Julio-Claudian
Sergeant Knight
100 hours is exceptional for a game like Bannerlord?
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Question about this 8 years of Development thing
- Thread starter Savagecanadian43
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sergeant Knight
Yes. It doesn't seem like it if someone looks around places like here because the forums are the natural gathering point for people who play the game a lot. But most people had their 20, 30, 50 hours of fun and ****ed off to play something else.
And those people can judge the game better than the ones putting in more time?
I'm not denying they are having fun, but you don't notice the most flaws (or the lack of updates) from only playing comparatively little.
The recent rating scores increase with time played. Like, I've said this before but whatever point you try to make about Bannerlord's quality being poor, you shouldn't look at Steam reviews to support it.
Last edited:
I don't know what data you have but for me ratings for 100h+ are worse than 10-99h
excuse the german, thx
Also I already told you I don't care much for the reviews, they are an indicator at best.
"recent rating scores"
The ratings are good no matter how you look at them.
But those good ratings still don´t resolve all the issues the game has. But it seems like that most players don´t really have or care about those issues. Or they see the potential and give a good rating anyway, who knows?
I mean this game had awesome ratings soon after it´s release when like 95% of all perks where not working and a lot of stuff was missing / not working.
This game is much better compared to release but still not good enough as it could and should be 1 year after it´s release.
Also you can´t compare this game to many other games like you can do with the 17834 first person shooter. Who knows how many of those players even have played Warband (+mods)?
The Steam review system isn´t that good overall, it´s only nay or yay but nothing in between.
After my positive hype release review I changed it to negative. I would have picked neutral if this would be an option. Bannerlord doesn´t deserve a bad review but neither does it deserve a good review yet, in my opinion.
But those good ratings still don´t resolve all the issues the game has. But it seems like that most players don´t really have or care about those issues. Or they see the potential and give a good rating anyway, who knows?
I mean this game had awesome ratings soon after it´s release when like 95% of all perks where not working and a lot of stuff was missing / not working.
This game is much better compared to release but still not good enough as it could and should be 1 year after it´s release.
Also you can´t compare this game to many other games like you can do with the 17834 first person shooter. Who knows how many of those players even have played Warband (+mods)?
The Steam review system isn´t that good overall, it´s only nay or yay but nothing in between.
After my positive hype release review I changed it to negative. I would have picked neutral if this would be an option. Bannerlord doesn´t deserve a bad review but neither does it deserve a good review yet, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Oh, my bad, I had mine set to Steam Purchasers and my language (English), those are my defaults:
?
edit: how did you get so many more reviews to compare to the 30 day rolling average of recent scores?
Last edited:
I guess you didn't read the discussion but just decided to post something. It's perfectly fine that you think the game is bad, it's just completely unrelated.
Very good points, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
Steam reviews don't help to identify the issues the game has (like siege AI, character progression, lack of NPC dialogues and interaction, etc.).
They do help to counter the moronic 'the game is a scam / development is completely ****ed up / only casuals like it' arguments though. Sadly some people always confuse their emotional outbursts with objective facts.
There's no need to be condescending. I think the game is bad because the development was a mess. They botched the process, not by making it technically unplayable, but by having an incoherent vision. People can like a poorly conceived, poorly developed game; I love the Guild games and they suck. Some people are disappointed, however, because they recognize BL's potential. What we have right now is serviceable, but it is terrible in comparison to what it could have been if the development process wasn't a cluster****. That's also how I feel about the Guild 3, by the way.
That would be slightly / partly ****ed up development instead of completely ****ed up development.
Why are you nitpicking hyperbole again?
This is what can be found on TW career subpage. Pretty much fits into the "internship theory".
"Students
Here at TaleWorlds, we pride ourselves on nurturing talent by giving people the opportunity to gain industry experience while honing their skills. We work in partnership with Middle East Technical University to provide placements to individuals looking to step into the game industry, which has led to full time employment at our company for some of those involved. However, we also welcome applications from students from all over the world and can offer a limited number of placements through an internship scheme."
P.S. There is this guy claiming to leave nerby to their HQ. He is like living 8ball for TW. Some of the Q&A are hillarious
Link to his reddit thread below.r/mountandblade - I'm living in the campus where TaleWorlds HQ is located in AMA
46 votes and 23 comments so far on Reddit
amp.reddit.com
Razeo
Regular
Good god.... some of the white knighting I've read in this thread is cringe worthy.
Not gonna make this long.... I've put around 850+ hrs into Bannerlord since the 2nd day of EA so I think I can speak for what I think about the general state of the game. Personally I still enjoy Bannerlord, but that's mostly because of the 50+ mods I have installed but at the same time I find most of the negative feedback on these forums to be fairly valid. Frankly I find it hard to imagine playing pure native at this point. Sorry.... but its inexcusable to have glaring issues like siege pathing & potato processor AI still linger at this point in EA & at the same time a dev claims to tone down AI for the sake of complexity. Also you simply don't hype up a game for nearly a decade, announce certain features during development & even dedicate a panel on a certain one (ie crimes system) & remain silent about the absence of said features when we're baring down on a year into EA.
Would I say BL is a bad game? No, I've already gotten more than my $'s worth & I'd honestly recommend it to a few people I know.
Would I say BL is a good game? If you were to ask me this around the 1st month of EA I'd say yes, at this point I'd say its 'decent' at best.
Does BL have the potential to be epic? Hell yes, absolutely! Though its a shame that most of the feedback & suggestions being put forth by the community are rejected; hence why I'm a big believer that mods are what's gonna carry this game going forward.
Not gonna make this long.... I've put around 850+ hrs into Bannerlord since the 2nd day of EA so I think I can speak for what I think about the general state of the game. Personally I still enjoy Bannerlord, but that's mostly because of the 50+ mods I have installed but at the same time I find most of the negative feedback on these forums to be fairly valid. Frankly I find it hard to imagine playing pure native at this point. Sorry.... but its inexcusable to have glaring issues like siege pathing & potato processor AI still linger at this point in EA & at the same time a dev claims to tone down AI for the sake of complexity. Also you simply don't hype up a game for nearly a decade, announce certain features during development & even dedicate a panel on a certain one (ie crimes system) & remain silent about the absence of said features when we're baring down on a year into EA.
Would I say BL is a bad game? No, I've already gotten more than my $'s worth & I'd honestly recommend it to a few people I know.
Would I say BL is a good game? If you were to ask me this around the 1st month of EA I'd say yes, at this point I'd say its 'decent' at best.
Does BL have the potential to be epic? Hell yes, absolutely! Though its a shame that most of the feedback & suggestions being put forth by the community are rejected; hence why I'm a big believer that mods are what's gonna carry this game going forward.
Last edited:
No. It is completely buggered. If 8 years of work yields a crappy product, that is a categorical failure. Regardless, your white knighting isn't accomplishing anything.
The difference is that the design of bannerlord is different from other games. 100+ hours is required to get to the meat of it. Unlike most shooter for example, within several hours you have solid understanding of the game. It becomes very clear how little game is there outside of the battles. What a mess. Bannerlord RPG elements have been stripped away. It is a medieval battle simulator. Get used to it, because this game will not be finished to a quality most veterans would hope for.
I just hope TW is sold to paradox so they can add some brains and narrative and interaction to this lobotomized husk.
Not going to happen. So far the game is a huge success, lots of sold units, active players and good reviews. Why would Armagan sell his company?
Similar threads
