five bucks
Knight at Arms
There are 25,179 negative Steam reviews.
That is """quite literally""" not less than 300. This is also not including the many people who did not leave reviews.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Video Review by IGN
- 主题发起人 Warlord123123
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Knight at Arms
That is """quite literally""" not less than 300. This is also not including the many people who did not leave reviews.
From what I could gather, they seem to prioritize technical stability and customizability to support modding. That's why most of their features are so shallow and bland. They're just putting out as many foundations as possible that people can mod on top of. I don't mind it, but it's easy to understand why people are angry at that shallowness.
As for UX they seemed to simply follow trending and popular techniques in the field. It all boils down to ease of access. Menu everywhere. It'd be good for other types of apps, but for this kind of games people sometimes like the hassle that these techniques get rid of.
Edit: No offense meant but everytime I see this thread's title next to OP's profile pic, it always gets a laugh out of me.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I agree with this and I'm fine with this. Nobody should ever expect Taleworlds to make the game super deep in every area, that would be a monumental task.
However what is in the game should at least work well and be noticeable and useful, and it's very disappointing how much of Bannerlord's feature base still seems to be without even a noticeable impact on the gameplay loop, let alone deep gameplay.
Relations - voting - traits - war score - surrender options - some culture bonuses - minor factions - crime gameplay and banditry - raiding - autoresolve - Morale - heirs - throwing axes - pike bracing - certain armor models, music pieces, and rain effects that don't even get used... all of this stuff is so unimpactful, or useless to the player, so poorly tuned, it may as well not even be in the game!
最后编辑:
Who cares. You literally start this entire conversation by directly stating that this can be used to refute the Steam reviews. You didn't say "This gives us Forum users some real representation" what you were saying is that this means the Steam reviews mean less.
Only if it affects sales and most game sales are in the first few months after release. With the beginning of EA being release in BL's case, they got their money already.
I think 6 is a bit harsh but overall the review is right. The combat is just so good (with RBM installed at least) that I'm willing to endure the lackluster sandbox grind.
I think it's a huge missed opportunity that this game works with these hardcoded factions, and not a Crusader Kings or Game of Thrones like feudal vassal/inheritance system which determines the entire strategic layer. Where relationships with other lords are basically your main casus belli, and internal wars are as frequent as external ones.
Well, here's hoping mods or engine titles will fix that. The base game is more of a proof-of-concept for what the engine is capable of, as was Warband.
I think it's a huge missed opportunity that this game works with these hardcoded factions, and not a Crusader Kings or Game of Thrones like feudal vassal/inheritance system which determines the entire strategic layer. Where relationships with other lords are basically your main casus belli, and internal wars are as frequent as external ones.
Well, here's hoping mods or engine titles will fix that. The base game is more of a proof-of-concept for what the engine is capable of, as was Warband.
Im pretty sure it wasnt until the modding community wrote that open letter to the devs that they even started including modding info in the patch notes. before that, stuff would just change, and bewildered modders just had to deal with it.
taleworlds definitely wants the game to be moddable, but its one feature among many, not their primary concern.
Modding should never be the main concern. Then they will have countless people saying TW did nothing and it is all modders. Only a handful of people praise Bethesda for keeping their games moddable while everybody else bashes them for releasing a game that mods make better. Guess what? Mods make any game better due to nature of voluntary install. There are thousands of mods, of course there will be some that fit your own specific tastes.
Making moddability a primary goal is a guaranteed loss. Best case scenario all your efforts will go unnoticed by many, worst case scenario most people will say you released a game only for modders to "fix it". I would rather try making the vanilla game a good game and ignore modding till then. So as a player, I would want them to make it more moddable. But I wouldn't have made it primary concern either if I was leading the company.
I agree, I think grank is overprojecting here by saying that moddability is the reason why most of the game is bare.
I don't think it's a "guaranteed loss" though. Most people only go to mods once theyre bored with the base game. Good titles still have vanilla players years later. It's often a good sign (for the developer at least) when most mods just tweak the UI or add a couple of new maps, rather than total overhauls that everyone plays instead. Most of the games I've loved for years are still mostly known for vanilla rather than a plethora of must-have mods or an overhaul. I think that's a best case scenario because not only does it give a better shared experience with other players, it also means the game itself is just well made.
I don't think it's a "guaranteed loss" though. Most people only go to mods once theyre bored with the base game. Good titles still have vanilla players years later. It's often a good sign (for the developer at least) when most mods just tweak the UI or add a couple of new maps, rather than total overhauls that everyone plays instead. Most of the games I've loved for years are still mostly known for vanilla rather than a plethora of must-have mods or an overhaul. I think that's a best case scenario because not only does it give a better shared experience with other players, it also means the game itself is just well made.
I was just giving a possible reason behind the shallowness based on what I've seen, like how patch notes always contained so many crash fix no matter how obscure. Obviously there are other reasons, but I don't have enough evidence to suggest them. For example I could just say it's because the devs are incompetent, but I've never worked with them to know the internal going-ons in Taleworlds.
I vaguely remember Mexxico talking about this and how Armagan Yavuz used to be an engineer and this is why optimization and bug fixes took the absolute priority during game development and why adding additional features took as long as it did. Granted, it wouldn't have taken as long if the game hadn't released in that much of an unoptimized, buggy and frankly unacceptable state.
Honestly fixing the many problems of the game feeling unfinished and lifeless requires both a few major changes (like changing/tuning how the AI behaves and votes according to their traits along with their material conditions) and many small additions (some minor things to do besides fighting, things to do in peacetime, more reasons for visiting town and village scenes, companions reacting to your actions and having more of their own story and lore additions) as well as fixing the badly working systems (the late game grind, war declaration AI) and placeholder systems (criminal gameplay, gaining and losing traits).
I'm not sure that TW can handle all of these, even with dlcs, nor am I sure that they will attempt to fix some of these issues (such as the diplomacy). They might just focus further on their strength; the battles, and may release update/dlcs enhancing it by adding things like naval travel & combat.
Duh did too in one of the patch threads.
This was some epic fiction ngl
IMO most Warband overhauls added more variety of costume/setting/plot to underlying M&B battles/combat than depth to its repetitive game loops. Moving from one overhaul to another was sufficient to refresh the experience despite those repetitive game loops. The underlying battles/combat was the hook that kept players.
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
Quite a speech, I'd say it's describes Bannerlord in a nutshell. Nothing in the game makes sense right now. Policies play 0 role in a Kingdom's life. Change of the ruler makes 0 changes, one AI changes another.
We have different notables: traders, artisans, criminals, but what makes them differ from each other? Quests? If you help criminals too much, they won't take over the market, the city's prosperity won't go down... Help artisans too much, and the market won't become overstoked with produced goods. NOTHING will change.
We have good lords, bad lords, evil and kind ones. Will a kind and honourable lord release you after the battle you lost, because you fought well and it will be an honour to cross the swords with you again? No! They'll take you as prisoner just like an evil lord would do and demand money for freedom. Will the coward-lord surrender or run away, because they feel that luck does not favour them today? No, they don't even know what "surrender" is. Still, now the devs may call the game an RPG.
We have a voting system, so we could participate in a Kingdom's life, make some descisions, etc. Can you actualy influence anything? No. You can put 150 influence points to the descision you want to vote for, but it won't work, because all other lords voted 20 points for other one (and their traits are hardly taken into account once again!!!!). As a King you can hardly decide anything, except for cases, when you have thousands of influence points to spend. Also being a King cuts you off of some quests, but offers nothing in return. But now the devs can write about "Kingdom creation and management" in the description.
You can buy a workshop... Well, to have a random profit gain and lose it as soon as the town gets captured by an enemy. You can't affect they work anyhow, you can only sell them or change production. Upgrading them? Helping your workshop somehow? Dealing with competitors? Forget it. The only way you can raise the trading skill is buying a thing here and selling it there with a huge price difference. Caravans, workshops never raise your skill. Yet, now the devs may tell that "you can be a trader" in their game.
The list may go on and on and on, I didn't even mention the small things like not being able to escape from a town while being recognized by the guards (as we did in Warband), no feasts, no lord rivalry, no anything that would've added some depth in a shallow gameplay. I was an optimist, but, at the end, @MostBlunted was right all along, when he said they would release an unfinished game and call it a day. Well, here we are.
The grades mean nothing at IGN, what matters is the actual review arguments. They give 9/10 to Activision-Blizzard games because they get the game for free, with a gala reception, with a console, and with goodies. Because of that their review becomes biased and they go easy on the grading, and sometimes they even skip part of the criticism to give it a good image.
类似的主题
