Taleworlds remembers what Mount and Blade is?

[lolbash]

Also note persistent stats and a perk system does not make a RPG.

The literal meaning for RPG is Role Playing Game, which is by itself an insanely broad term that can be quite literally be applied to almost any video game that has exist.

Generally when we think of an RPG we usually think of a game that has checked at least 2 of these things:

Quests.

Leveling up for Stats.

Looting for weapons and gear.

Some sort of fantasy world based on a sub flavor of Tolkein's universe.

 

[Ragratt]

It is not the “literal” or even the liberal interpretation of the term. FPS, sports and even arena-based fighting games have stats perks and leveling in common.

role-play·ing game
noun
noun: role-playing game; plural noun: role-playing games; noun: rôle-playing game; plural noun: rôle-playing games; noun: role-play game; plural noun: role-play games
a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

More like:
20% rpg,
20% strategy,
40% first-person medieval battle simulator

M&B is 80% of a game and rest of it is waiting to be defined or expanded.  TW is streamlining and expanding the core gameplay. It’s never been a fully realized game. It lacks a sense of adventure and exploration and the minimum level of interaction and diplomacy to make it feel engaging as it needs to be.  I’d especially like to see more choice based storylines and player generated quests.

Also note persistent stats and a perk system does not make a RPG.

What do you define has an RPG? to take things very literally Mount & Blade is a game in which players assume the role of a character in a fictional setting and they act out these roles within a narrative.
So yes having common tropes of the stats and a perk system does not necessarily make Mount & Blade an RPG, instead the fact that players take on the role of a character in a fictional setting and make their own story does.
The leveling, stats, and perks are all irrelevant in defining a game's genre.
Genres often have a lot of overlap so to try and to give them concrete definitions is inherently counter intuitive.
So I would disagree with your allocation of only %20 of the game's makeup being an RPG. Personally I don't like to give percentages for this sort of thing but it helps cover bases, so if I have to give percentages I would say that Mount & Blade is:

• 40% Action role-playing game
• 25% Simulation
• 15% Strategy
• 10% Misc (sort of shooter I guess but not really)

Personally I never quite understand why some people always seem to understate the RPG elements and overstate the strategy elements of Mount & Blade, makes me wonder if we're even playing the same game. I chock this up to their pre-formed mindset about what an RPG can and can't be, but I can't say I'm any better in that regard.
One of the strongest parts of Mount and Blade was its combat, and another would be its simulation of a medieval world, and whiile it isn't perfect its a lot better than a lot of other games.
Don't get me wrong the game had flaws, the general lack of depth and steep learning curve (for new players) being the two most major that I can think of, but it still had charm and is still an RPG (and simulator for that matter).

 

[Ragratt]

A true rpg can be broken down to three basic elements: story, choice, and set of rules. Stats are not even a necessary requirement. Stellaris, a 4x game, arguably is a much more robust rpg than M&B, although the player takes the role of a civilization.  The player decides the character of that civ and makes decisions that determine path of game through choice-based narrative bits that have big impact on the world. Paradox made a great storytelling system for that game that added a lot of flavor.

Bannerlord is much more of a sandbox with all the toys, but little imagination. The player may have a cloak and a sword/ staff but that doesn’t make them a wizard, because there is such limited opportunity to express their character. You can rearrange the elements found in this box but there is no play or soul. Nothing is elevated or woven into a story greater than all its parts. Yes, you can take castles, raise an army, swing a sword, but there is really very minimal “role playing” or character building or story going on other than the chaos / order the player creates. Fetch quests or killing 10 bandits is not an adequate rpg mechanic, it’s not a story telling device, because it in no way allows the player to define or express the role they wish to play.  For this reason it is much more of a simulation. Do gamers remember what an RPG is?, would be a better question.

This isn’t to say M&B is a bad game, but it is a very, very shallow In terms of RPGs.

 

[Rabies]

To me, mount and blade isn't a role playing game at all, because there's no choice of different roles to assume. You are an adventurer who tries to become ruler. That's it. You can engage in trade, but you can't actually be a trader in terms of how NPCs relate to you; you can engage in banditry, but you can't be a bandit or a looter; you can't be a bounty hunter; you can't be a townsman or a peasant; you can't be a guildmaster or a village elder; you can't join the town watch or be a caravan guard.

You can be an independent adventurer, a mercenary captain, a lord and a king, but that's not a choice of character roles, that's a linear progression through the game; and your own character is the only person in the world who can go through those stages.

 

[Do not look here]

To me M&B always was about stories that emerge from gameplay, finding out which lords are dicks and which are my best bros, recognizing my companions in the thick of battle, fighting against overwhelming odds... it all builds up to something that I enjoy. I don't need Jarl Turegor to have a long backstory to look like my idol I'd do anything for, it was enough that this bastard once rode by me and slashed into chunks bunch of dudes that were munching on my almost corpse when we were fighting Vaegirs in the middle of the night by Wercheg. In that aspect M&Bs were always very RPG-ish for me personally, even if I had to write all the stories in my head and game only handed to me tidbits I could use to base them on. That was never a problem to me, if game gives me only stub of a story, but I feel inclined to build up on it, it's much more preferable to it giving me everything on plate, when I can't even be bothered to grab it.

 

[jamoecw]

you are all wrong, it is 2 parts mount, and 1 part blade. just to liven things up there is a dash of awe.

 

[Do not look here]

Where does the mountain come to this, then?

 

[Roccoflipside]

To me M&B always was about stories that emerge from gameplay, finding out which lords are dicks and which are my best bros, recognizing my companions in the thick of battle, fighting against overwhelming odds... it all builds up to something that I enjoy. I don't need Jarl Turegor to have a long backstory to look like my idol I'd do anything for, it was enough that this bastard once rode by me and slashed into chunks bunch of dudes that were munching on my almost corpse when we were fighting Vaegirs in the middle of the night by Wercheg. In that aspect M&Bs were always very RPG-ish for me personally, even if I had to write all the stories in my head and game only handed to me tidbits I could use to base them on. That was never a problem to me, if game gives me only stub of a story, but I feel inclined to build up on it, it's much more preferable to it giving me everything on plate, when I can't even be bothered to grab it.

This. M&B is, for me, preferable as an RPG to, say, Skyrim or the Witcher. Because games like those have a set storyline, I feel as though I get rail-roaded through to meet the big bosses, rather than having the option to play how I want. Sure, you get different dialogue options, and there are times you get to pick if someone lives or dies or something, but in the end you end up at the same point, fighting the same person, for mostly similar reasons. There's more "options" laid out for the player, but in the end there's actually less options.

M&B on the other hand, through lack of a defined story and less "options", actually opens up the entire world for storytelling. I'm not looking for a specific quest-giver, I'm not trying to save the world, I can do whatever I want and create a story around that. In one VC playthrough I played as a vassal to an Irish kingdom trying to conquer England before they did the same to us. After I had married into one of their families and taken most of Northumbria, I was denied a fief that should have been mine, and revolted. Some of the lords, including my brother-in-law, joined me, while others remained with Connacht, including my father-in-law, with whom I still had an incredibly high relationship, despite  proceeding to kick his ass all over the British Isles.  That to me was a better story, created entirely by choice and coincidence, than most story-driven RPG's.

 

[Rabies]

To me M&B always was about stories that emerge from gameplay, finding out which lords are dicks and which are my best bros, recognizing my companions in the thick of battle, fighting against overwhelming odds... it all builds up to something that I enjoy. I don't need Jarl Turegor to have a long backstory to look like my idol I'd do anything for, it was enough that this bastard once rode by me and slashed into chunks bunch of dudes that were munching on my almost corpse when we were fighting Vaegirs in the middle of the night by Wercheg. In that aspect M&Bs were always very RPG-ish for me personally, even if I had to write all the stories in my head and game only handed to me tidbits I could use to base them on. That was never a problem to me, if game gives me only stub of a story, but I feel inclined to build up on it, it's much more preferable to it giving me everything on plate, when I can't even be bothered to grab it.

This. M&B is, for me, preferable as an RPG to, say, Skyrim or the Witcher. Because games like those have a set storyline, I feel as though I get rail-roaded through to meet the big bosses, rather than having the option to play how I want. Sure, you get different dialogue options, and there are times you get to pick if someone lives or dies or something, but in the end you end up at the same point, fighting the same person, for mostly similar reasons. There's more "options" laid out for the player, but in the end there's actually less options.

M&B on the other hand, through lack of a defined story and less "options", actually opens up the entire world for storytelling. I'm not looking for a specific quest-giver, I'm not trying to save the world, I can do whatever I want and create a story around that. In one VC playthrough I played as a vassal to an Irish kingdom trying to conquer England before they did the same to us. After I had married into one of their families and taken most of Northumbria, I was denied a fief that should have been mine, and revolted. Some of the lords, including my brother-in-law, joined me, while others remained with Connacht, including my father-in-law, with whom I still had an incredibly high relationship, despite  proceeding to kick his ass all over the British Isles.  That to me was a better story, created entirely by choice and coincidence, than most story-driven RPG's.

Absolutely. It's a medieval-themed sandbox game, not an RPG. It's a combat action game, where the sandbox world gives you contexts for your battles in a dynamic way, rather than a scripted one. The RPG-esq or strategic elements are just a compliment, not the main focus. Those parts have been expanded upon from Warband to Bannerlord, but the focus of the game remains an arcade fighting game with a semi-dynamic gameworld working in the background.
The workings of the gameworld and your effects on it provide an 'organic' feeling of storytelling, and a reason for the battles. The quests should try to do the same thing, if they can be made to fit into the overall situation of the gameworld rather than just being arbitrary one-offs in isolation to it. Character development, relationship-building and NPC interaction is just there to provide atmosphere to the world and added context to your battles: it's not the purpose of the game.

The fact that Mount&Blade borrows elements from different genres to different degrees is a great asset to the overall experience. Each aspect can be improved upon to the benefit of the game overall, without detracting from any of the other parts. It's just a general "Medieval-em-up" (to use slightly old-fashioned parlance) with a focus on fighting.

 

[lab637]

To me M&B always was about stories that emerge from gameplay, finding out which lords are dicks and which are my best bros, recognizing my companions in the thick of battle, fighting against overwhelming odds... it all builds up to something that I enjoy. I don't need Jarl Turegor to have a long backstory to look like my idol I'd do anything for, it was enough that this bastard once rode by me and slashed into chunks bunch of dudes that were munching on my almost corpse when we were fighting Vaegirs in the middle of the night by Wercheg. In that aspect M&Bs were always very RPG-ish for me personally, even if I had to write all the stories in my head and game only handed to me tidbits I could use to base them on. That was never a problem to me, if game gives me only stub of a story, but I feel inclined to build up on it, it's much more preferable to it giving me everything on plate, when I can't even be bothered to grab it.

This. M&B is, for me, preferable as an RPG to, say, Skyrim or the Witcher. Because games like those have a set storyline, I feel as though I get rail-roaded through to meet the big bosses, rather than having the option to play how I want. Sure, you get different dialogue options, and there are times you get to pick if someone lives or dies or something, but in the end you end up at the same point, fighting the same person, for mostly similar reasons. There's more "options" laid out for the player, but in the end there's actually less options.

M&B on the other hand, through lack of a defined story and less "options", actually opens up the entire world for storytelling. I'm not looking for a specific quest-giver, I'm not trying to save the world, I can do whatever I want and create a story around that. In one VC playthrough I played as a vassal to an Irish kingdom trying to conquer England before they did the same to us. After I had married into one of their families and taken most of Northumbria, I was denied a fief that should have been mine, and revolted. Some of the lords, including my brother-in-law, joined me, while others remained with Connacht, including my father-in-law, with whom I still had an incredibly high relationship, despite  proceeding to kick his ass all over the British Isles.  That to me was a better story, created entirely by choice and coincidence, than most story-driven RPG's.

+1, couldn't have described it better than either of you gents.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

Roleplaying a character is not so much about whether you get to make choices (that's a prerequisite), but about why you choose as you do. Characters should be defined less by their combat skills and preferred type of weapon, and more by their personality. That is what will determine their choices. Since personality traits aren't usually represented in videogames, it falls to the players to think about their characters, how they envisage their background and personality, and how the course of the game might influence and change them.

Mount & Blade offers a great platform for roleplaying. You create your own character and are able to customize their appearance extensively. That is a lot of decisions you make, before the game even starts. Everything you do in the game is a decision, which faction to support (if any), which NPC to like and which to despise, which party to attack. If you base decisions mostly on what will get you ahead in the game quickly, you are a pragmatic character. If you have moral qualms about certain actions, even though they are profitable, you are a scrupulous character. You'll easily think of other examples. Whether the game shows you some stats and values to quantify your character traits is irrelevant, they are there regardless.

In essence, the extent to which Mount & Blade is a roleplaying game is up to you. It depends on how much thought and imagination you put into the role you play.     

 

[FBohler]

It is 60% RPG, and 40% strategy.

So there's absolutely no action in M&B games?

Interesting...

One of us must be deaf, dumb and blind....

 

[jamoecw]

Those parts have been expanded upon from Warband to Bannerlord, but the focus of the game remains an arcade fighting game with a semi-dynamic gameworld working in the background.

well mount and blade was one of the most realistic medieval combat simulators of its time. its success spurned on a bunch of others to mimic many elements, most being less realistic, but a few being more realistic. the end result today is that it is not seen as a realistic medieval combat game by many of its newer fans. in the past it was anything but an arcade style style fighting game, medieval themed or not. its simplistic controls really made it easy to get into and play, and the balance of things made it more fun to play than other realistic fighting games. that simplicity is mainly why today it feels a bit arcade like, but ultimately that isn't what mount and blade is for anyone that remembers what it was.

 

[TehRalph]

Those parts have been expanded upon from Warband to Bannerlord, but the focus of the game remains an arcade fighting game with a semi-dynamic gameworld working in the background.

well mount and blade was one of the most realistic medieval combat simulators of its time. its success spurned on a bunch of others to mimic many elements, most being less realistic, but a few being more realistic. the end result today is that it is not seen as a realistic medieval combat game by many of its newer fans. in the past it was anything but an arcade style style fighting game, medieval themed or not. its simplistic controls really made it easy to get into and play, and the balance of things made it more fun to play than other realistic fighting games. that simplicity is mainly why today it feels a bit arcade like, but ultimately that isn't what mount and blade is for anyone that remembers what it was.

It was never a simulator and it was never realistic.

 

[Rabies]

Those parts have been expanded upon from Warband to Bannerlord, but the focus of the game remains an arcade fighting game with a semi-dynamic gameworld working in the background.

well mount and blade was one of the most realistic medieval combat simulators of its time. its success spurned on a bunch of others to mimic many elements, most being less realistic, but a few being more realistic. the end result today is that it is not seen as a realistic medieval combat game by many of its newer fans. in the past it was anything but an arcade style style fighting game, medieval themed or not. its simplistic controls really made it easy to get into and play, and the balance of things made it more fun to play than other realistic fighting games. that simplicity is mainly why today it feels a bit arcade like, but ultimately that isn't what mount and blade is for anyone that remembers what it was.

I didn't choose the word 'arcade' in order to insult the game, or to make any comparisons with other titles. All I meant was that M&B's representation of fighting is designed to be fun, first and foremost, rather than have combatants suffer realistic injuries or effects of taking damage. That's a good thing.
The word arcade is a description of design choices, not a value judgement on the control system or on tech limitations.

 

[Roccoflipside]

It was never a simulator and it was never realistic.

Seeing as TW's themselves describes it as a "Sandbox Medieval simulator" (or something very close) on Steam, I would say you're wrong. And while the mechanics may not be the most realistic (irl you can attack from way more than 4 directions, etc.), they combine to create an overall realistic feel, at least for me. By limiting the amt. of attacks each character has, it puts the player and the ai on a similar footing (depending on difficulty settings) which is far more realistic than just about any game that was around when it came out, and I would say remains up there even when compared to newer games. Many games seem to go out of their way to make the PC more powerful than the average ai, since the player has to cut through them alone, or possibly with a small party, but it's different in M&B since the player can recruit equal numbers, and doesn't have to rely on his/her own skills/abilities as much. To me, this makes for a much more 'realistic' game than many of the others available today, as each and every opponent, and for the most part each attack, is important, rather than only having to focus on the big enemies that can actually hurt you.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

It was never a simulator and it was never realistic.

We feel that the new influence and army gathering systems better simulate the historical feudal system.

https://steamcommunity.com/games/261550/announcements/detail/1457336536714336332

Yet, devs claim it is.

 

[DanAngleland]

Bjorn, using the word 'simulates' doesn't mean they consider their game a simulator. That's not to say there isn't an effort to reflect reality in some areas of the game, but if it were to be considered a simulator then it would surely have to bear a much closer resemblance to the reality of melee combat, just as a racing or flight simulator game is expected to make every reasonable effort to depict the relevant features of their subjects.

Arcade is a reasonable description of M&B. It has never been marketed as a full RPG, and though when talking about Bannerlord strategy has been mentioned, the original M&B was described on the Taleworlds site as a "light RPG" (might have been "RPG lite" or similar) but mainly an action game.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

Okay then,

Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord is the eagerly awaited sequel to the acclaimed medieval combat simulator and role-playing game Mount & Blade: Warband.

Genre: Action, RPG, Simulation, Strategy

https://store.steampowered.com/app/261550/Mount__Blade_II_Bannerlord/