Some Criticism

[Vilemk0]

This will be a fairly simple thread but feel free to add to my thoughts in future posts. Perhaps I'll add them in some kind of fashionable list while of course crediting the original posters. This can be a touchy subject for fans and perhaps even investors alike, so please understand that I'm not trying to create any hostility. With that being said, it's obvious that much of what I'm going to say is not simply based on my opinions alone. I spent a lot of time hearing out complaints for others, and If I felt I was alone on these subjects I wouldn't bother posting in the first place. My point with this thread will be to talk about how I feel "With Fire and Sword" (wf&s) isn't an expansion, or at the very least is inferior to it's predecessor "Warband."

Let's get to the point at hand.

#1 Expansion or backtracking?:

I suppose my first piece of criticism would be how I've seen the developers over-hype the release of wf&s while somewhat misleading consumers by calling this an 'expansion.' I'm not terribly offended/bothered by this since I've already experienced similar acts VIA Fable creator and village idiot Peter Molyneux. (Correctly perceived as the mascot and champion of the overhyping arena, to the point of which the statements cannot possibly live up to players' expectations.) In any case, 'it seems' that myself and many others do not feel this is a valid expansion. (Or at least not on the 'professional mod' level that it was boasting.) Saying this might hurt some feelings and I'm terribly sorry, but from what I've seen many others feel the same way. I'm not trying to state things for a majority whom I have no right to speak for, but it certainly seems that my assumptions on this are correct.

Answers for possible rebuttal's:

You might argue details and say that it does expand on things, "Thus! It must be an expansion!" Yet, how about when the sheer amount of features in a sequel game make it inferior to the original? I for one just don't view that as an expansion. I believe this is the main complaint people are having with wf&s but it comes with some issues. How can we measure what has been taken away from Warband against what's been added? I believe a more accurate way of assessing this would be weighing things by 'significance' or by a lesser extreme 'popularity.' (My main disappointment would be the leveling.) I could go into detail with a list of give and take, (and I was one click away from doing so,) but I feel like I'm straying from my original point with every key press. The changes that stand out the most for me in wf&s are only aesthetic, and they're not even as good as some free mods for Warband. (In fact they're inferior in almost every way.) I think the main problem with how we've perceived wf&s is that it shouldn't have been called an expansion, but rather a completely separate story version of mount and blade. Considering that it doesn't really 'add on' more than it 'takes away.'

I wouldn't call a Mass Effect expansion, Mass Effect, if they removed Commander Shepard and placed you in a different era without space ships. (This might be a bad example but I hope you understand where I'm coming from.)

#2 The communities response:
(This final piece will be shorter and I have no real preemptive rebuttal.)

From administrators to investors alike, I am amazed at some of the hypocritical mouthwash that has been spreading around lately. I've heard everything from the the usual "Why don't you make your own game?" Or "If you don't like it go somewhere else." The fact of the matter is that investors have a right to complain, and when they're shut down (especially by admins) I can't help but see the irony. Personally, I've yet to complain even once on the forums, up until this date obviously. Yet, I also understand the frustration some might have trying to be on the defending side. Yes, there are nice features in wf&s. Yes, many of the replies so far have seemed overly negative. Even in this thread I haven't really touched on many of the good aspects of wf&s, but that is still no excuse. Some might say, "Wait for mods to come out!" but I don't really consider that a feature to validate my initial purchase. wf&s IS an inferior title to warband and this disappointed many people, but justly so.

[I might add some things later if I'm proven to be an idiot by the inevitable responses. Hopefully this isn't shut down as being irrelevant or belligerent.]

 

[TuranianGhazi]

It's only $15 ... provides much BANG for every penny of the buck than other titles I could mention... /thread

lol jk ... you bring cogent points, but yeah I'm not that picky, I'm sold on mounted archery alone 

IF and WHEN M&B removes that ... well it wouldn't be M&B then, would it?

For next "expansion" or game, I'd rather they went back to other time periods in medival history, like 100 years war for example, or further back into antiquity with Greeks, Persians, Parthians, Scythians, etc. I want ME Chariot NAO!

 

[Mavkiel]

Only $15 argument is abit of a joke. I paid that for warband, and it was much more polished. (Admittedly, I got it after most of the bugs were patched)

Then there are the folks saying how this game is an expansion of mount and blade 1, not warband. However, without some research beforehand you'd be very hard pressed to realize it. Heck, even this forum location implies its part of warband(Notice its filed under warband, not mount and blade). Yet this game lacks warbands features.

Anyhow a few patches could solve most of my issues with this game. That and avoiding the storyline quests, those are a wee bit to scripted.  Seriously, getting ambushed by 15 bandits and your allowed to bring 5 troops to back you, when you have 50+ elite troops in your army? No reason at all for that.

Economics in this game also needs tweaking, caravans are the only way to get enough cash to buy any upgrades, yet there is no risk involved(and you can gain game-breaking amounts of cash easily).

 

[Vilemk0]

but yeah I'm not that picky, I'm sold on mounted archery alone 

I love archery the same way, but I feel it was changed too much in this version. They just feel too inferior to firearms so amassing them is pointless now.

 

[Vilemk0]

Economics in this game also needs tweaking, caravans are the only way to get enough cash to buy any upgrades, yet there is no risk involved(and you can gain game-breaking amounts of cash easily).

That and how grenades cost up to 70k, which is a tad ridiculous.

[small edit: Also, and I'm not sure if this was patched, but speaking about grenades, they glitch when thrown and hit you regardless of distance sometimes. I suppose that's just a glitch though.]

 

[TuranianGhazi]

but yeah I'm not that picky, I'm sold on mounted archery alone 

I love archery the same way, but I feel it was changed too much in this version. They just feel too inferior to firearms so amassing them is pointless now.

Lol, couldn't be more wrong, archery is more deadlier in WF&S as I feel it's much more accurate AND more importantly rate of fire is faster, especially for the PC character. I dunno but as a PC archer I down 3-5 people with headshots (since most troops are now much less armored and no shields!!! oh how I hated the rhodok shield line as a Khergit commander) so archery is surprisingly very powerful in WF&S

If only I could afford this strategy all the time, here's what works blazingly well (taken from my post in Strategy forum)

I. Expensive but very satisfying strategy (Classic Steppe Warfare):

2/3 Tatar mercenary rifleman (armed with composite bows (fastest rate of fire) NOT longbows (slowest rate of fire), sabres and shields) - Marksmen group
1/3 Tatar mercenary cavalrymen (armed with bows and lances) - Cavalry group

Spread out my marksmen, advance and rain in arrows at the approaching enemy, when they get close, 2:2 to back away 10 paces, more if need be. Keep doing that tried-and-true feigned retreat until the enemy either breaks into a rout or chases after my Marksmen.

Then, Charge down with Cavalry to mop up the field. But really, with this strategy, most of the damage is dealt by my Marksmen and I lose very few men because the faster rate of bow fire messes up musketmen reloading it seems and my Marksmen really don't get hit back as hard, while mowing down the opposition.

II. Much cheaper, realistic strategy (Janissary Musketmen)

1/4 Janissaries ('cause they're so difficult to amass ... I only have about 30-40 at any given time) - In special Janissaries group
2/4 Seymen (bulk of my forces for this strategy) - Marksmen group
1/4 Nokhor and Azak-Beys (lancers for mopping up the field) - Cavalry group

Since I place Janissaries in their own group, I make my Marksmen (the Seymen) advance ahead in a line and start shooting at the enemy, while the Janissaries are behind. This way, the more armored Seymen are "protecting" the more difficult to amass Janissaries as body bags lol, unfortunately. So, with these two lines of musketmen, they mow down the opposition quite nicely but much more slowly than arrow fire because of musket reloading. Also, I don't use infantry to defend my musketmen, that could be a nice touch, but I prefer more firepower directed at the enemy ... my lancers are for making sure nothing really engages my musketmen in melee.

Therefore, while this strategy is effective and realistic, I find it less fun than the strategy I outlined above. There's more thrill/excitement of riding down the enemy with sabre and shield or shooting down them with arrows, not knowing when and if a stray bullet will knock me out of the fight lol. It's just with this second, more realistic strategy, the game turns from Mount & Blade to Sit & Wait...

 

[Overlord Dark Wolf]

I bought this game thinking it would expand on the warband engine, only to find out it should really be under M&B, not Warband, like Mavkiel said. I guess it could be an average game with patches, but my faith in TW has wavered due to this being a product of an outside studio and then deciding it was good enough to sell wolrdwide. I have played sandbox games with a story, historical accuracy, or realism, sometimes all, and this falls short. You can do worse than this game, but you can do a lot better for the same price or more.

 

[BattleOfValmy]

Some might say, "Wait for mods to come out!"

And those people are pretty foolish, for reasons I already stated in another thread:

WF&S is a 15 dollar mod. Everything it adds could be or already has been added to Warband, so there's no reason to waste the effort.

This was in reply to someone asking about the feasibility in modding WF&S, and simply put, there is none.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I bought this game thinking it would expand on the warband engine, only to find out it should really be under M&B, not Warband, like Mavkiel said. I guess it could be an average game with patches, but my faith in TW has wavered due to this being a product of an outside studio and then deciding it was good enough to sell wolrdwide. I have played sandbox games with a story, historical accuracy, or realism, sometimes all, and this falls short. You can do worse than this game, but you can do a lot better for the same price or more.

Exactly. Steam says outright that WFAS's combat expands on Warband's. I guess they're technically not lying because guns are new (sort of...they're crossbows that make smoke), but they imply WFAS was built on Warband which is just wrong.
Teaches me to do more research before buying I guess. I would have waited if I knew it couldn't be modded until they release the tools

 

[TuranianGhazi]

Once the tools are released (and I'm fairly certain they would be), then mods will follow, patience children patience lol

I'll be sure to be at the forefront of those mods, come after May 25th and I'm more free for the month of June, at least

 

[Auldman]

Your whining has bored me.​