Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Video Review by IGN

[CrazyElf]

We kept telling Taleworlds that we needed messengers and they didn't act on it... Now even bideo bame bournalists are saying the same thing, maybe they might take action.

As I said, they'll need an expansion before they get another review.

 

[CrazyElf]

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.

That's part of the issue though - RBM has become almost mandatory for me when most of what is in RBM should be in the base game.

There are things I think should be modded - for example, if someone wants a custom Total Conversion mod or some tweaks that add to the game. What I think is an issue remains the Armor and AI - RBM has the AI module and Combat module, but the base game should be like RBM with smarter AI and armor that makes more of a difference.

 

[froggyluv]

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.

No what I said to start this entire conversation was:

That is very satisfying and again a good argument against the Popular casual vote at Steam

If thats too much offense to your delicate appreciation for Steam reviews -well than I cant help ya kid

 

[Underuse2307]

No what I said to start this entire conversation was:


If thats too much offense to your delicate appreciation for Steam reviews -well than I cant help ya kid

the "reviews" he keeps talking about were all made in EARLY 2020, when the game came out as EA.


look here

in any case he's just trolling. everybody knows this game has a solid foundation, was destined for greateness but fell short in every possible department.

its great fun for a few hours until you come across the bugs, the glitches, and the two dimensional setting - as the IGN review put it: its about amassing armies over and over again to clash them against each other and thats that. the rest is all "colour".

 

[Calabanar]

That's part of the issue though - RBM has become almost mandatory for me when most of what is in RBM should be in the base game.

There are things I think should be modded - for example, if someone wants a custom Total Conversion mod or some tweaks that add to the game. What I think is an issue remains the Armor and AI - RBM has the AI module and Combat module, but the base game should be like RBM with smarter AI and armor that makes more of a difference.

RBM takes armour efficency a bit too far imo, and I'm sure most casuals/newcomers would agree too. However it could be pushed a bit further in efficiency, yes, though not too much.

AI though... oh boy...

 

[FizCap]

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.

Yea IGN reviews don't have a lot of integrity to them but they throw out 8 and 9's like candy. Giving a game a 6 is saying something

 

[stevepine]

IGN: "Without rich features, a sandbox quickly looks like a desert" - that sums up the 'open world' absolutely ****ing perfectly.

It just feels like a pointless, bland playground. TW have neglected the RPG side of the game SO very badly - now it's coming back to bite them in their asses. You ripped the RPG soul out of your series.

Well done TW. Good job.

Wonder what Sir @mexxico would make of all this?

Names like IGN and RockPaperShotgun are pretty hard to ignore.

Unlike the community here.

 

[vito397]

IGN: "Without rich features, a sandbox quickly looks like a desert" - that sums up the 'open world' absolutely ****ing perfectly.

It just feels like a pointless, bland playground. TW have neglected the RPG side of the game SO very badly - now it's coming back to bite them in their asses. You ripped the RPG soul out of your series.

Well done TW. Good job.

Wonder what Sir @mexxico would make of all this?

Names like IGN and RockPaperShotgun are pretty hard to ignore.

Unlike the community here.

And I dont know for what, actually. I would much rather have deeper RPG aspects than the terrain system or the deployment screen. And in the end it wasnt even worth it. The "terrain system" is a modders nightmare and the deployment screen is buggy and unintuitive. They could have literally copy-pasted the dialogue. Ask lords to follow you, tell them to siege something, INTERACT. Im not saying its a bad game, its fun, but it really doesnt feel like a MB game in the same sense the past ones have.

 

[RozBritanicus]

Lmao, we warned Taleworlds about their horrible dialog and lifeless NPCs, they chose not to listen.

I been saying the npc's need to reflect the traits for a year or more. Not just in combat but in actions on the world map would they attack a village would they let a prisoner go or put them in a neutral town or lock them up even torturer them or kill them or steal your items. Would they higher thugs/assassins or work with criminals. Buy gifts for each other a nice sword from a friendly clan. Things like this would make the world have a spark. Wanders need to be more interactive with the player character like in warband or Viking conquest. Now i do think TW will do something like this with future updates maybe they will make something that's way better. The Sand box need toys lots of them.

 

[stevepine]

And I dont know for what, actually. I would much rather have deeper RPG aspects than the terrain system or the deployment screen. And in the end it wasnt even worth it. The "terrain system" is a modders nightmare and the deployment screen is buggy and unintuitive. They could have literally copy-pasted the dialogue. Ask lords to follow you, tell them to siege something, INTERACT. Im not saying its a bad game, its fun, but it really doesnt feel like a MB game in the same sense the past ones have.

Yup, well said.

 

[Nogand]

I'd say that's a very fair review, and basically same score I'd have to give.

Quality of IGN's reviews varies greatly on the reviewer, some are good, most are bad, but it's clear the reviewer here has put time into the game, isn't doing simple first impressions, and has actually played some quality games before. (Also not kissing posterior to keep getting early review copies, cause earliest MB3 comes out is 2030)

Bannerlord's actual combat is fun, and has decent amount of depth. I'll always give it that. The rest of the game? Pretty much a trainwreck. World map still has issues and some real low quality elements. Quests are laughably simple errands with terribly balanced rewards. The main quest? Tedious if not dull, decent enough as a tutorial I guess, but the later part is guaranteed to be no fun. Just bad and uninteresting storytelling, in most other RPGs this would be a "bad" side quest.

Can't agree more about the NPCs. What's the point of talking to them, when it's little more than a menu, and they still make goofy faces? It should not be hard to create good dialogue, just get a writer add in some conditions - not like recording 1000s of voice over lines for something like GTA or RDR. Seriously ancient dusty RPGs that were heavily constrained by technical limitations of the time are LEAGUES better written than this. And I don't expect Shakespeare or anything profound in M&B, but jeezus at least run the dialogue in this game through spellcheck/grammarly.

People giving this game 8/10s clearly haven't tried leveling up to 300 Medicine or Trade. Or Smithing. Yeah at first it's neat, look at all the customization, but you can't mass produce an item or charcoal. Instead you have to *click click click* til you give yourself carpel tunnel. And then the blade isn't attached to the shaft half the time LOL

Also I would not praise a game that should have a thriving MP scene, but not only suffers from poor design, but doesn't even have reliable servers. Outside of custom servers, MP is as far as I can tell dead.


I get it. Playing Bannerlord for the first time is like discovering a massive uncharted lake. There must be some great treasure, tons of fish, or the Loch Ness at it's depths! Except this "great lake" is just a very wide uninhabited 3 foot deep puddle. If someone actually makes it to Fief/Kingdom management, when it's clear there's no point to marrying your sister off to the King's son, or having kids, etc. It becomes all too clear how much of a sham the game is.

I don't hate Bannelord, nor am I bored of it (if I'm bored I simply move on to more interesting things). I am frustrated the developer seems unwilling or unable to add anything of real value leaving the game in what's a perpetual unfinished state. To those defending the game and praising it's value; how does it hurt you, your game experience, if us "whiners", get something like messengers? Or actual diplomacy? Or you know NPCs that are more then planks of wood?

No one's asking to to remove hideouts, or loot, or armies. Some of us just expect basic things like weather and rain from a game coming out in the 2020s and aren't quite so block-headed to think adding rain/cloud textures is the equivalent of flying to the moon.


Shouldn't need mods to make a game playable; mods are supposed to be for when you're bored/want something new. Mods for a game like Bannerlord should mostly be adding different time periods or settings, not adding things in like actual attack orders, party management, etc.

Tbf writing doesn't depend on computing capabilities, if anyone those dusty old games had more reason to hire decent writers since they couldn't dazzle the player with graphics or big action scenes.

 

[Aurex]

6/10 seems like a fair score, the game does have many glaring issues. What seems bull**** to me however is Victoria 3 somehow getting an 8/10 (Though it's IGN, I don't trust their scoring regardless). Can someone who played Vicky 3 tell me if it is a good game? Most people I've talked to told me that it's broken **** with horrendous AI and a clear downgrade to Vicky 2. I was considering "buying" it before I asked other people's opinions on the game, but give me your opinions on Vic 3 please.

Imo, Victoria 3 is typical Paradox crap. It's an awfully realized awful idea that tries to make an EXTREMELY niche kind of game into some kind of big, accessible, console-friendly mobile game Frankenstein monster - all created just to be a foundation on which they can add mostly pointless DLCs and milk the customer so much the udders will be udderly dry when they're over. It's a Victorian age grand strategy game in which you can't order armies or navies around and everything is a + or - modifier. Fallout Shelter is more interactive than that crap.

The silly and depressing thing? People just gobble it up and ask for more. I really miss the HoI2 times, when it was a niche game trying to cater to a niche audience and it was GREAT. Now they have to satisfy the mass of unwashed peasants and illiterate morons for the big bucks, and there are those "loyalists" kind of people who are just bootlicking them so hard the leather is getting flaky.

It's basically the same as Bannerlord, originally niche game for moderately intelligent connoisseurs of fine indie games, now a console-minded trainwreck that people will just buy because they're... well. Let's say they don't have discerning tastes?

 

[Apocal]

the "reviews" he keeps talking about were all made in EARLY 2020, when the game came out as EA.

EA is release.

 

[xdj1nn]

RBM takes armour efficency a bit too far imo, and I'm sure most casuals/newcomers would agree too. However it could be pushed a bit further in efficiency, yes, though not too much.

AI though... oh boy...

RBM just makes it so it's not common to 1hk everything that moves in the game - it still retains archery OPness pretty much alive, it just takes more time making the use of such units more tactical, but than again ever so slightly because Raptor added a "arrows held in hand" feature, which depending on the unit (skill total) and bow (skill requirement) the unit will be very much OP regardless.

The good part of RBM is that it brings some "tactical" loop to battles, makes the overall "battling" better, yet it does become annoying once the AI decides to FFA on the player's kingdom. There's a point towards any campaign where I'll start resorting to auto-resolve because I'm genuinely fed up from the incessant zerg rush the game forces upon us. What makes this game crap's actually that little detail in which nothing the AI does makes any logical sense within the game, it's there just to work as much anti-player as it can at all times, when not doing that it's forcefully and artificially trying to prevent snowballing from factions (and it always fail after enough in-game time has passed because there's no clever defensive AI at all)

1st layer of fixes would be to mitigate or completely eliminate the robotic AI behavior and inserting code patterns that mimic a more organic and logical behavior, in other words, making the AI actually tactical / strategical with simulated feelings and personalities. The worst part of the game actually lies on the "RTS" side of it

2nd would be to make battles more engaging and organically varied - currently the same tactic over and over and over again is what the game forces upon the player - even with mods like RBM it falls flat on it's arse with this repetition. This means that after the 50th consecutive battle by mid game you'll start to get burned with the game in an absolute - making each and every task that should be there for entertainment into a annoying chore where you're basically playing an endless whack-a-mole until you either paint the entire map or genocide the entire holster of AI nobles.

3rd would be to add depth towards the setting in general, making interesting quests that give significant feedback to the player, this means changing the world, acquiring rare resources / rewards, learning the lore, discovering unique scenes / items, upgrading items (like the "generic legendary dragon banner"), adding unique NPCs that provide unique mechanics, having lords have their own organic relations and ambitions...

1st and 2nd layers can be done rather fast and are to be expected and demanded by anyone, it's the only way to kill the negative current quality of the overall gameplay - the 3rd's tricky because I honestly doubt TW has even the capacity of doing so, and even if they did I wouldn't bet on them doing so from past decisions they made...

Than a 4th and not as important would be to add varied choices for gameplay approach/role for the players, like building a trade empire / becoming a criminal mastermind / going for a full combat build to become a legendary warrior / be the "hand of the king" for some faction... This 4ths arguably the hardest to pull off because it would require meaningful features and mechanics that reward the player just as much as owning/ruling a kingdom, I've given a few ideas as to how to do that in some replies to threads over time yet some annoying members of the community are stubbornly against any of the possible mechanics that could flush this out because most of those would be role play related and at times purely cosmetic, like owning houses, farms, lands, secret lairs, dealing with local stuff - in a way it would require a lot of new scenes with integrated mechanics for visual upgrades and the likes. It'd be like becoming a "Notable" instead of a ruler.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

@2:41 When Rhagaea's fat face is called out for clipping through the armor Heh heh have a drink for Steve
Rhagaea you knocked at least full point of the review, time to hit the gym!

 

[CrazyElf]

RBM takes armour efficency a bit too far imo, and I'm sure most casuals/newcomers would agree too. However it could be pushed a bit further in efficiency, yes, though not too much.

AI though... oh boy...

There's a case for a halfway between what RBM has and what is in the current base game for armor, but I still think that the base game vastly understates the strength of armor and arrows are way too OP. I think that the RBM mod is closer though to real life.

The issue is that the halfway point should be in the game.

As far as the AI, yeah I think that the base game needs much better AI.

 

[Calabanar]

RBM just makes it so it's not common to 1hk everything that moves in the game - it still retains archery OPness pretty much alive, it just takes more time making the use of such units more tactical, but than again ever so slightly because Raptor added a "arrows held in hand" feature, which depending on the unit (skill total) and bow (skill requirement) the unit will be very much OP regardless.

*snip*

I'm aware. I've played with the mod myself.

Your points are the most common complaints about Bannerlord, I'm not holding my hopes up much, TW will do little to adress those issues.

There's a case for a halfway between what RBM has and what is in the current base game for armor, but I still think that the base game vastly understates the strength of armor and arrows are way too OP. I think that the RBM mod is closer though to real life.

The issue is that the halfway point should be in the game.

As far as the AI, yeah I think that the base game needs much better AI.

Agree entirely.

And while we are on the topic of armor... they still need to streamline the armor values. Sometimes a metal helm+ cap has the same value as a padded coif, it's just absurd.

 

[Rabies]

The game boils down to this:

The battles are fun. Combat is fun. The rest of the game is fluff. Progression in the game is all about being able to participate in larger and larger battles - that's it, there's nothing else.

You start out with a weak character, weak armour, weak weapons, a weak horse, and weak troops under your command: so you an only fight against weak opponents. The most obvious and straightforward way to make your character stronger, and acquire better armour, weapons, mount and troops is fight battles, and then sell the spoils of war (loot and prisoners). Quests that auto-generate suitable-level opponents to fight against for your current level help with this progression, and are worth doing; quests that don't involve the game auto-generating a battle for you to fight are not worth doing. Arena practice fights and tournaments help a bit with this progression as well, and are worth doing (up to a point).

Once you've got to the stage where fighting bandits and/or caravans becomes too easy, you're ready to progress to being a mercenary or vassal - so you do that. By now, all quests are pretty useless and redundant. You start participating in larger-scale battles involving Nobles and elite troops, big armies and sieges - the game's progression remains logical and rewarding up to this point. But once you've done this a quite few times, there isn't anything else to progress to. There's no point in trading (independent buying/selling, with caravans nor workshops) because it doesn't get you anywhere. There's no point in owning fiefs, because it doesn't get you anywhere. There's no point in talking to notables and noble clan members anymore, because it doesn't get you anywhere. There's no point in paying any attention whatsoever to the political decisions of the realm, because that doesn't get you anywhere. There's no point in starting a family because it doesn't get you anywhere. There isn't even any point in trying to become King/Queen of a realm, or start your own, because that doesn't reward you with anything new to do either.

The only meaningful progression in the game is the progression through the scale of battles you are able to participate in, and you reach the top of that scale once you become a vassal. There is no progression beyond that, and essentially nothing else worthwhile to do in the game. There isn't any variety of pathways to this progression, either - everything except fighting battles is just a side-show, because it doesn't get you anywhere. Fighting battles is fun; the combat is fun. But after you've fought battles over and over again at the highest level and scale possible in the game, even they begin to get boring. There is nothing else to look forward to or work towards, nothing else to achieve. There is nothing else to do... so you stop playing.

 

[Underuse2307]

EA is release.

Brilliant deduction.

Could you please explain what "early" refers to. I'm not as clever as you are.

If it's "early" access, to me it means i am accessing the game before something. If this something is official release, then how can my early access be also release? If it's not release, then what comes after "early"?

Early here meaning "near the beginning of a course, process or series"

 

[Apocal]

I'm not as clever as you are.

Clearly, since you seem to be under the impression that "release" is some magical switch that (somehow?) flips the game between incomplete/complete states, and not a marketing term that allows developers (or publishers) to claim whatever the hell they like.