Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Bowman said:
Lumos said:
The Battlefield 1 trailer is live. Go watch that.

Did watch. Now I'm struggling with a serious form of diarrhea.

I was expecting a more solemn and dignified trailer knowing that the game takes place on the WW1. But yeah, it's trendy to make noisy trailers with electronic music.
 
That's exactly how I felt. It seems they want to give a modern action film aesthetic to everything; music, sound effects, posture of soldiers. It's a shame and bemusing; choose a style that suits your chosen setting, it doesn't need to sound like the latest super hero film. It looks exciting though and interestingly featured some Arabian horsemen with swords in their hands; if they actually feature in the gameplay perhaps there will be some melee fighting from horseback.
 
Louis said:
That's a utter way to use "Seven Nation Army". For a trailer and dubstep remix  :dead:
Welp.
At least the song is good.
If I can't scream Allahu Akbar while in a cav charge in Arabia with a Tulwar raised up I'll kms
 
Đяαкøℵ said:
Welp.
At least the song is good.
If I can't scream Allahu Akbar while in a cav charge in Arabia with a Tulwar raised up I'll kms
I had this idea Battlefield will use the same cav damage stipulation Mount and Blade has (+speed +damage) and call it "their own unique system". Because you cant spell "steal" without "EA"
Seven nation army is pretty f*cking good. But, at least, this remix is  a cr*p comparing the original one.
 
a game that captured WWI really well was Red Orchestra Ostfront.
"But Toy Boat, that game was WWII!"
Yeah, but the awful controls, the slow pace, the inability to shoot weapons other than rifles with any accuracy beyond 5 metres, shooting the guns out of the hands out of people crossing out in the open and watching them scramble to pick them up, the inept administration... ahh, good times.

I wonder if we'll see guns translated well into Bannerlord, besides muskets and such. I'm excited to see what modders can do in that regard.
 
Hopefully the devs add an option on servers to force-turn off reticules for all players. Would make battles involving range weapons alot more interesting. Perhaps a feature to look down the crossbow when aiming it too, sort of like using ironsights in Ro2.
 
can someone explain to me why that game is called battlefield 1. I mean battlefield ONE. it should be at least battlefield seven. I know ****ing around with sequel names is the rage nowdays but this is preposterous.  1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4, 5, 1. no wonder ea has problems if they can't even count to five (or 2142 for that matter). I know there are other things that have been renamed to one like the xbox but in that case there were no regularly numbered sequels before.

and yeah, the trailer was rather wierd. I do wonder how they are going to make the boring trench warfare interesting without making the game unhistorical (they robably won't).

but in the end it doesn't really matter for me anyway since I don't play shooters.

clearly someone needs to mod bannerlord into a real WOI game.
 
SenorZorros said:
can someone explain to me why that game is called battlefield 1. I mean battlefield ONE. it should be at least battlefield seven. I know ****ing around with sequel names is the rage nowdays but this is preposterous.  1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4, 5, 1.

and yeah, the trailer was rather wierd. I do wonder how they are going to make the boring trench warfare interesting without making the game unhistorical (they robably won't).
Because there never was a "Battlefield 1" and it's about the First World War. I think it's clever. Not necessarily a good decision, but clever anyway.
Besides, it didn't give me a very realistic vibe. It looked pretty cool, however, and the rule of cool is important.
 
Lumos said:
SenorZorros said:
can someone explain to me why that game is called battlefield 1. I mean battlefield ONE. it should be at least battlefield seven. I know ****ing around with sequel names is the rage nowdays but this is preposterous.  1942, 2, 2142, 1943, 3, 4, 5, 1.

and yeah, the trailer was rather wierd. I do wonder how they are going to make the boring trench warfare interesting without making the game unhistorical (they robably won't).
Because there never was a "Battlefield 1" and it's about the First World War. I think it's clever. Not necessarily a good decision, but clever anyway.
Besides, it didn't give me a very realistic vibe. It looked pretty cool, however, and the rule of cool is important.
it's not clever, it's stupid. there has been a very simple naming convention fro the ages. if you make a sequel you put a 2 behind it. if you make addition sequels you increase the number by one for each additional sequel. this system works great. there is no reason to confuse the buyer by juggling numbers. it does not look "cool". it does not sound clever. it is low hanging fruit especially since this game is clearly set in the later years of the war. if hey wanted to refer to the war why not call it battlefield 1917? that is an actual naming convention used by the series.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom