Because the majority on Steam have mediocre tastes, lots of bad game licenses are rated positive and even when some give a negative feeling they rate it positive + 2 rating options is very little
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
[Strawpoll] If Taleworlds prepared another game, what you would do ?
Users who are viewing this thread
Because the majority on Steam have mediocre tastes, lots of bad game licenses are rated positive and even when some give a negative feeling they rate it positive + 2 rating options is very little
Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle? The game isn't as good as steam reviews imply and it isn't as bad as some people on this forum want it to be?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the game is bad because I like mount and blade, but Bannerlord is disappointing for what we should have had and compared to expectations the game has a big wasted potential and updates do not add much.
( But we repeat all this paragraph has already been said by others )
And it's not just a personal opinion when you dig into the forums and other
and even more when we see that 90% of these Steam players have left the game in 2 months.
These people do not have the same expectations as those who have fun on warband for thousands of hours, a game for them that throw themselves like a worn handkerchief
Last edited:
The 90% figure is wrong and most likely comes from a misunderstanding of steam charts.
Average concurrent players was at 113000 in April and it's 'just' at 12000 now (which is still a lot compared to other games) but that's mostly because a lot of players try the game at release at the same time.
12000 average concurrent players doesn't mean just 12000 people are active players. It means that 12000 people are playing at the same time. If you want to know the total active player base you need to make an assumption about average playtime per week per player and extrapolate from there.
when I look at the (old) positive reviews a lot doesn't even exceed 100 hours of play. While clearly Mount and Blade is a style of play in which (and I think everyone will agree) you take a lot of time to develop and climb the ladder. So in itself I think that if it was rated so well it's because it offered an experience that the average player had never seen, but beyond that many do not care about the game and its development and we just had to fill their temporary boredom
You are right that lots of players moved on, which is perfectly normal by the way. Some will probably try the game again after full release. I don't even play Bannerlord myself (having lots of fun with XCOM2) at the moment.
Anyway, I believe your point was that people who play the game for 50-100 hours have different expectations than people who play it for thousand hours and I guess that's a fair point.
Well, my personal point of view is that if taleworlds is incapable of bringing their flagship product to the level of quality they promise, and their progress in trying to reach that has been rather disappointing so far, perhaps it is not the best idea for them to split their attention to more than one project, as that entails even more chaos on their managerial side, which, from what I hear, is one of their biggest issues.
For me the best steam review is checking how much time the people has spent with a game on average, because many times I have read things like 'great game' from people that has played only 10 hours or less.
If there are many people with few hundreds hours played then the game worth checking and those are the only opinions that I take in consideration.
BTW I won't buy the next TW's game in EA for sure.
Unlike you guys obviously, I rely on Steam review ratings and Metacritic for a quick assessment of the game before going into details of pros and cons. It's very helpful and in line with my assessments of past games.
Obviously Metacritic will fail if there's a massive AAA title and critics are basically bribed/intimidated to give it good ratings (you then look at the gap between critic and user reviews.)
Steam reviews are also incongrous if there's an EA period and the game is substantially improved over it, this will yield a too low score.
Does anyone follow a better OBJECTIVE method that doesn't require infinite time?
Obviously Metacritic will fail if there's a massive AAA title and critics are basically bribed/intimidated to give it good ratings (you then look at the gap between critic and user reviews.)
Steam reviews are also incongrous if there's an EA period and the game is substantially improved over it, this will yield a too low score.
Does anyone follow a better OBJECTIVE method that doesn't require infinite time?
Now, big question: Should an average gamer who doesn't play Bannerlord to fill those few hours of empty space be listened to as much as the gamer interested in the game's development, and who has the highest expectations on the news game features brought by the game. new opus?
Last edited:
Don't remember if I said it in this thread or another, but most people on this forum played the game for hundreds if not thousands of hours. They are often true experts and I usually agree with their criticism of the game.
That doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the criticism of the company though. Even with all the justified criticism, Bannerlord is still a great game (that could be even better). And I am glad that it's developed by Taleworlds and not Electronic Arts.
well let's talk about it I find that Taleworlds is starting to take the path of Electronic Arts, example: the Fifa game is not a bad game but it is a very bad license because it does not evolve ( the worst being that the majority of the Fifa community does not complain about it, so Electronic Arts take advantage ).
And I have the impression of finding a certain flavor in Bannerlord, 10 years apart and the following opus hardly bring anything new
and i'm sorry but if Taleworlds were really listening to their community they would have made some major changes already and this is not the case, they do like bad companies
Mount & Blade doesn't need to change dramatically in my opinion. Warband already was quite good, I spend 1000 hours playing it. Biggest issues are the bad UI, outdated graphics, missing QOL features. But the gameplay loop itself was quite good and I am happy that Bannerlord copied it instead of doing something different. They tried that with multiplayer and you can see how that went...
And yet there are quite a lot of improvements in Bannerlord. Apart from graphics, animations and accessibility they added lots of new features. The clan system, families, heirs, player owned caravans, the army system, a complete overhaul of the economy, crafting, new quests, a storyline, siege weapons, new recruitment system, notables, dozens of QOL features, skill system... I could go on.
Obviously lots of these features aren't completely finished or balanced yet. Other features are still missing, this list accurately describes what needs to be done:
Community Feedback-based EARLY ACCESS ROADMAP - ready for you, Taleworlds!
Taleworlds said "we will use community feedback to bring the game to the level our community expects." But the game still has major problems which buyers complained about since launch two years ago. So: This is a collection of community feedback, to show our expectations, and track if...
forums.taleworlds.com
So as I said repeatedly, I understand and agree with most of the criticism. That doesn't mean I need to hate TW as a company like some people do.
JimmyCakes
Regular
They can't handle Bannerlord. In one year they've achieved little even after making tens of millions in profit and are able to take on more experienced developers instead of hiring interns.
That would be sensible. But. I'm increasingly leaning towards the possibility that while they WANT to hire experienced developers (the proof are their job listings), it is possible they CAN'T because people of that caliber don't want to work at Taleworlds (the proof is in their job listings that stay open for months).
According to Glassdoor reviews, the salaries are not high (probably compared to other similar jobs in Turkey), and will be relatively even lower for people coming from richer countries. The local talent either goes for more lucrative jobs or if they are very good, emigrate. And very few people would want to move to Turkey even if the salaries were on par.
So you can see how they might not get the talent they need, despite trying. We don't know what kind of salaries they offer to experienced developers and if this is the real problem.
Hiring cheaper, inexperienced developers at this late stage is counter-productive, they'll just mess up and someone would have to go after them and clean up the mess. In fact, judging by the awful bugs they let out in the beta branch, their current developers do mess up too frequently, raising doubts about their ability. Experienced developers would not let out so many bugs, because they test their stuff themselves and generally follow good practices that don't result in recurring bugs that were supposed to be fixed like the Sound of Doom.
Similar threads
