Playability over historical accuracy? POLL REVISED

[DerGreif]

Indeed, I saw the special on Netflix too. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been imported by the Norse, in fact they were, hence why I still think they should be added as an even rarer sword. As for them being two handed, I was under the impression that one could wield it with two hands. Perhaps it should have both options in game?

As far as two handed axes, there is evidence of "long hafted" axes with the same size axe head, and I was pretty sure these were around during the Viking . They were used by a few people in the shield wall to break down defenses.

I did not see any special on Netflix bur read a few academic publications on the subject. It is absolutely true that the Norse imported the swords. Thus I wrote "high-quality Frankish imports". If they are not in the game (did not make it to trading screen yet), one could add them as a rare and expensive item and maybe even less rare fakes. One could even let the player recognise fakes with a good enough weapon maintenance skill and then get a lower price.

As to the axes: The Viking Age is rather long, might have been laterend of 10th beginning of 11th centry?

 

[mikeboix]

- Leather/Hide armor

This. Where are the leather armors? It was the most used material to make armors on this years.

Villagers also should have some hide, whoolen and fur clothes.

 

[hrotha]

Where are the leather armors? It was the most used material to make armors on this years.

Source?

The use of leather armour is a very contentious issue...

 

[Redleg]

the thing that gets me is that they didn't include any 2h wepons but they left the skill.... that just strikes me as lazy / super misleading. i

You must feel awful about that.  It must be the same way I feel about people making inferences about personality and intention from just a little tidbit of information.  What should I assume about your character because of your refusal to use capital letters where appropriate?

 

[Plovercrest]

I most certainly prefer historical accuracy over senseless armour overload. That picture shows more than enough variation for my tastes. I bought the game because I wanted to relive history. That was the whole point for me as was the point in playing Brytenwalda.

Yeah, but the game is already inaccurate based on the fact that the you (the player character) exists.
But I get your point.

The addition of more "decorative" looking armor would be a plus too

 

[Pamper_Me]

the thing that gets me is that they didn't include any 2h wepons but they left the skill.... that just strikes me as lazy / super misleading.

You must feel awful about that.  It must be the same way I feel about people making inferences about personality and intention from just a little tidbit of information.  What should I assume about your character because of your refusal to use capital letters where appropriate?

i do feel awful about it, you have no idea. but you know I do love how you decided to do a personal attack instead of saying anything relevant to the game.

 

[Limehill]

Historical accuracy is much harder to achieve than playability (since every player has personal preferences about what is fun).  I much rather that the developers do the research and make the game as plausibly realistic as possible and then allow teams of modders to come up with different ways to make it more fun for different audiences than just come up with another hack and slash.

For me, weapons don't feel real without Lazarou's animations (http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=2274).  Not everyone has to enjoy gaming the same way.  The question for the developers is: Is it easier for fans to mod a game so that it is more historically accurate or to mod it so that it is more fun for a certain style of play?

 

[stevehoos]

I think Brytenwalda had a good mix of Historical accuracy and things not so historical accurate. VC is so accurate it might be a bit much. It also has that everything in the the dark ages was soiled rusty and people always stank view, which I feel is a largely a "dark ages" label.

 

[Wenceslas]

More history, please!

If you don't need => go World of Warcraft 

 

[hoboistice]

- Leather/Hide armor

This. Where are the leather armors? It was the most used material to make armors on this years.

Villagers also should have some hide, whoolen and fur clothes.

Leather armor is a load of bollocks perpetuated by media.

Now some dane axes, or at least a haeftmace, would be an improvement.

 

[stevehoos]

More history, please!

If you don't need => go World of Warcraft 

So everything in the dark ages was dark, rusty, soiled, and moldy? Bathing had not been invented yet... sure..... 

Not everything has to look like that.  This is a label that I wish never was attributed to the dark ages. It's like the history channels depictions are the only valid sources.

 

[Extradaemon]

I'm as big a fan of history as any without going to autistic levels of devotion. And seriously, gameplay should always be above any other factors. It's like making a movie and devoting all your resources to pretty props and effects, only to remember that you're recording the whole thing on a 10 year old cellphone.

This is a game, not a history book or documentary. Gameplay should always come first.

 

[Ovietski]

I appreciate all of the thought and effort the team put into making this historically accurate and all that stuff and it does give a very different feel from native mount & blade as well as other mods.

Maybe its the masochist in me that enjoys the struggle and pain at the lower levels. I agree that a bit more variety in armor types as well as weapons would be appreciated however. I don't like all of the bugs or any of that stuff and don't think its okay but I will say that for the time that I was able to play the single player campaign and not have it glitching out, I had a blast.

For multiplayer however, I'll probably just be playing native.

 

[mikeboix]

This is a game, not a history book or documentary. Gameplay should always come first.

This.

 

[Simmo]

I dunno. One of the things I like about mount and blade in general is that it tries to take itself seriously. It tries to be a simulation.

If you just want a mindless hack and slash there's Chivalry: Medieval Warfare.

The theme and accuracy in this mod are pretty important, I think. I'd much rather have a fairly genuine experience than have to run around as a cartoon viking for the sake of fun.

Totally argree +1 People always think you cant have a balance of both for some reason??? usually the same people that mock READING lol

EDIT: seems most are fans of MP over SP as well. and they can be different no??? maybe the poll should have more options?

 

[Meevar the Mighty]

I voted for historical accuracy, but I don't believe the current game state is entirely representative of that sentiment. There are things included that are very speculative and things not included that aren't very speculative.

 

[Extradaemon]

usually the same people that mock READING lol

Nobody mocks reading.

 

[Wenceslas]

This is a game, not a history book or documentary. Gameplay should always come first.

This.

Well, then... buy one of the other thousand hack'n slash games out there, why complaining on this small, focused game concept?

 

[Phocks]

Well, then... buy one of the other thousand hack'n slash games out there, why complaining on this small, focused game concept?

This. Mount and Blade has always been special in it's approach. A fairly focused realistic approach to combat.

For everyone else, there's Civalry.

 

[Foffy123]

The majority of people that will play VC will probably be somewhat confused at a lack of axes, at the very least.

Regardless of whatever historical justification there is for not having axes (if any), shouldn't the fun factor of being a viking with an axe trump that? Would someone that is more knowledgeable about  the time period really see an axe and then be irritated by it being out of place? I'm not saying every unit should have a gigantic two-handed axe or anything like that, by the way (straw-man arguments seem to be common on this forum).

I think some people here are missing the point. Gameplay and historical accuracy are NOT mutually exclusive. I agree with people saying they want VC to be realistic, and I also agree with the people that want more variety. I think we should try to find common ground.