Review 7.5/10

[Coenraad]

http://www.2404.org/reviews/4755/Mount-&-Blade-Review

 

[Ringwraith #5]

See, now that is what I call a fair judgement by a competent reviewer.

 

[Merlkir]

He's still wrong though. 1) The devs didn't stop working on MaB 2) sieges aren't terrible.

I actually lauged out loud when he wrote this:

Sieges are so frustrating it’s almost worth it to skip them and let the computer auto-resolve the combat.  Regardless of the style of assault, it boils down to a mass of ghost-walking soldiers bottlenecking into a tiny break in the battlements and getting slaughtered by enemy soldiers plugging the other side with their spear points.

ech ech...that sounds pretty much like a battle for a castle to me. he (as many other people) is imagining catapults breaking down gates (*cough* yes, sure.) and five + siege towers. Well, surprise, small sieges didn't happen like that. The sieges are meant to be frustrating, because they were. I actually find them a lot of fun, but I see I'm a minority here. The ladders and towers work just fine, if anything, there could be two ladders more often.

Again he mentions the graphics like it's a bad thing they look older. I really don't understand this don't these people have any technical knowledge that might give them a hint why it is so? *sigh*

The review is trange. It feels bitter, like he's disappointed they stopped the development at this point. Which they didn't. There won't be any major improvements I think, he's right about that. Still, I'm sure we'll see some updates and probably an expansion pack with a lot of the fluffy padding stuff he wants.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

What kind of incompetent fools would commence siege with no battering ram and only a single ladder?

The fools of Calradia, apparently. 

 

[Tosh]

Frankly I agree with Ringwraith, it IS a fair review. The other reviews may have mostly been ridiculous in their comments, but you can't scale your final conclusions and review scores because a game developed by an indie team. He's obligated to let people know that the game isn't going to look like Crysis and that a lot of the features are half-baked, but unlike the other reviews he also does very well in explaining why none of that should be enough to turn anyone away from the game. And the sieges ARE quite bad. Yes, it's true that generally speaking a siege is a very messy thing, but it's poor game design and an inaccurate representation of historical sieges to make it impossible to circumvent some of this mess with cleverness. Try playing a siege in a Total War game; when it goes wrong it goes horribly wrong, but when everything goes according to your cunning little plan you can often clean out a city holding an equal number of enemies with barely any losses. This is more realistic, and would be much more fun. Currently the only real way of making this happen in the game is by going into hero mode & killing half of the defenders yourself.

The only bit I disagree with is his comment that isn't worth the money. In england $40 is £22, and that's extremely cheap for a new release. For all its flaws, I can't think of a game that I've spent so much time on for a long time.

 

[t1337Dude]

I disagree with his view on sieges. They are great fun - even though they are as far from realistic as can be. But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

 

[Ollivaan]

The biggest Finnish gaming magazine Pelit gave this game 88/100 points 

 

[Cloud Breaker]

But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

Adding a battering ram and a few more ladders isn't going to need a complete engine overhaul. It's not like we want complicated physics for the gate breach. We just want some ways to break it down.

 

[Merlkir]

What kind of incompetent fools would commence siege with no battering ram and only a single ladder?

The fools of Calradia, apparently. 

well, yes. But, the broken gate would be jut like a ladder. A narrow hole. I hope someone mods rams in though. More ladders, that's pure gameplay reason. If there was a possibility to push the ladders off and kick the ****ers, I'd be all for it. I think that could be modded in as well. We'll have to wait and see

But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

Adding a battering ram and a few more ladders isn't going to need a complete engine overhaul. It's not like we want complicated physics for the gate breach. We just want some ways to break it down.

I think it might be a balance issue they didn't want to deal with. Just imagine the AI trying to defend that...ugh

 

[Ringwraith #5]

@Merlkir: I'm a little bitter about the rushed release as well, I think the game could've done with another half a year of adding content and polishing, because the game frankly does feel unfinished. I mean, some of the models have been with us since the earliest versions and they look it. The maces, leather jackets, hatchets, I think we can agree all of these could do with an overhaul. The bascinets! One of the recent versions introduced these beautiful new bascinet models and in 1.0 we're back to the fugly old one. Double-yoo tee eff?! And need I even mention the fief upgrades? The repetitive quests? We have this whole wonderful system of relationships where lords have different personalities and like or dislike each other and the player, and what exactly is it used for? Determining whether a lord follows you if you ask him? So much more could've been done with just that system. I could go on for hours like this.
Sieges are better now, but I do still see a lot of room for improvement. They're not terrible, but not really up to the standard set by the open field battles either.

 

[Merlkir]

I don't disagree. I just don't see MaB as a game anymore. Not for a long time. You know, it's a framework for making amazing mods

 

[rockopete]

But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

Adding a battering ram and a few more ladders isn't going to need a complete engine overhaul. It's not like we want complicated physics for the gate breach. We just want some ways to break it down.

I think it might be a balance issue they didn't want to deal with. Just imagine the AI trying to defend that...ugh

I'd argue things are worse as they are now.  I'd much rather sieges be a bit too easy than a bit too hard for the player, especially those of us who play melee at the expense of ranged.  And really, one ladder/siege tower is just retarded.

 

[t1337Dude]

But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

Adding a battering ram and a few more ladders isn't going to need a complete engine overhaul. It's not like we want complicated physics for the gate breach. We just want some ways to break it down.

I have no doubt that a battering ram would require significant engine work. Does the engine even support any dynamic environments whatsoever? Can you even program a chair to break in the game? All we have right now is the environment and NPC - and very basic siege equipment.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

Adding a battering ram and a few more ladders isn't going to need a complete engine overhaul. It's not like we want complicated physics for the gate breach. We just want some ways to break it down.

Does the engine even support any dynamic environments whatsoever? Can you even program a chair to break in the game?

Yes, yes. It's called physics.

Given enough time, and willingness, even a modder can simulate an object to shatter into pieces realistically using the module system and some BRF meshes.

But as I said, we don't need complicated physics for gate breach.

 

[Ringwraith #5]

I don't disagree. I just don't see MaB as a game anymore. Not for a long time. You know, it's a framework for making amazing mods

Well yeah, but that's not what they're reviewing it as. It's being marketed as a game in its own right, and that's what the reviewers are seeing when they look at it. Half-Life 2 got rave reviews not because it has an excellent and highly moddable engine but because it's a great game on its own. ID Soft understands this, they make ten times more money licencing their engines than selling their games, but even though the games are primarily technology demonstrators they can still stand as games on their own. I'm thinking maybe Armagan underestimated this aspect a bit, the necessity to provide at least some content even if the main purpose is to make a base for mods.
Though it might actually be an interesting experiment to develop and sell to consumers just the engine, and let modders provide the content. Sounds crazy, but so does Wikipedia when you look at the concept, and it works.

 

[t1337Dude]

But it's not as if they can simulate a realistic siege with the engine being used right now.

Adding a battering ram and a few more ladders isn't going to need a complete engine overhaul. It's not like we want complicated physics for the gate breach. We just want some ways to break it down.

Does the engine even support any dynamic environments whatsoever? Can you even program a chair to break in the game?

Yes, yes. It's called physics.

Given enough time, and willingness, even a modder can simulate an object to shatter into pieces realistically using the module system and some BRF meshes.

But as I said, we don't need complicated physics for gate breach.

That's not complicated - that'd be bare minimum. What do you expect to happen once the battering ram hits the wall? The wall just to disappear? In the end, it'd be identical to a siege tower. Lots of work just for history's sake.

 

[Red River]

Tactical commands in battle are limited to ordering troops to advance, follow, or stand ground...

we all know there's more than just 3 commands.. x3 that actually. for somebody who plays M&B since december he should know better than that.

overall though he made some fair points and a very good review.

also sieges are not terrible. they were in beta but much more improved now. yes they are supposed to be difficult and frustratin' for attackers just like IRL..
though I agree that more siiege equipment options would be most welcome.

 

[rockopete]

Forget all this complicated battering ram ****, just add another ladder or siege tower a decent distance (preferably around a corner) from the original.  Tweak the AI so that it divides its forces and reinforcements evenly between the two.  Stopgap solution found.

 

[Skyrage]

Now that's a decent review at least. It points out the good stuff and the bad stuff in an objective manner (yes, sieges are still rather bad, but considering the limitations, it's still better than no sieges at all).

 

[Cloud Breaker]

What do you expect to happen once the battering ram hits the wall? The wall just to disappear?

Not wall. Gate.

Gates breaking open is possible without requiring physics. Scripted animation is enough.

Animation is what RTW and M2TW used to depict a gate breach.