-
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
I guess the good features of Warband were not canon at the time of Bannerlord's story to be brought back. Sad that game is still better outside of graphics.
We kept telling TW about everything in this video. From the atrocious lack of dialogue to shallow fief and kingdom management.
We should have noticed the game was going to be like this when they refused to complete even the banner editor. I mean, only one symbol allowed??? No third colours??
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.
Last edited:
I haven't played Vic 2 or 1 so consider that. To me Vic 3 felt quite unfinished. It is not just shallow but feels like missing a lot of things rather. I personally enjoyed economy part (although it is true it is a UI hell). There are some fundamental issues that needs to be addressed, like managing population growth is hard and not too logical. Your neighbour can put a immigration decree and steal 3-5% of your population every year. Only way to gain population fast is to keep increasing standard of living, which will bite you back when all of your buildings start losing money due to high wages. You can't move to higher tier products cause guess what? Technology takes 10 years to research and there are a 100 different production tech
Thanks, pretty much what I've heard (also apparently there's no railroading or unique events from what I've heard) which is a shame, Vic 3 takes place in my favourite historical timeline and a game more focused on economics and politics seemed intriguing, but ah well, paradox gonna paradox I guess. I'm guessing that they'll "fix" the game in the next 5 years by releasing DLC packs worth 100s of $.I haven't played Vic 2 or 1 so consider that. To me Vic 3 felt quite unfinished. It is not just shallow but feels like missing a lot of things rather. I personally enjoyed economy part (although it is true it is a UI hell). There are some fundamental issues that needs to be addressed, like managing population growth is hard and not too logical. Your neighbour can put a immigration decree and steal 3-5% of your population every year. Only way to gain population fast is to keep increasing standard of living, which will bite you back when all of your buildings start losing money due to high wages. You can't move to higher tier products cause guess what? Technology takes 10 years to research and there are a 100 different production tech
histamiini
Recruit
6/10 in IGN is like 10/10 for game that doesn't buy reviews.
9/10 on Steam
Who. Cares. You're acting like an elitist and that only your opinion matters. People who shut down criticism with the Steam reviews are dumb, people who act like the Steam reviews don't exist are dumb.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
You may not be aware of this, but 85% positive reviews is average for Steam reviews. "Mixed" means a game is outright bad. Bannerlord's Steam reviews are average.9/10 on Steam
Does this mean 6/10 = 97%
histamiini
Recruit
That's probably fair.9/10 on Steam
I don't get why the **** it matters that IGN of all places gave x score on Bannerlord. Most people agree that the game is fun and enjoyable while also having many glaring issues. The individual scoring is subjective and arbitrary. I would give the vanilla game a 7/10 (good) despite playing nearly 450 hours, and this score would most likely go up or down depending on my mood. I think a 6/10 is fair just like an 8/10 would be. Does it really matter that a site whose opinions most people don't care about gave a lower score than another random site whose opinions most people don't care about gave the game a higher score? Would you have cared if IGN gave the game a 4 or an 8 or a 10 anyways?
I think a FAR more interesting review would be how many points the average forumite would give a döner takeaway (or another takeaway place like a burrito takeaway) near their house out of 10.
I think a FAR more interesting review would be how many points the average forumite would give a döner takeaway (or another takeaway place like a burrito takeaway) near their house out of 10.
Last edited:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
What is meant is that Bannerlord scores average/barely above average both on IGN and Steam. And IMO that's with good reason because so much of the game still does not work 10 (ten!) years later.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Vicky 3 throws out the war side of the game and replaces it with an incredibly simplistic and unengaging system, their explanation was that they were going to make the economic side the focus of the game but they didn't do that either because it is very easy to break the game by simply doing trade tariffs, keeping taxes at their lowest, never having an army, never signing trade treaties, just getting all your money off tariffs. You make an enormous amount of money that way because the game just doesn't work.
It's a pretty fair review all considered. They could have been more damning really when you think about it. For instance they could have pointed out that the developers are no longer "gifted amateurs" and really should have been expected to produce a more advanced game given their experience and years of development.
The games combat is fun once you've grinded through looter parties to get to a point where it might mean something to be a lord and command a respectable force. But there isn't much meat there outside of the combat.
Modding could save this, of course, and in a year or two people might say "what a brilliant game" and I suspect what happened to Warband will be the case here: Mods will make the reputation of the game. However a word of caution here: without a bonafide troop editor like Morgh's a lot is going to be asked of modders to rescue this and it will be more time consuming without that editor! *hint, hint
The games combat is fun once you've grinded through looter parties to get to a point where it might mean something to be a lord and command a respectable force. But there isn't much meat there outside of the combat.
Modding could save this, of course, and in a year or two people might say "what a brilliant game" and I suspect what happened to Warband will be the case here: Mods will make the reputation of the game. However a word of caution here: without a bonafide troop editor like Morgh's a lot is going to be asked of modders to rescue this and it will be more time consuming without that editor! *hint, hint
Underuse2307
The reviews have shifted from very positive to mostly positive.
Lots of reviews were made during EA and people were more forgiving.
LuciusDomitiusAurelianus
Sergeant
All in that was a very fair review from IGN - cannot believe I am writing that - and it sounded like the dude put enough hours into it to see the glaring issues and boring menu-driven slogfest. Though they did not play it long enough to know what a chamber block is - lel heckin n00b.
It's pretty indicative of the major things that were brought up since beta though. NPCs are lifeless husks, the overworld plays more like an idle clicker and less like a strategy game. AI is good enough but lacks tactical expertise and will just face-tank you while you maneuver on them. No diplomacy or meaningful roleplay and so on ad nauseum.
6/10 is fair for the base game. I don't like using mods outside of my own troop trees so I know it's self-inflicted but I wish the stuff that was modded in was available natively.
The future releases - I hope - will continue to expand and we get some much need polish with textures, clipping, and the God awful facial animations. At least they mentioned messengers and boats lol.
It's pretty indicative of the major things that were brought up since beta though. NPCs are lifeless husks, the overworld plays more like an idle clicker and less like a strategy game. AI is good enough but lacks tactical expertise and will just face-tank you while you maneuver on them. No diplomacy or meaningful roleplay and so on ad nauseum.
6/10 is fair for the base game. I don't like using mods outside of my own troop trees so I know it's self-inflicted but I wish the stuff that was modded in was available natively.
The future releases - I hope - will continue to expand and we get some much need polish with textures, clipping, and the God awful facial animations. At least they mentioned messengers and boats lol.
What I really want to know, is why do so many people play the game in third person with the aimbot crosshair and movement arrow stuff on?
Guy talks about how immersive it is when in battle but has all the wrong things toggled for immersion.
Guy talks about how immersive it is when in battle but has all the wrong things toggled for immersion.
Similar threads
