-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord
- Thread starter bonerstorm
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
That is my problem and i think i stated i enjoyed some while playing the game. But after certain point the other things in the game ruins your fun. You can not be in a state ignoring them forever.
And now i am in a state that i know there is lots fun in BL but this fun is ruined by bad decisions of TW. So that is certainly a negative review in my eyes.
RozBritanicus
Sergeant
As in Bannerlord case people are on this forum trying to help shape the game in a way that at least half if not more on this forum wanted. As the game is still in build state. If it was full released was the game in its current state less hours for these people would be clocked. As for me i am not overly joyed with the game but i am watching for last update before release to write a full honest review. As at the moment in my opinion i couldn't play vanilla it's not good.
Last edited:
negative.
Its more like a showcase and an illustration of Taleworld's project rather than a game made with passion & the community (which barely exists), can't in good faith recommend this at €40+ while being barebones and rough around the edges.
doesn't feel like those in charge ever played warband or were ever involved in that community- let alone played any mods. making their vision entirely isolated to their own practices. and they've sucked all the energy out of mount & blade; from the world to the mechanics it is seriously detached from any resemblance of a living and breathing world inside the scope of a sandbox (among other genres).
even just as a battle and siege simulator, it still doesn't function as intended after 2 years. and has even regressed at the cost of better performance. with no news of innovation in this criterion either.
can't even talk about multiplayer because that's dead in the ditch.
Its more like a showcase and an illustration of Taleworld's project rather than a game made with passion & the community (which barely exists), can't in good faith recommend this at €40+ while being barebones and rough around the edges.
doesn't feel like those in charge ever played warband or were ever involved in that community- let alone played any mods. making their vision entirely isolated to their own practices. and they've sucked all the energy out of mount & blade; from the world to the mechanics it is seriously detached from any resemblance of a living and breathing world inside the scope of a sandbox (among other genres).
even just as a battle and siege simulator, it still doesn't function as intended after 2 years. and has even regressed at the cost of better performance. with no news of innovation in this criterion either.
can't even talk about multiplayer because that's dead in the ditch.
Farticle
Sergeant
Death2Tyrants
Veteran
That's not what you said bud. You said and I quote:
That sounds exactly like a person who's more concerned about what people think than the objective truth.
As for me, I like the premise of the game. I just don't like the current "vision" of the game which came about when the developers reneged on their promises. I think it's important to hold them accountable. I'm sure modders will add all the stuff that's missing but that's not a good reason to let them off the hook.
What part of "If I didn't like the game, you would never see me on this forum" was hard to understand?
Also reviews are not objective, in the slightest. A review from a guy who invests over a thousand hours into a game is quite possibly the least objective anyone could get.
As an aside, why haven't you stopped playing Bannerlord?
I don't want to assume over the internet. A fair number of them just have essentially nothing else they can do to fill their days, so they complain about their favorite luxury product being slightly less luxurious than believed.
edit:
Then stop helping them get the engagement metrics they need. Stop playing the game, stop posting on the forums, stop talking about it.
I think sometimes people post a negative review; not because they don't like something - but they want it to be better; and that's their only real outlet. I agree the concept of posting a thumbs down next to 500+ hours is incredibly self-unaware (almost laughably so) but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I think the real issue is; a binary yes or no has never really been a great way to review a product.
I do agree though - if I don't enjoy something; I disconnect from it. Spending time/passion on something you dislike is just not worth it.
My favorite kinds of reviews are those that are negative but you can still see they actively play the game
Death2Tyrants
Veteran
How can I stop what I've not started? So far, I've tested the product and it fails on a number of levels. The game is unplayable. Of course, some people have low standards. They say, well, it boots up and it doesn't crash as if that alone deems a game playable.
Ignoring issues aren't the way to solve them. Anyhow, you do you. If you insist your positive review is because you like the game and not because you're afraid of being mocked then well done you.
Well precisely.
I have to disagree with you. Someone who has put in the hours will always hold more weight than the person who hasn't. Why would I even bother reading what a person who has barely skimmed the game have to say?
Exactly.
He was specifically talking about the thumbs down, which is fair. If the game is really bad and deserves a thumbs down, why is that person still playing or played a lot of it?
The thing about a game/movie/whatever is that you will get sick of it if you play it too much. Play any game for a thousand hours in a relatively daily manner. You will get sick of it, no matter how good the game actually is. Then it becomes "This guy hates the game only because he's played way too much."
I can understand this from the point of view of a positive review? But a negative one? I will never understand.
If I didn't like a restaurant why would I keep going back to eat there. if I didn't like a movie why would i watch it dozens of times over and over. if I didn't like a certain brand of cereal why is it always in my shopping cart - and if I don't like a video game why am i always playing it?
Whereas instead if someone has maybe 4-8 hours and a bad review; well they have given the game a fair shot - but obviously couldn't get into it. These are the negative reviews to look at. (Conversely if someone gives something a positive review with very low hours played I am also sceptical).
Still though - people are entitled to their opinions; but this is just my logic on what reviews I take account of.
FireBlazinCandy
If I can weigh in here. I have played bannerlord for a number of hours, but about 90% - 95% of my hours are played with mods such as diplomacy, RBM and bannerkings to name a few. They make the game what the game should have been.
To somewhat use your analogy, it's like a going to a restaurant that says it's the bee's knees in town and claim that they have this huge range of food and drink varitey. But when you get there you realise the menu has been striped back, the food you ordered is under cooked and drinks haven't arrived. But it's too late, you are sat at your table so you can't get a refund, and when you confronted the manager, they said "oh sorry, we have just opened so we don't offer that stuff yet, but come back soon and it will be there. However, I can't promise the food will be hot."
The only saving grace of the night out you planned was that as you are leaving the establishment, there were a load of good vendors at the exit with lovely street food, drink stalls and a lil disco tent that would happily feed you for free, but would appreciate a small donation if possible.
These vendors would not be around if it weren't for the restaurant, as the vendors need the restaurant's space to sell their food, but the restaurant needs the food vendors as much as the vendors need them as they know the vendors potentially bring in more customers than the restaurant. It a win win for both parties.
For me, I spent 90% - 95% of my time there, only checking back in on the restaurant every so often, again to be disappointed with being given a half a potato that arrived late with no seasoning because they could get the seasoning jar to open.
(BTW the food vendors also use the same seasoning jar, and they can somehow manage to get it open no problem).
Last edited:
The curious thing is that I only read negative reviews of games from ppl who have considerable amounts of hours in them to judge if they are worth my time or not... Laughing at it seems a bit stupid considering they are the ones that will most likely give the most honest and precise review of all - pointing both positives and negatives -
The negative reviews with few hours always carry absolutely zero useful information, often citing some silly pet-peeve "THEY DIDN'T SAY I'M AMAZING WHEN I CONTACT SUPPORT! HATE THEM!"
On the otherhand the yes-men give the worst reviews - which either look like bot reviews "good game
" or completely skip all of it's flaws - it's like reading a "bootlicker digest" and ultimately useless to assert if you'd like a game or not. While the short time positive reviews are 100% of the time rubbish because all games have their first stages intentionalyl built ot hook ppl in - it simply means the person was successfully manipualted by applied semioticsAnd your point is actually quite precise - novelty often wears off whereas the bad stuff doesn't.
Bc they have one meal in their menu that tastes unique while their other meals sucks.
In the case of BL, I have to taste every meal in the menu to eat just that one unique meal. For a time, you put yourself in that situation for that meal but after, you start to get angry towards TW. Bc they are ruining their unique meal with their other tasteless, half baked, incomplete meals. And that is why after 300 hours, I gave an negative review. And I will not change it. Also this is a sandbox game. You had to play this game more than other games to see what the game offers.
This person played 500 hours this game and gave a negative review. Hahahaah, this must be an idiot
Oh come on - no one *needs* to play something for 300 hours to given an honest review....Bc they have one meal in their menu that tastes unique while their other meals sucks.
In the case of BL, I have to taste every meal in the menu to eat just that one unique meal. For a time, you put yourself in that situation for that meal but after, you start to get angry towards TW. Bc they are ruining their unique meal with tasteless, half baked, incomplete features. And that is why after 300 hours I gave an negative review. And I will not change it. Also this is a sandbox game. You had to play this game more than other games to see what the game offers.
This person played 500 hours this game and gave a negative review. Hahahaah, this must be an idiot
I get you are upset about the limited aspirations of bannerlord - but that's a ridiculous statement. You saw every feature the game had after 10 hours; within 50 you had played everything in this game multiple times. Yet you came back for 250+ hours more....
Whatever you say, pal.
I have 531 games in my steam library (thanks to some humble bundles I'll admit); I've played 9 of those for more then 300 hours (and most of those only barely touch that limit).
Many of those 522 other games are sandbox games (as it's my favourite type of game) - I didn't need 300 hours to review them. i didn't even need 300 hours to feel positive I had completed it.
X3 is a game in a similar vein; you start small and build up an empire. It's an expansive sandbox setting; I feel like I've pretty completed that game. I haven't done everything - but done plenty and got my monies worth. I'd certainly recommend it.
At the end of the day - only you can control how you review. That's the wonder of democracy - but I feel strongly that's it's unreasonable to suggest that 300 hours was a suitable 'trial' period for any game.
Last edited:
they NEED to play a lot to give a thorough review that covers everything - if someone gives reviews for sandbox games or RPGs with 2 hours in, than they are the
not the other way around. And those who nod to said first impression reviews are also not very bright in the headThe disgrace's that professional reviewers often don't explore not even 1/5 of a game before spilling their nonsense online - and get paid for that crap!
- I haven't read professional reviews for absolutely nothing for the past decade due to that absurdity -not sure how or for how long they'll manage to survive though
