Warlord123123
Regular
6/10 is a fair score I reckon.
Hopefully, devs (especially their managers) take this into account.
Hopefully, devs (especially their managers) take this into account.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Video Review by IGN
- Thread starter Warlord123123
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Regular
Their account is full of money. But it is good to see a honest review and a fair score.
Lol, their console score of WB is 6.8.
Lol, their console score of WB is 6.8.
Warlord123123
Regular
Yea, but if TW is ignoring their community, then maybe they will listen to mainstream gaming reviews.
RozBritanicus
Sergeant
It is a fair score i game a 6 to 7 out of 10. I also called the game soulless an empty world bad dialogue and if a npc is evil or bad its only because it says in their write up in the encyclopaedia, after my first campaign 2 years ago. I don't think mods can save it unless they tackle the issues of the game, and it's not battles.
6 feels a smidge high to me I think 5 - 5.5 would have been fairer considering the amount of bugs it "released" with. Especially since so many of them were known bugs that had been reported very shortly after 1.9 dropped. That's to say nothing of the other longstanding issues that have been commented on here ad nauseum on the forms. For brevities sake, I shan't be bothering to repeat those.
I guess another way of looking at it however is 60% is still a failing grade in school however so:
Good Job!
I guess another way of looking at it however is 60% is still a failing grade in school however so:
Good Job!
What a great review, agree with almost all of it. Give me ****ing messengers.....
CrazyElf
Sergeant
On the whole, I'm inclined to agree with the review. I haven't always agreed with IGN's reviews, but this one had some constructive criticism and the score is fair. The main thing the game has going for it right now is that it is a good base platform for modding.
Some of these issues could be solved with a major patch, but I think that there needs to be more content.
From the video:
"The kingdom management is weak due to shallow mechanics and lacklustre AI".
What we really need is a game that adds some of the elements of games like Crusader Kings 3. I mean there are mods like Banner Kings in development, but there needs to be more in the base game.
Also, note the discussion about bugs and clipping issues.
"World never feels alive"
"NPCs have no deep motivation"
"Extremely limited pool of awful dialogue"
"Braindead AI"
I think that there are going to have to be a lot more additions to make the world feel truly alive. Better dialogue options, but also characters that convey emotions, intentions, etc.
I think that they will need to release an expansion or at least a major enough patch to justify a major review.
There have been games that have turned around - a good example is perhaps No Man's Sky or Distant Worlds: Universe (once all the expansions were out), but not much else.
Some of these issues can be fixed with mods, but not all, and there's the matter that a lot of these should have been addressed before release.
Some of these issues could be solved with a major patch, but I think that there needs to be more content.
From the video:
"The kingdom management is weak due to shallow mechanics and lacklustre AI".
What we really need is a game that adds some of the elements of games like Crusader Kings 3. I mean there are mods like Banner Kings in development, but there needs to be more in the base game.
Also, note the discussion about bugs and clipping issues.
"World never feels alive"
"NPCs have no deep motivation"
"Extremely limited pool of awful dialogue"
"Braindead AI"
I think that there are going to have to be a lot more additions to make the world feel truly alive. Better dialogue options, but also characters that convey emotions, intentions, etc.
I think that they will need to release an expansion or at least a major enough patch to justify a major review.
There have been games that have turned around - a good example is perhaps No Man's Sky or Distant Worlds: Universe (once all the expansions were out), but not much else.
Some of these issues can be fixed with mods, but not all, and there's the matter that a lot of these should have been addressed before release.
Last edited:
Personally, I have never taken anything said by IGN into consideration. Their "professionals" are some of the most 'out of touch' "gamers" I have ever had to listen to speak ever since early 2000s. I remember reading their reviews in Game Informer or other magazines all them years ago as a teenager and IGN always gave me vibes of their lack of being an authentic gamer or some Call of Duty kid who is a brat and their parents give them EVERYTHING.
Point is, they rate it 6/10 but Steam Reviews from actual genuine gamers say otherwise.
Point is, they rate it 6/10 but Steam Reviews from actual genuine gamers say otherwise.
Except it is WHAT is in the review that matters -that being the content. Now had this reviewer acted like your portraying ie "a herp this gAmE iZ Dump because I like battles with fIREbAlls and Spellz N stuFF..." ok. But this guy laid out very concise areas the game is lacking - a bullet point list very similar to another group of real Gamers -Taleworld forumites.
I disagree with the bullet points but I also know future DLC and Mods will include or already do include responses to all or most of the issues. For me, I look as Bannerlord as a perfect foundation for Sandbox gameplay aside from the AI. I also understand a 90+ dev team put a ton of man hours into making this game playable and plan on putting a ton more into it. TaleWorlds and Mount and Blade have made gaming strides in doing something no one else has done and their attempt to make an Dynamic RPG Sandbox RTS appeals to me because I've had similar gaming ideas for the past 25 years since I was 10 years old in the 90s and first played Red Alert. They're doing it and they're doing it well. Put the original mount and blade next to Bannerlord at release for both and compare while understanding what it takes to make these things possible. It's not easy by any means and I think it will only get better with polish over the next year or two in post release.
Tales of glory has done more to advancing the genre and thats one guy vs 90
I read a fairly similar review in PC Gamer the other day as well. (Similar in what it said, but they gave it 80%!)
IGN summarizes: "Glorious action/real-time strategy combat, but forces you to to endure dozens of hours of laborious and repetitive activities on its dry, flavourless overworld map."
PC Gamer's verdict was more like, "Treat the game like a war sandbox where you dip into trade, management and politics, and it starts to make a lot more sense."
Personally, I don't think the campaign map part of the game is completely terrible. More like a missed opportunity to make something truly great.
The combat is truly great, and I think the devs deserve a lot of credit for it.
IGN summarizes: "Glorious action/real-time strategy combat, but forces you to to endure dozens of hours of laborious and repetitive activities on its dry, flavourless overworld map."
PC Gamer's verdict was more like, "Treat the game like a war sandbox where you dip into trade, management and politics, and it starts to make a lot more sense."
Personally, I don't think the campaign map part of the game is completely terrible. More like a missed opportunity to make something truly great.
The combat is truly great, and I think the devs deserve a lot of credit for it.
Last edited:
They had two years to play the game.
I refuse to take IGN seriously - they are shills for way too many companies, probably because they keep receiving ridiculous trinkets and invitations / that if they don't get directly paid.
Their reviews are both inconsistent and often praise crap - just look at the Rings of Power/she-hulk debacle and you'll see that most of those big "boot licking" so called review websites are just a joke.
Their scores also have zero meta - generally the shill reviewing the things simply pulls a number out their own arses - at times you can even see them destroying the game in their texts yet they throw a 9/10 to a clearly crap game... I would refuse to give these guys any audience if I were you...
Anyway, yeah, BL's bad, and that 6/10 was pretty generous
Want to see honest and objective reviews look for user reviews.
There is literally no argument against the popular casual vote, that's a ****ing cope and a half. People like the game, one review giving it a 6/10 isn't going to nullify that, and there isn't any reason to. Arguing about whether or not people actually like the game is meaningless, just focus on the issues that you yourself find.
The review itself is pretty fair and hints at the issues that I have with it myself.
I think the term your looking for is cop out not cope lmao. And sorry but there are plenty of arguments to be made about what subspecies of-what type of fan tends to have what opinion of the game. You can repeating it over and over but tryna declare that the Steam audience as the only and primary audience that matters - well now you’d be wrong that too skipper
five bucks
Knight at Arms
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.
Similar threads
