Wish I could select all of the options. I sympathize with all of them 100%. This game feels so lifeless and uninteresting, with no stakes, nothing to hold your interest or keep you at the edge of your seat, seemingly no decisive impact with anything, and nothing to make you care about any NPC or any faction whatsoever. I don't want to spend hundreds of hours fighting the same battles over and over again in this world, especially when I have to have dozens upon dozens of battles to make any dent in the war effort.
It's a "tactical battle simulator" with no tactics, no variety in battles, and poor simulation and realism. If that's all Bannerlord is supposed to be then it's kinda garbo at its bread and butter.I think the game is primarily a tactical battle simulator.
The game was definitely advertised to spiritually be a giant, immersive RPG. If it isn't supposed to be that, then that was just lying, which gives the whole "grift" thing even more credence.Others seem to want Bannerlord to be this giant immersive RPG. But it isn't that, and never will be. This is the key conceptual difference that seems to lead to most of the complaining here.
The first six hours of the game are fun the first time, but on replays, it honestly feels terrible to me. Not that the mid-game or late-game are all that great either.If you think the first 6 hours are boring you don't want to try the end game, the start of a new campaign is normally the only semi fun part because you have something other to do than constant battles