Thank you for the feedback

Users who are viewing this thread

Thanks @devs for replying on the forums concerning the problems the game has. I hope most of the problems can be fixed quickly. I can assurre you that your game has memory leaks as performance on my machine goes down over time significantly while memory usage goes up. Read here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,319843.0.html
Hope you can adress this. Looking forward to the patches and good luck!
 
Plovercrest said:
Shouldn't chest tattoos be part of char creation? (unless they're paint i guess)

Vikings actually invented the temporary tattoo.

It didn't quite catch on at the time, as licking each other made things awkward.
 
Monroe said:
- Made the AI worse
- Made the combat worse
- Bad dialogue
- Horrible lag, ruining the smoothe experience that is Mount and Blade
- Uninspired arsenal of weapons and armor, ruining the game experience because of socalled historical accuracy
- Unfinished map. Visually there might be more than 300 cities, castles and villages, but with no real, unique content to them. This DLC becomes an excellent showcase of why quality beats quantity ever time.

It would be helpful is you could actually explain your criticisms.  For example, what is it about the AI that is a concern?  What specifically is worse about the combat?  Same thing with the dialog- is it bad because it's poor grammar, doesn't make sense, or doesn't sound natural? 
 
kraggrim said:
Germanic Celt said:
What about armour variation? In Brytenwalda there were lots of different types of chainmail, now we just have mail and byrnie.

A somoene said there's less to draw from, especially if going for historical accuracy.

Total War games for for historical accuracy too. But they throw in a bunch of "cool" stuff that looks like it would go with the time period anyway.
 
I'm yet to see one Total War game that went for historical accuracy. I'd call what they do Hollywood historical accuracy, with everything looking just like an average person would expect it to look and trying hard not to disappoint them. On the other hand, I was quite impressed with VC's feel. Even more when my humble dude-out-of-nowhere went to first-met village elder and got laughed at for suggesting that he wants to start an army made of local volunteers. To be honest, there are plenty of little tasty bits like this that make me go back to roam around for hour or two, despite crashes and whatnot.
 
Redleg said:
It would be helpful is you could actually explain your criticisms.  For example, what is it about the AI that is a concern?  What specifically is worse about the combat?  Same thing with the dialog- is it bad because it's poor grammar, doesn't make sense, or doesn't sound natural?
Can I answer too?  :eek:

I think that the dialogue is many places sounds a tiny bit off somehow, as if its been carefully written by a person whose English is perfect, yet who does not understand certain subtle intricacies of the langauge. That was an issue with Native as well.
Also, in some cases, there are double  spaces  and No space between a  full stop and the first word of the new sentence. Call me annoying, but little things like that sharply reduce the mod's percieved quality.
 
I actually feel AI is much better. Got unhorsed twice by a spearman, never happens in vanilla anymore, once you learn how to approach them.
The melee seems tougher too, but that may be because of the fast movement speeds everyone has and the advantage chainmail has over the other types of armors
 
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
I appreciate your criticism. Made me a little depressed and not wanting to play. Hopefully they fix damage and slow movement down though. What was your impression of Brytenwalda VS this DLC? It seems that you are more of a multiplayer guy instead of singleplayer. Is that right?
 
Plovercrest said:
Total War games for for historical accuracy too. But they throw in a bunch of "cool" stuff that looks like it would go with the time period anyway.
You are completely and utterly wrong there. Total War games are so far away from historical accuracy as you can get. Key point here the word "accuracy". Total War games are very losely based on historical events. That's it. Accuracy is not found in their games at all. Pharaonic Egypt in RTW, fantasy units with fantasy abilities that never existed ... and so on. If you want to try for historical accuracy try Total war games mods, for example te excellent Europa Barbarorum. Of course, people on twcenter are complaining to about the gameplay of EB, because it is too historically accurate.
 
DerGreif said:
Plovercrest said:
Total War games for for historical accuracy too. But they throw in a bunch of "cool" stuff that looks like it would go with the time period anyway.
You are completely and utterly wrong there. Total War games are so far away from historical accuracy as you can get. Key point here the word "accuracy". Total War games are very losely based on historical events. That's it. Accuracy is not found in their games at all. Pharaonic Egypt in RTW, fantasy units with fantasy abilities that never existed ... and so on. If you want to try for historical accuracy try Total war games mods, for example te excellent Europa Barbarorum. Of course, people on twcenter are complaining to about the gameplay of EB, because it is too historically accurate.
The developers of Rome 2 even stated that they aimed for authenticity. Not accuracy. As in accurate(ish) armors and arms, accurate(ish) map, accurate(ish) factions, and  that is it. Everything else is fantasy.
 
Dan11311 said:
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
I appreciate your criticism. Made me a little depressed and not wanting to play. Hopefully they fix damage and slow movement down though. What was your impression of Brytenwalda VS this DLC? It seems that you are more of a multiplayer guy instead of singleplayer. Is that right?

I get into the Single player later on but yes, I feel multiplayer is what brought a lot of the new players in (vikings tv series). I've never been one for single player tho I did enjoy the Clash of Kings mod.  :razz:
 
CelticMarks said:
Dan11311 said:
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
I appreciate your criticism. Made me a little depressed and not wanting to play. Hopefully they fix damage and slow movement down though. What was your impression of Brytenwalda VS this DLC? It seems that you are more of a multiplayer guy instead of singleplayer. Is that right?

I get into the Single player later on but yes, I feel multiplayer is what brought a lot of the new players in (vikings tv series). I've never been one for single player tho I did enjoy the Clash of Kings mod.  :razz:
Brytenwalda SP is pretty good. I don't know about VC DLC SP as I don't think most people have gotten far enough into it to tell how good it can get. A lot less variety in armors and arms it seems though.

MP is most likely why people came to the DLC. Locking shields, I've noticed, is something that is continually practiced for many mods. To avoid team killing. Would be nice if there was no friendly damage.

I'm waiting for patches and/or sub mods and OSPs before continuing on.
 
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
It seems to me that you are disappointed not because of the DLC, but because of your expectations. This is not a MP centric DLC - it is more about the SP game. Call it a SP DLC with a MP option as bonus. There is a small selection of weapons because that's what people used in that part of the world in that specific time frame - there were a few good weapons and everyone used them with minor variations. Same goes for armors. Archery sucks because.. well.. archery sucked back then and was not a serious factor in wars. Games tend to over emphasize archery because players like it and make it way more effective than it actually was, but this is not that kind of a game.

I dont understand your problems with the SP. The game starts with you getting your ass kicked - so? it is set in such a way that you start from the bottom and for this reason you cannot recruit easily. Do you really think that in those times a scruffy unknown armed person walked into a village and 10 able men would leap and join him as his loyal soldiers? You dont like SP, then this DLC is probably not for you.
 
mouthnhoof said:
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
It seems to me that you are disappointed not because of the DLC, but because of your expectations. This is not a MP centric DLC - it is more about the SP game. Call it a SP DLC with a MP option as bonus. There is a small selection of weapons because that's what people used in that part of the world in that specific time frame - there were a few good weapons and everyone used them with minor variations. Same goes for armors. Archery sucks because.. well.. archery sucked back then and was not a serious factor in wars. Games tend to over emphasize archery because players like it and make it way more effective than it actually was, but this is not that kind of a game.

I dont understand your problems with the SP. The game starts with you getting your ass kicked - so? it is set in such a way that you start from the bottom and for this reason you cannot recruit easily. Do you really think that in those times a scruffy unknown armed person walked into a village and 10 able men would leap and join him as his loyal soldiers? You dont like SP, then this DLC is probably not for you.

I'm not alone with the faults I found. I didn't have high expectations at all as I said "I'm not going into this expecting magic and rainbow" but the DLC lacks feeling "A pretty Native" "Offer something that's not currently available" I could DL Vikingr and Bryntwelda and it'd have a better experience. I also say in the video if you watched the whole thing that i'm not into single player and this is more of my thoughts on Multi, now NW has hardly any weapons yet it's fine, in this they give you a few spears and that's it, good luck using anything else. - those standards.... 
 
CelticMarks said:
mouthnhoof said:
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
It seems to me that you are disappointed not because of the DLC, but because of your expectations. This is not a MP centric DLC - it is more about the SP game. Call it a SP DLC with a MP option as bonus. There is a small selection of weapons because that's what people used in that part of the world in that specific time frame - there were a few good weapons and everyone used them with minor variations. Same goes for armors. Archery sucks because.. well.. archery sucked back then and was not a serious factor in wars. Games tend to over emphasize archery because players like it and make it way more effective than it actually was, but this is not that kind of a game.

I dont understand your problems with the SP. The game starts with you getting your ass kicked - so? it is set in such a way that you start from the bottom and for this reason you cannot recruit easily. Do you really think that in those times a scruffy unknown armed person walked into a village and 10 able men would leap and join him as his loyal soldiers? You dont like SP, then this DLC is probably not for you.

I'm not alone with the faults I found. I didn't have high expectations at all as I said "I'm not going into this expecting magic and rainbow" but the DLC lacks feeling "A pretty Native" "Offer something that's not currently available" I could DL Vikingr and Bryntwelda and it'd have a better experience. I also say in the video if you watched the whole thing that i'm not into single player and this is more of my thoughts on Multi, now NW has hardly any weapons yet it's fine, in this they give you a few spears and that's it, good luck using anything else. - those standards....
I'm guessing the musketry makes NW DLC feel different. Less hand-to-hand combat. Whereas its very similar to native in VC with all of the melee combat.
 
Dan11311 said:
CelticMarks said:
mouthnhoof said:
CelticMarks said:

My thoughts

All you need to take from the video is "Rome wasn't built in a day"GL devs.
It seems to me that you are disappointed not because of the DLC, but because of your expectations. This is not a MP centric DLC - it is more about the SP game. Call it a SP DLC with a MP option as bonus. There is a small selection of weapons because that's what people used in that part of the world in that specific time frame - there were a few good weapons and everyone used them with minor variations. Same goes for armors. Archery sucks because.. well.. archery sucked back then and was not a serious factor in wars. Games tend to over emphasize archery because players like it and make it way more effective than it actually was, but this is not that kind of a game.

I dont understand your problems with the SP. The game starts with you getting your ass kicked - so? it is set in such a way that you start from the bottom and for this reason you cannot recruit easily. Do you really think that in those times a scruffy unknown armed person walked into a village and 10 able men would leap and join him as his loyal soldiers? You dont like SP, then this DLC is probably not for you.

I'm not alone with the faults I found. I didn't have high expectations at all as I said "I'm not going into this expecting magic and rainbow" but the DLC lacks feeling "A pretty Native" "Offer something that's not currently available" I could DL Vikingr and Bryntwelda and it'd have a better experience. I also say in the video if you watched the whole thing that i'm not into single player and this is more of my thoughts on Multi, now NW has hardly any weapons yet it's fine, in this they give you a few spears and that's it, good luck using anything else. - those standards....
I'm guessing the musketry makes NW DLC feel different. Less hand-to-hand combat. Whereas its very similar to native in VC with all of the melee combat.

i think naval combat could be the feature that could make VC different from other MP mods.
Need some polishment and additions but i quite enjoyed it.
I'm into mp too and i think the most fun comes from it , while the sp gives more immersion but it's not as long-lived.
 
Back
Top Bottom