Taleworlds remembers what Mount and Blade is?

[masterhound3]

It is 60% RPG, and 40% strategy.

Yet we see it taking a lukewarm mediocre direction, a bit like becoming the cod of medieval games, watering down all the elements that once comprised it, and not really introducing any exciting depth to those aspects AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS. I really don't know if they are trying to create just the next fortnite and concentrate on the multiplayer or whatnot, but the singleplayer players will be completely dissapointed. the latest update about quests only confirms the poor job done in some departments. wasn't even an update frankly. update assumes you introduce something new. and please don't mention the exclamation marks.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Mount & Blade 2 Bannerlord like all series is aimed primarily at arcade players and console plebs, marketing as RPG and strategy for attract audience from that genres. M&B feels very simple for strategy and RPG nee=rds because team not put so much effort but Bannerlord seems a AAA RPG because TW were a big indie company which want breaks in mainstream. I sincerely considers as M&B and M&B WB were mediocre games with worst RPG elements and underdeveloped RTS and grand strategy overtones, Bannerlord adding more but few essential things to series

 

[TehRalph]

Move over Rainbow Dash, the new resident pessimist is moving in.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Good comparision, whos next Rainbow Dash? I or forumer above me?

 

[TehRalph]

Good comparision, whos next Rainbow Dash? I or forumer above me?

The person who made the thread.

 

[lolbash]

Move over Rainbow Dash, the new resident pessimist is moving in.

I don't know what your opinion about me is, but correction, I am not a regular pessimist 

I just happen to disagree with alot of the forum, and maybe some of Taleworld's ideas here and there.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Also I disagree with a lot of forumers here because I am a hardcore strategy gamer

 

[Graeghan]

If you look at M&B as strategy/rpg then yeah, it's mediocre at best.

If you look at it as an action/squad command game with rpg and strategy elements it's okay to good.

The bulk of the game is spent riding around, hacking stuff to pieces, and commanding your troops in the thick of battle. Arguing strategy-to-rpg ratio is like arguing the relative merits of screwdrivers and monkey wrenches for pounding in nails. Sure, you can do that but why not grab a ****ing hammer already?

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

I not like as in M&B I cannot control my army which make me very sad because AI do weird things M&B is a action game after all and was one of most worst games which I've played(I hate FPS/TPS games)

 

[KhergitLancer80]

it is also action actually and a nice junk of it.

so much that they were even able to put a MP mode in it.
A MP that still has a lot of active players after 8 years.

Not to mention Napoleonic Wars dlc which entirely focuses on MP.

It is strategy, rpg, action.

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

It is 60% RPG, and 40% strategy.

Yet we see it taking a lukewarm mediocre direction, a bit like becoming the cod of medieval games, watering down all the elements that once comprised it, and not really introducing any exciting depth to those aspects AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS. I really don't know if they are trying to create just the next fortnite and concentrate on the multiplayer or whatnot, but the singleplayer players will be completely dissapointed. the latest update about quests only confirms the poor job done in some departments. wasn't even an update frankly. update assumes you introduce something new. and please don't mention the exclamation marks.

So unlike many others you're complaining that Bannerlord isn't really Mount & Blade anymore, due to the developers watering down the elements that it used to consist of.

Well at least the diversity is nice I guess, something other than "Bannerlord is just a Warband reskin" is a breath of fresh air.

Obviously I disagree with both statements but still, they amuse me.

What sort of features are you expecting? you talked about getting some new exciting depth "AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS", so please elaborate on that. I'm genuinely curious about what innovations or improvements you wanted.

When you said that the developers are focusing on multiplayer and trying to make the next Fortnite I couldn't really see it in my head. Most of the development blogs have been focused solely on content that will affect singleplayer only. I don't see this an indication that multiplayer is their primary focus and I reckon such statements are ungrounded.

I do see them trying to make the game more accessible but then again what game developers don't try to do that? bringing in players to actually play the game is kind of important funnily enough.

Many people were disappointed by the latest development blog due to its contents, however I don't think that necessarily means they have done a poor job of it. It seems they have gone in a direction that many did not want, let's hope that the situation isn't as dire as it seems.

Honestly rereading the blog I am less nervous about the state of affairs, yeah it seems simpler but it also has introduced some more complexity to quests or is at least implied to.

Also we did get new information from the blog, even if it wasn't particularly exhilarating or substantial so it does count as an update.

I not like as in M&B I cannot control my army which make me very sad because AI do weird things M&B is a action game after all and was one of most worst games which I've played(I hate FPS/TPS games)

Now you can control your army, just not with a very high degree of control like what you find in real time tactical games such as the Total War franchise. I don't know why you expect a tactical strategy game from, what Mount & Blade is at it's core, an Action RPG. Unlike the turn-based gameplay of many strategy games, Mount & Blade focuses more on the individual battles and less on the grand scale of things. It's a different style of game.

One more thing, if you don't like Mount & Blade so much, as you seem to proclaim, then why do you spend so much time on the Taleworld forums? I find this more than a little bit odd.

 

[Rabies]

I think the expanded battlefield controls for your troops is an exciting development. But I don't think we've seen much about it yet.

Larger-scale battles, plus more refined orders and formations, could allow for a kind of tactical 'battlefield commander'-type experience that adds strategy in addition to the individual arcade combat action we know about. Warband kind of had this, a little bit, but it wasn't very fleshed-out and and the controls weren't very easy to use; plus, the battles were quite small-scale and the AI didn't really use tactics. The AI's important if it's going to work like that.

The Gamescom demo only featured the very early game, and most of the important improvements in Bannerlord over Warband -in terms of more strategic and RPG elements- seem that they will become more obvious much later on in a campaign - things like kingdom and fief management, mercantile gameplay, laws, politics, character-to-charater relations, large multi-party armies and military campaigns, etc.

 

[Horik6697]

Some people say that the  game is the same, that is Warband with HD textures, and now people are saying that the game is not M&B anymore

Really dude, I strongly disagree with you. The game will allow much more role-play than in Warband, same thing with tactics. You may have a point by saying that it became a softcore RPG when the levelling system became based on perks, and not on a "character sheet", but that's all; in any other case, you now have more quests, more roles to play and more ways to play it. Finally, if someone here says that tactics are totally irrelevant in Warband, I would ask in which difficulty they play on. Even if it is a primitive simulation of tactics, and I hope that it will be improved in BL.

 

[jamoecw]

there are some worrying elements, however taleworlds did deliver M&B all those years ago, and they partnered with paradox which is good because paradox puts out games i consider to be good. so on this front i should have faith.

as for what i am looking for in M&B2, well better AI, pathing (especially for sieges), hit detection (no striking through each other), and moddability. they introduced early on some really cool things like destructible walls and proper siege weapons. they have stated moddability is even better, though i haven't seen evidence of the other 3 being improved. things are still early so that isn't a big deal.

the things that look funky also look like things that can be modded away as well. i also remember the early days of M&B before official release, and modders really breathed life into the game. in fact many of the improvements that modders made became a part of the official release. they hired some of the modders as well, and their DLC for warband came from modders (after being polished). so worrying about things that can be modded out is a bit silly. if they keep up their good working relationship with the modding community things can be fixed up very nicely and even a poor release can still be a good game in a few years.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

Some people say that the  game is the same, that is Warband with HD textures, and now people are saying that the game is not M&B anymore

I can't keep up anymore because of this.

 

[Noudelle]

It is 60% RPG, and 40% strategy.

Is that what it is? You got a chart somewhere?

I really don't know if they are trying to create just the next fortnite and concentrate on the multiplayer or whatnot...

Yes, they are trying to create the next Fortnite. You must have missed the dev blog about dance emotes.

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

@Noudelle

This whole thread is just one small heap of despair. Other heaps can be found throughout the forum. My favorite bout is the "I will not support" or "I no longer care about". And yet, they cannot get enough of TW and keep coming back, checking the blogs and filling the forum with their despair. Lord Foul must be eating this shiznit up.

 

[Orion]

... they partnered with paradox ...

Not really. Paradox was on board for publishing Warband, but they haven't been involved in Bannerlord.

 

[jamoecw]

... they partnered with paradox ...

Not really. Paradox was on board for publishing Warband, but they haven't been involved in Bannerlord.

that is good to know.

of course it wasn't just WB, the original M&B they partnered with so that there would be a box release and it would appear in stores. the original was good and paradox didn't really have a hand in the development, so i assume it is a similar arrangement (paradox forums are down at the moment so i can't see the info).

 

[Ragratt]

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.