Some criticism of a first time M&B-player

Users who are viewing this thread

GCEGalotta

Recruit
As stated above, this is my first look at a M&B game. I am aware that some things might change during beta and that I am quite possibly not that skilled at playing it. Overall I like the idea and concept of M&B but still think it`s one of the most underwhelming and disappointing games I´ve ever come accross. Yet I still spent some 30 plus hours with it - which is a pretty weird combination :smile:

Anyways, here`s a list of stuff I have some problems with and would like to see improve:

1) Tutorial: Doesn`t prepare me for commanding troops and managing my faction

2) Looks: The graphics are not that good and there is close to no spoken dialogue. As a result the world (especially in cities where the NPCs don´t seem to have a routine) looks and feels lifeless, which breaks the immersion

3) Combat: Is stiff and clunky. No dodging, no sprinting, two-handed weapons feel almost as fast as one-handed ones, no stamina.

4) Battles: Almost always amount to a giant blob of soldiers hacking away at each other. Formation and tactics don´t really matter. No impact on a cavalry charge. No way to pause the game. - yet this might be an aspect I suck at.

On to my biggest grievances:

5) Storytelling and Quests: This is some of the worst writing I have ever seen and quite honestly I don`t know why even bother having that in the game. The main quest starts with me being in a hurry to get back my siblings yet chases me across the whole map to gather information about a battle. One Vlandian lord was last seen in one of his western castles. When I got there 2 days later, had been captured by the Sturgians and was now imprisoned in one of their cities on the other side of the continent. And one day before I got there he got released and was instantly chilling back at his castle in the west.

The generic and random quests are repetitive and make no sense. At one time a lord asked me to broker his mercenaries to another noble. I convinced the one standing right next to him to take them up. Another time I helped in that family feud quest. When I convinced the one who`s son got killed to keep the peace and the quest was done, he himself gave me the same quest. So I had to protect his apparently not so dead son. Oh, and there are quite a lot spies running around.

NPCs reactions make absolutely no sense. I was playing as a Battanian who played a hand in the decline of the empire. Yet the game started smack in the middle of imperial territory and everybody - even kings - was just fine talking to me. Why even have these different cultures, when they just matter for some perks. The late emperors spie master was just fine telling me the location of a piece from that sacred banner - me, a barbarian whom she doesn`t know and has never before met or seen - just because I told her that I am willing to reunite the empire. And that wasn´t even my original intent. I wanted to sell that thing to make money and might even have started the conversation by telling her exactly that (btw: when asking her about how to reunite the empire, she doesn´t give me an ingame explanation but instead lays out the game mechanics). Quite the trusting one with all those spies running around. And speaking of spies: While completing the spy party quest, the first commoner I ask tells me that word of my search has made the rounds (how exactly?) and when I finally encounter the spy (who does look a lot like the 371 others I already found) in a dark ally full of thugs, he is quite eager to duell me instead of idk running or paying the thugs to jump me.

I guess they should have hired me instead, cause through the power of my encyclopedia I am fully aware of the location of any lord even though I am on one side of the map and he`s on the other.

6) Map design: Why is it that all bandits within a hideout are encamped in different places and groups from 1-3? Do they like to get murdered one at a time?

As stated in the beginning, I like the basic idea of the game, but when I break it up into it´s segments I can easily find other ones who did it far better.
Strategy: Total War. RPG: Even Skyrim does tell a more compelling story. Only thing the time might be worth for is forging and managing your own kingdom, but then again there`s Knights of Honor.

My 2 cents
 
I can totally understand your misgivings. Imagine exactly this game, but 10-12 years ago. This is almost exactly what Warband and the original M&B were. Then, it was an amazing sandbox game. Now, it's the same amazing sandbox game, but it sure does seem like there should be something more to it.
 
I think a lot of what you are noticing most players are used to from previous titles.
-Formations and tactics absolutely matter in combat. Try fighting small groups of bandits and working your way up to Lord parties and then armies.
-Remember the combat is army based not 1vs1. You won't get far fighting on your own and not leading your warband.
-Cavalry charges work well and break down morale of opposing group causing them to flee much easier and earlier than otherwise.
Fighting on realistic I am now able to win against larger Lord parties than mine and with very minimal losses using tactics, cavalry charges and tier 4 soldiers.
-Pause game with space bar on world map and esc in combat
-Bandits are disorganized because they are bandits. They don't follow a leader and are out for their own independent gain.
-Finding specific NPCs is a pain not going to sugar coat that at all
 
Content like quests is obviously EA.

If those are your biggest grievances I'd say you're either very forgiving or just unaware of what the core of the game is.
 
3) Combat: Is stiff and clunky. No dodging, no sprinting, two-handed weapons feel almost as fast as one-handed ones, no stamina.

yea....., no, Combat is fine as it is. Dodging, sprinting, etc is for other games, not for MB. Play more the game on MP, you will get the hang of it.
 
The entire point of perks is that you have to choose some and not others. They add variety to different builds and character archetypes.
 
There is a lot of rework to do on so many aspects of the game, but that's why the old community is on the forums, people who played the first Mount and Blade games want to point in which way they'd like to see the second game go.

I mean, there is much of your criticism that fans also share, but it's still a Mount and Blade game and it seems like you're not looking for a sandbox RPG game and more like a story-telling RPG.

Beside that, I can't respect mentions of graphism as a requirement for a good game.
 
You are new to the game and the series so you dont know the play style of M&B series thus expecting things like stamina, dodging, sprinting etc. Those kind of things dont really fit in the game. You're right about some quests and npc interactions though, given they were kind of better in Warband I only expect them to get better and better through the early access. But I can see you are not aware how the game functions so you expect different things like pausing during the battle etc. You shouldnt really be comparing the game to total war or any other game actually. This game is a sandbox rpg that combines different elements from variety of different genres. But you shouldnt be expecting those things, especially a solid story, because its a sanbox not a story driven game.
 
You are new to the game and the series so you dont know the play style of M&B series thus expecting things like stamina, dodging, sprinting etc. Those kind of things dont really fit in the game. You're right about some quests and npc interactions though, given they were kind of better in Warband I only expect them to get better and better through the early access. But I can see you are not aware how the game functions so you expect different things like pausing during the battle etc. You shouldnt really be comparing the game to total war or any other game actually. This game is a sandbox rpg that combines different elements from variety of different genres. But you shouldnt be expecting those things, especially a solid story, because its a sanbox not a story driven game.

Solid response is solid.
 
You are new to the game and the series so you dont know the play style of M&B series thus expecting things like stamina, dodging, sprinting etc. Those kind of things dont really fit in the game. You're right about some quests and npc interactions though, given they were kind of better in Warband I only expect them to get better and better through the early access. But I can see you are not aware how the game functions so you expect different things like pausing during the battle etc. You shouldnt really be comparing the game to total war or any other game actually. This game is a sandbox rpg that combines different elements from variety of different genres. But you shouldnt be expecting those things, especially a solid story, because its a sanbox not a story driven game.
+1

Just know that some of your concerns are shared by many M&B veterans as well, but remember that of course it's in EA, and also understand you won't find much better graphics in any game that encompasses the complex nature of the hundreds of agents on the field.
 
Freedom, and mods are what made me stan Mount and Blade for 11 years now.
But I, too, want the game to be the best that it can be, so I do hope that they make better storyline and quests. Also, making more lore about the world would do a lot to improve immersion.
As for combat, I'm happy with it. Stamina, and dodging don't fit the game that well.
Also, try attacking a forest bandit encampment, I dare you! :sneaky:
 
Yes the game is in early access and is incredibly empty right now. What did you expect?

Also the quest to find your siblings is not even in the game yet the battle quest is part of a separate quest line.

You can pause the game by pressing esc?

My advice would be to come back after a few big updates and see what's new and maybe in a few years when overhaul mods inevitably come out.
 
I am also a first time M&B player and I am overwhelmingly impressed with the game. My favourite genre is strategy games. So Bannerlord has surpassed all my expectations. It has the open world, play however you want style of a game like Kenshi, but better and far less full of bugs. It has deep strategic choices on par with any Paradox game like Crusader Kings. It's action is honestly just how I like it. Easy enough, not too taxing but also not so easy that you can smash everything in sight without help. Compared with other early access games this is miles ahead and the new version have been coming out almost daily. I have been really impressed with the speed of the devs compared to other games I would normally play.

Before playing this I was playing a lot of Battle Brothers. I was day dreaming about whether you could make a game like Battle Brothers better and maybe even with live combat instead of turn based. Then I decided to give this a try, half expecting to refund it, and my daydreams became a reality in an instant.

I think if you are used to heavy single player combat games like maybe Dark Souls, I can see why you might be disappointed. But maybe your expectations were in the wrong place. Mine were but fortunately for me I underestimated the game.
 
4) Battles: Almost always amount to a giant blob of soldiers hacking away at each other. Formation and tactics don´t really matter. No impact on a cavalry charge. No way to pause the game. - yet this might be an aspect I suck at

While you have some good remarks overall, I vehemently disagree on this one. Shield walls, spreading out vs tightening up against cavalry charges, flanking, skirmishing, using terrain to your advantage,... tactics feel very impactful to me. A well executed hammer & anvil is easily as satisfying here as it is in any strategy game.
 
I am also a first time M&B player and I am overwhelmingly impressed with the game. My favourite genre is strategy games. So Bannerlord has surpassed all my expectations. It has the open world, play however you want style of a game like Kenshi, but better and far less full of bugs. It has deep strategic choices on par with any Paradox game like Crusader Kings. It's action is honestly just how I like it. Easy enough, not too taxing but also not so easy that you can smash everything in sight without help. Compared with other early access games this is miles ahead and the new version have been coming out almost daily. I have been really impressed with the speed of the devs compared to other games I would normally play.

Before playing this I was playing a lot of Battle Brothers. I was day dreaming about whether you could make a game like Battle Brothers better and maybe even with live combat instead of turn based. Then I decided to give this a try, half expecting to refund it, and my daydreams became a reality in an instant.

I think if you are used to heavy single player combat games like maybe Dark Souls, I can see why you might be disappointed. But maybe your expectations were in the wrong place. Mine were but fortunately for me I underestimated the game.

Yeah, it does kind of have a Kenshi vibe where the story and quests are more of a background to what you are doing in the game. I also enjoy the combat, I don't want a super technical combat, but I like that it's not as simple as an Elder Scrolls game, even though I love those too.
 
Thanks for all the tips. I`ll experiment with combat then and try to get the hang of it. And I might take a look into warband or said Crusader Kings to have sth. to properly compare it to.

Could be true that the game isn´t for me, as I am mostly enjoying story driven titles like witcher, walking dead or thronebreaker. But I also had a go with some strategy games and was fascinated by the idea of a crossover between the 2. I`d wish for an improvement on story elements. At least keep it logical. Otherwise it`ll just break the immersion and take me out of it.

Same with graphics and here I have to disagree with Karl_Magnus. They let you create a character with a somewhat detailed backstory and in some cases wander the world as that character. The way it is presented at this stage, this world feels just empty. But I want it to feel alive, so that the game makes me connect with the world and there is meaning behind besieging a city I used to do some interactions in. Yeah, graphics (maybe presentation is a better word) don´t make a good game, but for me they certainly break that part of Bannerlord.

About there being no room for dodging, etc. I don´t know. Sth. along the lines of Kingdom Come would make me enjoy stuff like tournaments and the early stages of the game (when your army hasn´t expanded yet and you need to do the fighting yourself) more.
 
I think some of your criticisms are super valid, for example the tutorial/guidance in M&B has always been trash. People routinely figure out new things after like 100+ hrs in game.

Some aspects of your criticism, however, are just the unique genre M&B is. The "story" in M&B is really your own organic creation. I'd rather they didn't waste any Dev time at all on storylines, but hey some people surely enjoy it. To be blunt? Most modern media writers are trash and do the same repetitive cliches. Most video game stories are really, really, really bad with painful characters. I much prefer games where the story is of my own doing. That's my taste though.

I agree, the towns/cities need more life in terms of NPC movement, and ambient events/quest tie-ins, but that's (hopefully) coming as EA develops.

Your combat criticisms are mixed. Currently the AI is to blob-like and droney. However tactics do matter. Basic 101 tactics can reduce your losses and make you fight unfavorable odds and win. You can use tactics very, very, very effectively.

Sprint and dodge mechanics would have to be done very... particularly to not recreate the sort of assassins creed playstyle where your just prompting mini-cutscenes and the skill involved is incredibly minimal. I'm not sure I'd want this addition, depends on method of implementation.
 
Back
Top Bottom