• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Should Bannerlord be more advanced ?

Should Bannerlord be more advanced ?


  • Total voters
    41

Users who are viewing this thread

[BRE] Lionel

Recruit
WBVC
Good evening,

It's not a secret that compared to Warband, Bannerlord is a significantly more simpler and arcadish game. It's predecessor had many more features, better in depth mechanics, more management options and therefore was more complicated. In the other hand, we have Bannerlord with few features and a lack of depth in almost every aspect of the gameplay.

This game design choice by Taleworlds is of course a tentative to attract the mainstream. This choice is understandable. Because, history shows us, simpler games tend to do better in the game market compared to complex ones.

But is this the case for every game and especially for Bannerlord?

We have a lot of counter-examples, starting with Warband, which was a complicated mess and thus less accessible for new players. But it still made it's way to the general public and became a best seller.


In my opinion, this game's main themes are for amateurs and it won't attract the mainstream with it's simplicity and being new player friendly. Therefore, devs should prioritize pleasing their fan base, because if the game is good at what it's supposed to be, new players will come by themselves.

Thanks!
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Yes its been said many times here -the very thing that created a loyal longterm fanbase < is what created the massive hype for the game < attracted the attention of the casual gamer and PC mag > led to watered down product made to be ACCESSIBLE to the masses < led to the forumites nihilism and lack of mental well being
 
It's not a secret that compared to Warband, Bannerlord is a significantly more simpler and arcadish game.

I disagree, most of the core features are way more complicated in bannerlord. The levelling system is one example, but the 1v1 combat mechanics, the recruiting system, the siege system, the diplomacy and the entire clan system far surpass anything in Warband in terms of complexity.
This isnt to say that bannerlord is better for it. Counterintuitively, the sheer number of poorly-designed mechanics means that you hardly use any of them, and the game feels a lot less sophisticated. But this isn't an issue with a lack of mechanics, it's a problem of bad design.

I think the word "arcadey" "simple" and "streamlined" have been overused to refer to the problems in Bannerlord. If you look at the things most people say are missing in bannerlord, a lot of them are quite superficial and non-mechanical, like feasting or pre-written companions. This isn't to say that these things aren't important, but fixing them isn't a matter of making the game more complex. If anything I think the game needs less complexity, and to be better designed and balanced.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
I feel like the main things missing are not more complicated and in fact would be expected by even a casual player.
Expecting to have some control over both clan members parties and vassals, (even just "suggesting" an action like in warband) is very common and really sticks out as bad distraction to leave out even basic control. Likewise being able to target a formation at another formation seems like an obvious ability a commander should have and it's a big blow to combat to not have anything like.

Paying for parties you can't control that function exactly the same as any NPC party just isn't a good feature. Having vassal/kingdom where you can't even mark a priority for siege, is just bad. Having our entire strategy being to clumsily point at an approximation of where we want troops to stand and slightly alter the manner in which they stand (most formations aren't really anything) and hope the AI decides to kill something useful and not fire at a shield 100 miles away while it gets killed..... is not very good any anyone would expect this to be getting overhauled with more advanced (read: what any game with AI soldiers does) controls over the troops.
 
It's not a secret that compared to Warband, Bannerlord is a significantly more simpler and arcadish game. It's predecessor had many more features, better in depth mechanics, more management options and therefore was more complicated.
When was the last time you played vanilla Warband? Vanilla Warband is way simplier than Bannerlord, just compare the Kingdom management or skill system in both games with each other. All the complex features for Warband were introduced by mods. So, I would suggest that you start a new save in unmodded Warband - then you get a proper picture of the many things that BL has expanded upon - and which things are really missing from Warband.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
It's not very useful to ask if a game should be more complex without saying how and why. Also complexity doesn't necessarily make something better or deep, good design does.
Say no to forced binary polls...
Do you prefer unary ("Putin") polls?
[ ] Yes
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
the age old question of capitalism. Do you strive to make your product objectively better? or do you strive to achieve a product with higher total sales revenue.
Looks like every single company in the industry is doing the latter rather than the former across board in the world. with very very few exceptions.
 

CrazyElf

Sergeant
This game design choice by Taleworlds is of course a tentative to attract the mainstream. This choice is understandable. Because, history shows us, simpler games tend to do better in the game market compared to complex ones.

This is not always the case. An example is Supreme Commander 2, which arguably killed the franchise, as it was very much a "dumbed down" game. It had the worst of both worlds, it failed to pick up enough new players and alienated its long term fans.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
This is not always the case. An example is Supreme Commander 2, which arguably killed the franchise, as it was very much a "dumbed down" game. It had the worst of both worlds, it failed to pick up enough new players and alienated its long term fans.
This is actually a very good question: would Bannerlord kill the Mount and Blade franchise?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
This is actually a very good question: would Bannerlord kill the Mount and Blade franchise?
I think their next release will face a lot more scrutiny from warband players and strategy game and RPG nad CRP and ARPG players. It will not get the hype of warband fans constantly clamoring for it for years. Of course we'll see what mods can do for bannerlord when the dust settles.
It could go another way too, perhaps their next release will gamble all in on a multi player success just do away with the RPG and strategy single player idea.
 

RitoDurito

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
This is actually a very good question: would Bannerlord kill the Mount and Blade franchise?
Its a tentative position, if taleworlds pushes the game to 1.0 by q4 2022, pushes the console release and don't continue to update the game because they want to release their space game then yeah, Mount and Blade would die because the company would die with its reputation.

But I think taleworlds knows this, I'd guess there'll be plenty of post 1.0 updates and dlc to fix up the game but it won't be at expected levels of polish for some time
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
That's realistic, it's damage limitation at this point.
I think their next release will face a lot more scrutiny from warband players and strategy game and RPG nad CRP and ARPG players. It will not get the hype of warband fans constantly clamoring for it for years. Of course we'll see what mods can do for bannerlord when the dust settles.
It could go another way too, perhaps their next release will gamble all in on a multi player success just do away with the RPG and strategy single player idea.
So many real possibilities! Remasters and remakes included! (also that the space game will bomb and bankrupt the studio)
We'll just have to wait a decade or two and see.
 

Spinozart1

Knight
A little more complexity and deepness in diplomacy, relations and global warfare is welcomed as long as the mechanics behind them are not too obscure, meaning clearly explained to the player (tooltips etc...).
It will improve the late game experience as well too.
 

Earth Dragon

Sergeant
the age old question of capitalism. Do you strive to make your product objectively better? or do you strive to achieve a product with higher total sales revenue.
Looks like every single company in the industry is doing the latter rather than the former across board in the world. with very very few exceptions.
This is a misleading statement as you completely misuse the word “objectively”. The second option is the one with an “objective”. It’s the one where there is a weighted, tangible metric you are using. What you want is something that’s subjectively better, as it caters to your sensibilities and wants, which you assume are shared by other gamers of your proclaimed caliber, and with little regard if that makes the company less profit.
 
I've said this a billion times but I am highly skeptical of the idea that making games less fun to play and more oversimplified is what increases sales. It's like when fans of superhero movies say "superhero films are what everybody authentically wants to watch, that's why they make so much money".

The biggest most popular games of all time are all either groundbreaking experiments like Minecraft, Fortnite (to an extent), Day Z (which is an annoying-to-install mod for one of the most complex games ever made), OR they have massive marketing budgets behind them that surpass the actual development costs. No normal person looks at a big game's hype train and thinks "HMMM,,, I WONDER IF THAT GAME HAS COMPLEX GAME MECHANICS OR NOT", and the streamlining of features is never part of the marketing budget. I think this is also a thing companies have deluded themselves into doing after bad sales, but it almost never works because only the hardcore fans ever know in advance that the game is simpler than it was before.
 

KingEroc1st

Veteran
This is a misleading statement as you completely misuse the word “objectively”. The second option is the one with an “objective”. It’s the one where there is a weighted, tangible metric you are using. What you want is something that’s subjectively better, as it caters to your sensibilities and wants, which you assume are shared by other gamers of your proclaimed caliber, and with little regard if that makes the company less profit.
There are absolutely ways to measure the efficiency of a game's software and engine. the optimization of its source code. the number of bugs and crashes involved in running the game etc... none of which are "subjective" opinions.
making a game objectively better always involves a few areas of focus, which are not subjective to me personally but are what makes games fun for gamers in general. that's why we buy and play them.

you are absolutely right, i have 0 regard for the company's profit as i should have. frankly it's in my best interest as a gamer for every gaming company to release all their games for free.
and i understand it's their interest to maximize profit. there's nothing wrong with that. in fact there's opportunity for win/win. but when they start cutting corners in order to boost sales. and put most of their budget into marketing while making creative decisions seemingly regardless of the fan base's feedback. it's starting to become a win/lose for the suckers that paid for an unfinished product.

in every industry, there are always ways to objectively make a product better, but most often you find them cutting corners to boost revenue, and the same has happened to the gaming industry at long last. there's nothing new. i remember a mars bar 20 years ago used to be 150% the size it is today. for half the price. it still taste the exact same if not worse.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
i remember a mars bar 20 years ago used to be 150% the size it is today. for half the price. it still taste the exact same if not worse.
Shortening a chocolate is another way to raise its price. So both the lesser size and higher price are actual price rises and not cutting corners.
In game terms, less content and shorter games for a normal game price is also a stealthy price rise. It's not necessary that quality suffers, but the bang for your buck includes less banging.
 
Last edited:
As others have said simply saying "the game should be more complicated" is too vague. I want more well-designed complexity. I doubt their next game will get the hype and praise anywhere near this game. I'll stick to other developers for my definitive space game experience.
 
Top Bottom