into a game simply for an end screen that encapsulated everything you did. That simple page was reward enough.

Safe to say many expected TW to expand on these meagre strengths not simplify them worse

 

[Ask]

So let me get this straight; you believe about 3 sentence of text completely changes the entire way the system works?

Also... you missed the part where that function does exist in game (in part). I've had bannerlord companions complain for fleeing a battle before; I'm not sure on how implemented it is - but there is something there under the hood.

It's an extremely small hill to die on is all I'm saying.

What? Why is everyone forgetting the whole part that some companions like/dislike each other in your party and can leave if they're in it, that there's noble and peasant companions which affect your standings with other lords if turned into one, the whole emissary system and right to rule and how some companions dislikes others being sent as emissaries on top of their normal dislikes?

Saying "they had just 3 more dialogue lines" is either being dishonest or forgetful of how Warband actually played.

 

[MostBlunted]

Those are just the White Knights. They forgot that there are 15+ years between Bannerlord and Warband.

They played Mario on the NES and you can sell them the same game now if you just improve the graphics on a digital console for 30€ and they think they make a good deal.

Some people are just thankful to participate in an EA game they love because they think they can help to improve it. But some of them will never recognize they got "scammed". Some of them will always defend the money they paid for. Some of them will always praise a game "released" in 2020 with a game from the same company released some years ago.

People are stupid. I´m the most stupid one of them.

I mean, just look at this:

The media will rate this game 8/10 or 9/10 because it works. Cyberpunk was the GOTY of 2021 for many critics. The media has nothing that they can compare to this directly. This game is not like the 428th Call of Duty, it´s something special. The casual crowd and media will love it and buy it. That´s more important than what some idiot wants the game to be.

Thats why TW doesn´t care that much in my opinion. What does it matter if we enjoy the game after 50+ hours? What does it matter if the battles after you have played hundres of them?

The first 50 hours are awesome, doesn´t matter if you come from Warband (+Mods) or haven´t played Warband.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

At least it can be modded. There's nothing more to say at this point.