But that´s just misleading. No matter how long you played the game. If you judge it by it´s current state it has to be bad, cause it´s unfinished. But if you judge it by what it could be, you praise it for no reason as you cannot say what it will look like when it´s done.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Taleworlds™ starts making another game/dlc before Bannerlord is finished. "Unannounced Project™"
- Thread starter Errayn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
You kindof forget how unique Mount&Blade is and people seem to actually think it is a good game despite what is shown here on the forum. 94% of recent reviews on Steam are positive and most of them have over 100 hours game time, many of them over 300-400 hours. Couldn't find one review with less then 15 hours.
![Andrei[beast]](/data/avatars/m/556/556652.jpg?1589629811){kind=avatar}
We have to be honest here really and there must some reviews with less than 2 hours but there are many that got changed and it is still understandable.
I am talking about recent reviews from the past days, surely there are some. Didn't check every single review but after a quick check I didn't find any. You're welcome to check more thoroughly ofcourse (:
On November 26th-27th only 43 out of 1835 was reviews with gametime between 0-2 hours. 1784 was positive and 54 negative. 1557 out of those 1835 had 35 hours or more.
EDIT: Forgot to change the language on Steam filter.
Last edited:
I get your point and sry, didn't knew that you're talking about the past days, i was looking at the charts that @Bannerman Man gave, meaning that there are some at the total of it y'now
Since Mars there is a total of 144,272 reviews and 8,875 of those had between 0-2 hours of game time and 51,552 of those had 35 hours or more and 87% of those 144,272 where positive. Also 83,967 of those 144,272 had between 2-35 hours of game time. So most players is around 2-35 hours in total
EDIT: Again I acciedentaly had a filter on. "144,272"
Last edited:
Stop bringing facts into an emotional discussion.That's just a boat prop though; you can see them in various singleplayer scenes too. They've just made them move around on pre-defined paths as part of the background scenery, and in no way does that mean naval warfare has been implemented (or even worked on). The guy in the video just teleported players onto the boat somehow to show them off.
Where'd you find that number? Steam lets you sort reviews by hours of playtime at the time the review was written, and it appears only about 3% of people who reviewed the game had < 1 hour of playtime at the time of their review (3340 / 114394 = 0.029). I don't know how Steam counts people who changed their review later though.
There are quite a few more reviews from people with 100+ hrs playtime, and those reviews are actually more positive than the ones with < 1 hr of playtime (85% positive vs 71% for < 1 hr playtime).
(Sorry for being kind of petty haha, 90% just seems way off base)
I like these stats, can you do one for warband?Since Mars there is a total of 106,754 reviews and 6,301 of those had between 0-2 hours of game time and 36,787 of those had 35 hours or more and 87% of those 106,754 where positive. Also 63,759 of those 106,754 had between 2-35 hours of game time. So most players is around 2-35 hours in total
jak1up
Sergeant
Or may be reconstruct existing code? It seems they mentioned some code requries reconstruction eariler this year, like 1-2 months after release,cant remember exactly, might be merely a rumor
You also have to take into account that only the most hardcore dedicated fans visit game forums, these players also become the most vocal and bitter when they disagree or dislike aspects of the game.
Steam reviews are a better reflection of the overall view of the game, not the tiny minority that post here.
Ofcourse
There is a total of 120,812 reviews from Mars 31 2010 to December 04 2020. Of those 120,812 there have been 4,096 players who had 0-2 hours of game time and 83,250 had 35 hours or more and 97% of those 120,812 gave a positive review. Also 33,351 of those 120,812 had between 2 to 35 hours. So most players of Warband had 35 hours or more.
Worth noting is that Warband sold alot of games outside of Steam so these numbers can be really off comparing to the total amount.
Yes I know, it's actually pretty much the same with every EA title I've participated in. A small % of the players that are super vocal and I've actually seen games die because of the developers trying to do everything those fans wanted. Tw should ofcourse listen to the fans but it's important to stick to your original idea and implement everything you can from the fans without diverting from the original idea, that will just create a mess of a game and mostly the same people are still mad
This is a very valid point and the primary reason why Taleworlds is doing a good job not listening to forumites. However, forums have an outsized influence in other social media on the perception of the game, particularly if it's dismissive and gets memed.
I remember Oblivion and Mass Effect 3, perfectly good games being torn to pieces by professional ranters and their influence spread. Other examples are Fallout 3 and 4.
In all of these cases there's a silent majority that enjoyed these games, but they weren't motivated to post about it every day.
Barbellz
Veteran
I can't remember if I ever bought or formed an opinion looking at Steam reviews in 12 years. They seem to be there to just farm likes/awards or tell a lenghty story about a highly custom and personalized playthrough. They almost never go in detail about what could be changed to make it better (from what I see).
I'm glad that we have a vocal minority on the forums because I regularly see a bunch of great ideas here!
It's a problem with all reviews. This is a biological limitation of humanity, not an issue isolated to Steam reviews. The human herd consists of 4 categories: smart responsible people, smart irresponsible people, dumb responsible people, and dumb irresponsible people. Unfortunately, 3 out of those 4 categories are inclined to post ridiculous reviews regardless of the url. But it's really worse than that. You may be thinking "well, at least 25% of humanity can write decent reviews." Nope. Because 99% of humanity resides in the three bad review categories while only one percent of humanity resides in the smart responsible category (the people who will write good reviews). You won't get a lot of reviews from the smart responsible crowd because they are generally busy with jobs, and doing other smart responsible stuff like folding laundry, raking leaves, flossing, and changing grandpa's diaper. So, when you do find a good review, embrace it. Print it out. Frame it and put it on your wall. Share it on Facebook and/or Twitter. Carry it with you when you go to AA meetings or Rotary Club. Make a mini print of it to stick in your wallet so if you ever get shot or your car flips over you can pull it out and stare at it as you are dying.
Those smart and responsible people ****en sucks!
Doesnt matter if many reviews are knee jerk reactions -an intelligent consumer quickly filters through and looks for like minded posters and certain types of language which will allow him to make a better formed decision. Thats life today -plenty of Amazon items have stupid "5 stars! Worked like it said it would!!" type reviews so you simply filter thru.
Raking leaves clearly belongs to the dumb responsible category.
