• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • We'll be making a number of structural changes to the forums on Wednesday, 06.12.2023. No downtime is expected. Read more here.

POLL: Your reviews of the COMPLETED FINAL Bannerlord

Have you posted a Steam review?

  • Yes, it's positive and I'm not changing it

    Votes: 42 21.0%
  • Yes, It's positive and I'm changing it to negative

    Votes: 7 3.5%
  • Yes, it's negative and I'm not changing it

    Votes: 55 27.5%
  • Yes, it's negative and I'm changing it to positive

    Votes: 3 1.5%
  • No, but I will post a positive review

    Votes: 18 9.0%
  • No, but I will post a negative review

    Votes: 19 9.5%
  • No, and I will not post a review

    Votes: 23 11.5%
  • I like turtles

    Votes: 25 12.5%
  • For some obscene reason, I DON'T like turtles

    Votes: 8 4.0%

  • Total voters
    200

Users who are viewing this thread

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 head

The 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! :lol: - 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
Absolutely agreed. Anything less then maybe 10 - 20 hours. Maybe even 50 to really explore a game can do many games a misjustice.

18000 Mins though...
 
Absolutely agreed. Anything less then maybe 10 - 20 hours. Maybe even 50 to really explore a game can do many games a misjustice.

18000 Mins though...
you can joke all you want, the longer a negative reviewer played, the more I trust their review. I also never stick to their opinion - I do that to actually know all the negatives beforehand, and I generally love the honest negative reviews that also pin-point the positives of the game.
I'd take a 18000 mins review over a 50h one anyday

And to be frank, I have 1398 hours of Bannerlord registered on my steam - I don't like the current state of the game and I view it negatively (though I'm not about to make a review on it because to me that's a waste of time, Warband I disliked too but played it with mods and was happy).
Most of that time (like 90% of it) I spent testing the game's boundaries and systems - not actually having fun or playing. Say, would you trust my review more, or would you really prefer a 50h review from some random bloke who never fully understood any of the game's systems / mechanics properly?

I tell you, to begin to grasp some aspects of BL it'll take a couple hundred hours at bare minimum because there's a lot of hidden information and non-explicit mechanics, to top that off the "vanilla non-optimal" way of playing it, which most ppl defaults to, requires a ludicrous amount of grind, which can alone easily surpass 50h
 
Last edited:
you can joke all you want, the longer a negative reviewer played, the more I trust their review. I also never stick to their opinion - I do that to actually know all the negatives beforehand, and I generally love the honest negative reviews that also pin-point the positives of the game.
I'd take a 18000 mins review over a 50h one anyday

And to be frank, I have 1398 hours of Bannerlord registered on my steam - I don't like the current state of the game and I view it negatively (though I'm not about to make a review on it because to me that's a waste of time, Warband I disliked too but played it with mods and was happy).
Most of that time (like 90% of it) I spent testing the game's boundaries and systems - not actually having fun or playing. Say, would you trust my review more, or would you really prefer a 50h review from some random bloke who never fully understood any of the game's systems / mechanics properly?

I tell you, to begin to grasp some aspects of BL it'll take a couple hundred hours at bare minimum because there's a lot of hidden information and non-explicit mechanics, to top that off the "vanilla non-optimal" way of playing it, which most ppl defaults to, requires a ludicrous amount of grind, which can alone easily surpass 50h
Jesus man... that's 58 straight days! How much testing did you do? And you didn't even like warband?

I just... cannot understand you. I don't even mean that as an insult- you are an absolute enigma to me. I can't comprehend this.
 
Jesus man... that's 58 straight days! How much testing did you do? And you didn't even like warband?

I just... cannot understand you. I don't even mean that as an insult- you are an absolute enigma to me. I can't comprehend this.
okay, I'll try to explain:
I never take my preferences at face value because I have inconstant mood swings and can easily dismiss things I like as if I didn't by "accident" - as such i've grown very patient to actually assess my preferences. This has to do with my mental disorder, it's like a counter-act to prevent it from governing how I feel about things.

A second layer is my analytical thinking and excessive curiosity - I don't like to judge anything before I know everything about it (ppl, things) which's why you'll often watch me entering arguments with other ppl and almost involuntarily keep trying to create some "harmony" - most of the time I fail, obviously, and from personal experiences I'm often wasting time, though I keep trying whenever a new situation arises

Third layer would be my chronical and excessive sense of boredom - most things and most ppl bore me to death, so I tend to try and extract as much as I can from both clinging to any value they might bring - sometimes it works, other times the simplicity of trying to solve a conflict winds up being more entertaining than my leveled default state

The last layer's my inherent curiosity and the dopamine I get from getting to know things, learning on itself - my brain works like a sponge and learning's almost an addiction to me - I haven't read a single fiction book in over a decade, yet I'm constantly reading references, academic documents, papers, essays, books on sience. Although on literary stuff I'm much more inclined towards human studies than anything else (the human mind fascinates me). When it comes to games, for some odd reason I get hooked immediately and get this "itchy" NEED of learning every single aspect of it - until I do that I can't get the game out of my head. One of the reasons I avoid so many releases and devour negative reviews is that - because if I start I know for a fact I'll be drowning on it for at least 2 weeks straight and it often interferes with other stuff I wanted to do. Once I learn enough I grow detached from it and if the game has nothing new or didn't please me enough I'll ditch it.

Now bare in mind that I picked-up BL during lockdown in Italy - so most of that time was spent there when I was literally alone for a couple of months. Later on I was in the UK and during my downtime (when not working) I'd play games daily to pass-time when my partner at the time wasn't at my flat with me - simply because going out was such a hassle (pandemic was really annoying) - so add there some good 6 months where I would fire up BL occasionally (almost never). On early 2021 I moved back to Brazil and haven't touched BL until a couple months ago (was barely playing games at all).

As for Warband that's a tricky answer - I loved M&B back in late 2000s when I first saw it - after devouring the game I noticed all of it's flaws and grew resentful of it's lack of meaningful content - luckily there were mods, and mods kept me in love with it yet I couldn't stand the unmodded Warband not even for 5 minutes. - My remark was honest: I didn't like WB, but I liked other people's take on it and I played it A LOT for many years! :xf-wink:

Now what I want to know is if I was able to properly explain it in a comprehensive way! I know that doesn't make me less weird, but that's how I function.
 
Last edited:
Frankly I consider Bannerlord to be early access garbage with either an expressly manipulative dev cycle as is now the norm to dupe people into buying No Man's Feudalism (but without the support cycle yet that made NMS make a comeback), or internal communication is so horrendously incompetent that the current mess is an unintentional and unfortunate conclusion. Either way the game is completely vapid and devoid of even the minor depth of Warband when it comes to non combat features, and the combat of Bannerlord itself is atrocious unless you play like a blinkered moron and thus never realize how fast the jenga tower falls apart if you lightly poke it.

Everything outside of combat basically doesn't exist, there really is not even gameplay to be had for a character if you don't endlessly play battles, but the issue falls that the battles themselves play like utter garbage that blend together in same-ness so regardless of what I do, regardless of what mods I use, every single battle turns into the exact same affair of utterly decisive victories with no risk unless I'm hideously outnumbered. Because yet again we have another medieval game where the AI has the general intelligence of a catatonic stroke victim and cannot cope or defeat a foe that enters a basic infantry square, and troop quality has been largely thrown out to die with the removal of the old stat system so elite troops can be pretty easily mulched by infantry or cavalry in a good spot.

My disappointment is immeasurable because I foolishly thought that despite being early access, this game would be enjoyable, that at the least it would have modding potential, and that it would be a worthy successor to Warband. Instead what I ended up buying was nothing short of an infuriating, miserable mistake of a purchase that served as yet another lesson of why anything labelled early access is probably going to turn out to be hot garbage.

And I have no intention to mince words in this because I actually cared about this game being good, but from the perspective of a medievalist and enjoyment found in Warband, Bannerlord's 'development' cycle has been nothing more than watching a trainwreck where you watch your childhood stuffed toy get ripped asunder. Because not only is combat in this game atrocious compared to Warband, but the move to more complex coding and removal of such things as MCM .ini files for modules means you have zero hope of trying to tweak things on your own end to achieve a realistic feeling end where armor isn't ****ing paper or even behaves in a realistic manner. And it's not like mods fix this either, as either it's a hardcoded part of the game where armor doesn't soak damage like it used to, or mods like Realistic Battle just have zero actual intention of being a realistic battle mod, leaving you on your own without the means to engage in high skill coding to try to tweak the game to a point where you find it actually respectable. It is safe to say that I will never recommend Bannerlord to anyone unless there's some radical shifts in development or modding down the line, because all I see now is 448 hours I wasted trying to have fun.

Also on the topic of modding, I may have tried to take a crack at banging my head against a wall to learn c to make some basic attempt to mod literally anything, even just changing the values of armor in bannerlord, but the documentation from talesworld did not pay to update the domain!

Regarding the nature of battles when talking about sameness as well, where all the rest of the game has nothing in the way of meaningful development, combat thus becomes the sole focus of the game. But in every battle I play it's the same song and dance every time. Terrain in Bannerlord means little to nothing like it did in Warband for one, altitude seriously improves the performance of ranged units but it doesn't mean much in bannerlord because ranged is already hideously deadly in vanilla. Forests likewise don't hurt cav as much as they do in warband, I don't see cavalry impacting trees much and getting stopped, thus they don't offer nearly as much protection against cavalry charges, and nor does water either. In warband water slows any unit to a crawl, thus anchoring infantry on the riverbank is hyper-effective when facing overwhelming amounts of horsemen. Warband also in some regions will toss obscene amounts of hills at you, such as in Rhodok territory, which throws another wrench in the idea that one tactic solves all problems.

But this isn't the case with Bannerlord, where one playstyle resolves all problems and situations. Every battle I fight for the course of a hundred hours is the exact same song and dance, over and over again, with the same results unless the enemy completely outnumbers me. Said tactic? Stick infantry into square/shieldwall, aggro AI into a suicide charge, then loop around and lead a cavalry lance to utterly smash the bots, and to only use units with the 'follow me' command so they stick together, because the AI has its units fly apart at the seams when it charges so you have individual horsemen zipping across the battlefield erratically. Meanwhile you, the player, are not an idiot, so you just personally lead your cavalry to delete the enemy with 60+ heavy cav smashing clean into their flanks with maximum concentration of mass to bowl them over. Then you do this again. And again. And again. And again. For hundreds of hours because it's really the only part of the 'game' that has gameplay, and it all turns into a monotonous chore that never changes, never sees unexpected curveballs, and always wins, forever. You can't have combat be the sole focus of a game and then have personal combat which is trash because of ridiculously bad armor/lack of realistic armor soaking, and bad field tactics because the AI is hideously stupid and environmental factors do little to screw up your battle plan.

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."
Also this isn't true. I have played Warband for 3,262 hours and I am far from sick of it, with mods like Warsword Conquest it continues to shine where so many modern videogames are nothing more than exploitative garbage. I have played Warframe, Skyrim, Vermintide 2, Battlefront 2, and Dawn of War 2 for hundreds of hours each as well. None of them I would say are at all bad, and most I thoroughly enjoy. I could and one day likely will, end up spending literal thousands of hours on most of their number because they are good and close enough to perfection that I hardly develop a hatred of them.

The issue rather is that if you play for something long enough you will learn every flaw, every exploit, and every defect no different than if you spend hundreds to thousands of hours with a singular person. If that person is actually good you don't get sick of them, the problem is rather if the product in the same line, isn't good at all. And Bannerlord is frankly atrocious in its current state and its entire state since it was put up on the steam store, as hundreds of hours gave me in depth look to all of its problems. It's the same issue I have with total war, the game series is actually made like hot garbage if you play long enough to learn the game rather than merely playing an immersive experience for 100 hours and then forget about it for the rest of your life. There is a serious difference between testing the temperature of a pool with your toes and leaping in for a swim.
 
Last edited:
Say, would you trust my review more, or would you really prefer a 50h review from some random bloke who never fully understood any of the game's systems / mechanics properly?
I wouldn't trust your review because you're using what is supposed to be a casual entertainment product as a test environment.
 
I wouldn't trust your review because you're using what is supposed to be a casual entertainment product as a test environment.
wtf are you on about? I said I'm testing the GAME itself, it's boundaries and limits, it's mechanics, etc... You sound like I've said I'm trying to use games as sources of sience or knowledge (!??!) You may dislike me but giving such a "under shroom" reply was a stretch too far :lol:
Easy on the droogs mate
first wot
You forgot the fact that we can completely wipe enemies with arrows only and don't even need infantry or cavalry at all. But as I've said, I don't like BL - mods mitigate most issues but not everything nor fixes them entirely... RBM really increases the quality of the game - Warbandlord can approximate the experience to what we used to get with WB - without either of those mods the game crumbles, that means at some point we'll get combat overhauls that will probably fix everything, which do not excuse TWs flawed vision and original design.
second part
wholeheartedly agree - I still come back to really old titles from time to time and have a second wave of a blast whenever I do that. Of course, since I know every crack in these games I grow tired faster and move on to not touch them for long periods, but they are really rich - With BL that doesn't happen, I've stayed away from it for a really long time and came back recently, only to find the exact same experience - Underwhelming, incomplete, excessively grindy and poorly balanced. - the minor improvements made gave the game new novelty (which's what's keeping me going for now) but novelties wear off and they can never make a game good, the core gameplay loop's the key for that...
 
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.

That's the problem with analogies, it never really works but ok I'll play.

In a way, it's the only restaurant in town. 2nd, you really love the main dish but the sides suck, service is slow and you've already paid for a lifetime all you can eat membership.

So, you actually think the game is great? With its crappy dialogue that is badly timed, lousy diplomacy, irrelevant battles, meaningless relations, hollow gameplay, missing elements etc etc etc...with all that, you're still a fanboy?

Why?
 
I have played Warband for 3,262 hours and I am far from sick of it
Was it a continuous 3,262 hours or did you take like, say, two months breaks every once in a while? Because it's the break that's important. That's what I meant by "relatively daily". You will get sick of something if you play it non-stop. You need breaks or a change every once in a while. I'd normally get invested in a Total War campaign and play just that game for weeks, and then switch to another game like Mount&Blade and the cycle continues. I'd get sick of Total War not because it's a bad game, but because once I've played it too long, everything will eventually become a blur and feel like a chore.

Like you said, once you've played a game long enough you will know every nook and cranny of the game. Your gaming session will become very uninteresting as there's nothing "fresh" for your recent memory, and that's boring. A break would cleanse that dirtied mindset and make the game look fresh again when you come back to it.

What the "actual quality" of the game does, is make you return after that break. If the game is utter crap, you won't return, which will translate to less total playtime. The argument was, if someone really thinks Bannerlord is crap, they wouldn't return to it.

I wouldn't trust your review because you're using what is supposed to be a casual entertainment product as a test environment.
How dare you insinuate that video games are not serious business that deserve thousands of hours of deep humping to truly evaluate! This is not a game, man! Not some toy you give to yo' wife and kids!
 
Was it a continuous 3,262 hours or did you take like, say, two months breaks every once in a while? Because it's the break that's important. That's what I meant by "relatively daily". You will get sick of something if you play it non-stop. You need breaks or a change every once in a while. I'd normally get invested in a Total War campaign and play just that game for weeks, and then switch to another game like Mount&Blade and the cycle continues. I'd get sick of Total War not because it's a bad game, but because once I've played it too long, everything will eventually become a blur and feel like a chore.

Like you said, once you've played a game long enough you will know every nook and cranny of the game. Your gaming session will become very uninteresting as there's nothing "fresh" for your recent memory, and that's boring. A break would cleanse that dirtied mindset and make the game look fresh again when you come back to it.

What the "actual quality" of the game does, is make you return after that break. If the game is utter crap, you won't return, which will translate to less total playtime. The argument was, if someone really thinks Bannerlord is crap, they wouldn't return to it.
I played Warband pretty much every day for quite a long while. I never got sick of it as there was always fresh content with new mods, but I did eventually just switch interests, but there was never entering a period of disgust with the state of things, especially as I could just tweak MCM values or use Morgh's editor to fix minor grievances on the fly. Said breaks later on could last a while, but there was a point where I was playing it more or less every day for the better part of like, 3-4 years. Although I didn't play vanilla itself all that much, Floris for a while, but I moved on to more incredible pastures like 1257ad, la Guerre de Cent Ans, Warsword Conquest, etc.

wtf are you on about? I said I'm testing the GAME itself, it's boundaries and limits, it's mechanics, etc... You sound like I've said I'm trying to use games as sources of sience or knowledge (!??!) You may dislike me but giving such a "under shroom" reply was a stretch too far
Easy on the droogs mate

You forgot the fact that we can completely wipe enemies with arrows only and don't even need infantry or cavalry at all. But as I've said, I don't like BL - mods mitigate most issues but not everything nor fixes them entirely... RBM really increases the quality of the game - Warbandlord can approximate the experience to what we used to get with WB - without either of those mods the game crumbles, that means at some point we'll get combat overhauls that will probably fix everything, which do not excuse TWs flawed vision and original design.

wholeheartedly agree - I still come back to really old titles from time to time and have a second wave of a blast whenever I do that. Of course, since I know every crack in these games I grow tired faster and move on to not touch them for long periods, but they are really rich - With BL that doesn't happen, I've stayed away from it for a really long time and came back recently, only to find the exact same experience - Underwhelming, incomplete, excessively grindy and poorly balanced. - the minor improvements made gave the game new novelty (which's what's keeping me going for now) but novelties wear off and they can never make a game good, the core gameplay loop's the key for that...
While it's possible to wipe armies with just arrows, I don't actually regard that as being incredibly reliable in either vanilla or RBM and thus prefer to opt for infantry and cavalry with rudimentary hammer and anvil tactics. It prevents you from ever getting overrun, ensures the enemy gets enveloped and the lords are taken out, and works in any terrain feature such as LOS blocking hills.
 
I played Warband pretty much every day for quite a long while. I never got sick of it as there was always fresh content with new mods, but I did eventually just switch interests, but there was never entering a period of disgust with the state of things, especially as I could just tweak MCM values or use Morgh's editor to fix minor grievances on the fly. Said breaks later on could last a while, but there was a point where I was playing it more or less every day for the better part of like, 3-4 years. Although I didn't play vanilla itself all that much, Floris for a while, but I moved on to more incredible pastures like 1257ad, la Guerre de Cent Ans, Warsword Conquest, etc.
1257ad
so_good.png
While it's possible to wipe armies with just arrows, I don't actually regard that as being incredibly reliable in either vanilla or RBM and thus prefer to opt for infantry and cavalry with rudimentary hammer and anvil tactics. It prevents you from ever getting overrun, ensures the enemy gets enveloped and the lords are taken out, and works in any terrain feature such as LOS blocking hills.
I'm always varying tactics, I just said the game's so:

that you can actually pull off some pretty ridiculous stuff (that being one of the most to me)

I'm always varying tactics, though, having fun with "what will work?" it's a way to cope with the bad parts of the game - some ppl set themselves campaign objectives with RPing - I set battlefield objectives with creativity. One thing I learned, though, is how absurdly effective captains are by doing said experiments. You can absolutely turn a 100% loss formation composition into a 100% winning just by adding a good captain to it - that's among the novelties I like about BL - but than again it's a sad novelty because AI has zero access to it unless they are fielding an army with enough lords, even than captains seem to almost never be assigned for their archers and HA.

In RBM one of the most interesting AI tactics (when you have RBMs AI on) are the "cultural" specific deployments - it's very efficient to a point where I've struggled when ill prepared against battanians due to their double fian lines (obviously against armies - which basically spam t6 units left and right) - I've also seen the AI make use of infantry splits which were interestingly strong. That's why I believe that overtime we'll end up getting mods that fix the game for the most part, yet it's annoying having to rly on the freework of others while we paid for the game itself.
 
you can joke all you want, the longer a negative reviewer played, the more I trust their review. I also never stick to their opinion - I do that to actually know all the negatives beforehand, and I generally love the honest negative reviews that also pin-point the positives of the game.
I'd take a 18000 mins review over a 50h one anyday

If I see a 1400 hour negative review on a game I absolutely think it's full of ****.
If you can endure 1400 hours of playing time, theres gotta be something in there that you'd like.
Or you're a masochist who only lives to punish himself, that's the other option ofcourse.

And I live for the 1000+PH games with endless content. That's worth my 40 bucks.
 
That's the problem with analogies, it never really works but ok I'll play.

In a way, it's the only restaurant in town. 2nd, you really love the main dish but the sides suck, service is slow and you've already paid for a lifetime all you can eat membership.

So, you actually think the game is great? With its crappy dialogue that is badly timed, lousy diplomacy, irrelevant battles, meaningless relations, hollow gameplay, missing elements etc etc etc...with all that, you're still a fanboy?

Why?
Warband had all these same issues - but with a much smaller map and only 150 man battles. And I loved that. Why would I suddenly hate bannerlord because ots missing... (checks notes).... feasts...? I mean...

That's not to say bannerlord is perfect. Oh no; I think TW could have had (nay should of had) much greater ambition. But its the same gameplay loop ice played and enjoyed for something like 15 years now.
 
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.
:unsure:
Ignoring issues aren't the way to solve them.
You aren't pressuring game companies by continuing to play and engage with their game. You are legitimately doing them a favor every time you boot it up or otherwise involve yourself. In a hype-based industry like gaming, the one thing that punishes developers more than anything is obscurity.
wtf are you on about? I said I'm testing the GAME itself, it's boundaries and limits, it's mechanics, etc... You sound like I've said I'm trying to use games as sources of sience or knowledge (!??!) You may dislike me but giving such a "under shroom" reply was a stretch too far :lol:
Not as a source of science or knowledge but most people play games without any expectation of learning how stuff works under the hood.
 
If I see a 1400 hour negative review on a game I absolutely think it's full of ****.
If you can endure 1400 hours of playing time, theres gotta be something in there that you'd like.
Or you're a masochist who only lives to punish himself, that's the other option ofcourse.

And I live for the 1000+PH games with endless content. That's worth my 40 bucks.
so instead of reading and learning about the reason you're even searching for a Review, you prefer to ad hominem and judge another person because you can't accept people aren't like you. Interesting... This means you can't accept any differences making you prone to prejudice towards others, that's not a very healthy way of thinking
Not as a source of science or knowledge but most people play games without any expectation of learning how stuff works under the hood.
not under the hood, but at face-value. if you wanna learn how a game works under the hood you should actually open it's source code or go for creating mods for it.
Warband had all these same issues - but with a much smaller map and only 150 man battles. And I loved that. Why would I suddenly hate bannerlord because ots missing... (checks notes).... feasts...? I mean...

That's not to say bannerlord is perfect. Oh no; I think TW could have had (nay should of had) much greater ambition. But its the same gameplay loop ice played and enjoyed for something like 15 years now.
idk, I think BL is less than WB, at bare minimum feels much worse.
 
I never got sick of it as there was always fresh content with new mods
I see. Total conversion mods are indeed big enough to refresh your palate. Here's the thing tho. Bannerlord hasn't got that many total conversion mods yet. The few that are already out are still new and janky. That's why I think it's unfair to crap on Bannerlord because you're playing hundreds of hours of the same setting, and comparing that experience with what you got with Warband + its great repository of mods. Bannerlord has more systems that allow for much bigger than Warband. Taleworld's fault is that they're barely making use of those systems themselves. I say give it time. Mods will appear and mature.
 
idk, I think BL is less than WB, at bare minimum feels much worse.
I mean BL provably has many features Warband didn't. To name but a few;

True Character Aging and death.
Babies and children.
Minor factions
Kingdom decisions
Catapults, Trebuchet, Ballista
Multi entrance sieges
Battle continuation after K.O.
Weapon Smithing
1000 Man Battles without mods.
Battle deployment and formations.
Banners and standard bearers.

Now sure Warband has a few things BL doesn't. Feasts and duels come to mind - but it's not a comparable list.

Bannerlord is a much more feature rich game then native warband. Now that's not to excuse the fact that TW had 10 years of mods they could of pulled on - and their limited aspirations in regard to campaign features.
 
I wouldn't trust your review because you're using what is supposed to be a casual entertainment product as a test environment.
We are testing the game it's not released yet. The dev tells us to let them know about issues or thing we would like to see added. I have many hours of play but mostly testing we have had two years of play testing from version to version i have only played around 5 campaigns to an end conclusion or stopped because i the beta version ran bad as 1.6 for me was unplayable for me. Somethings i think are really bad or lacking dumbed down mechanics wise and somethings i like and think are good. But until release and probably a month after that only then i will give a full honest review. But my opinion at the moment is the game is Good 7 or (8 at a push)out of 10.
 
Last edited:
I mean BL provably has many features Warband didn't. To name but a few;

True Character Aging and death.
Babies and children.
Minor factions
Kingdom decisions
Catapults, Trebuchet, Ballista
Multi entrance sieges
Battle continuation after K.O.
Weapon Smithing
1000 Man Battles without mods.
Battle deployment and formations.
Banners and standard bearers.

Now sure Warband has a few things BL doesn't. Feasts and duels come to mind - but it's not a comparable list.

Bannerlord is a much more feature rich game then native warband. Now that's not to excuse the fact that TW had 10 years of mods they could of pulled on - and their limited aspirations in regard to campaign features.
well, none of those fancy features mean anything towards others or "talk to one-another" at all - crumpling a bunch of half-baked features together like some odd compilation where not even the theme's the same makes for a not so great experience. They've left it with too many holes where essential features to enhance their genre were needed but ignored, all the while much lesser enhancements were added without concern of connecting all dots. The last straw was seeing the combat itself be much worse than it used in WB - sure the AI was dumb there and there were limitations, but BL kept the dumb AI with less fine tuning than mods managed in WB all the while changing some things that don't even make sense being changed.
 
Back
Top Bottom