I don't need your understanding.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
The 'Consolization' of Mount and Blade and Bannerlord
- Thread starter stevepine
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Normally I would agree with you, especially when it comes to a game simply not living up to the hype.
However we are not just talking about the game studio not adding enough features or whatever that the player base wants, we are talking about the leadership in the studio wanting to actively make the PC version worse only so they can release the game on consoles (probably last gen) rather than making PC the best it can be and then doing the best to port to console later.
If the studio shows signs of deliberately making the game worse, then we as customers have every right to get our money back.
Would you buy a digital music album and accept songs being removed?
Would you accept your VPN of choice starting to hand out your IP to law firms?
Would you accept ordering a 9 nugget meal at McDonald's only for the staff to come and ask you for a nugget back so they can give it to another customer so you can both have 8 and have it 'fair' rather than just talking the item off the menu?
Was it somewhere stated that they are cutting features and content for the game? You can please proofs so that I get acquainted with this material and draw the appropriate conclusions. Maybe I'm really wrong in this situation. If it's not difficult for you, please provide this information.
I know, let's reduce everything down to Rock, Paper, Scissors! That's optimum complexity, I never got tired of playing it in the backseat on roadtrips. But hey, maybe for the sequel they can "streamline" things down to Rock. It's an inherently superior design philosophy, which explains the universal love for the Bannerlord class system.
Oh, and thank God they took throwing weapons away from heavy infantry. That was way too confusing for archers. Ideally, the outcome of combat is predetermined by class choice. That's what competitive means, right?
There's good and bad streamlining. An unnecessarily complex design is better off simplified, but cutting features to save time and make the game accessible to children is not okay for the non-children. As someone already mentioned here, the bigger problem with Bannerlord is missing features, although they also did try to make the game more action-oriented and simple (thanks, Callum).
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I didn't see anything in his post complaining about bugs. Early Access is the time to make complaints about the direction the game is taking. When EA is over, people similar to you will be saying "Well it's too late to complain now, should have said something during the EA".
@MadVader well said. If complexity doesn't make any noticeable addition to fun, gameplay challenge or immersion then it can safely be removed. Something becoming more simple isn't inherently bad.
Last edited:
This is like say "please provide any information for TW"
They hardly EVER give us any info. More than that, any piece of info they give is subject to change at any given microsecond.
Do you want me to ask you to give me evidence to the contrary of what we are griping about? I dont think you could - and so it works both ways.
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, is TW should put us at ease by saying that this is not the case - WHICH THEY HAVE NOT -> the indication is that they are doing what we say they are re: the consolization of Bannerlord.
Well their decision making since the release of EA seems to support this (and even before, they wanted the EA to begin in 2016 at first and it took until last year remember?), it's seems like all is about trying to simplify things, cutting planned features because they were "too complex to the players and AI" like castle building, ambushes or even changing the awesome banners we saw back in those gamescom videos to monocolor ones because too many colors would confuse new players (wtf?)
There is also the questionable decisions in multiplayer like axing a beloved feature that not a single soul asked for change (warband gold for gear system) for a fixed class system to try and attract more casual players and enter the e-sports scene while warband's multiplayer lived and breathed big community events, roleplaying servers and clan matches, basically the antithesis of casual arcadey play.
Every time someones makes an indepth suggestion about some feature that would greatly improve some lacking aspect of the game it's usually met with "we can't add too complex things" when it gets any attention from the devs at all, they seem to only be able to tweak existing features or adding minor ones, their hands are tied by the upper management of the company and to make things more worrying we have a quote like this:
Yeah, this is my position as well. I have seen enough.
Previous page of the thread.
And i never said they are cutting features.
Mexico said that there are some people that want them to get rid of AI calculations to get faster calculations by some milliseconds to reach fps targets for console.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Pretty much all I was hoping for from the beginning was for Bannerlord to have all the features of Warband, plus better graphics and mod tools, and the handful of big new features they advertised (crime/heirs/better sieges/civil conflict).
So they still need to bring back all the good missing Warband features, and add the still unfinished crime systems. Those are the features that would make me happy with them leaving all other feature development to modders. Anything less and the game would still be unfinished as a sequel and based on what it led people to believe it was going to have.
I think I understand what you mean. I do not yet know what to think and what conclusions to draw. I'll wait a little longer with this, maybe half a year? And then I will judge.
In any case, I'm waiting for the release version of the game, whatever it is, and I'm waiting for wonderful people who, with the help of mods, will make this game the way the players would really like to see it.
While I never like Elder scrolls, I did play FAllout 3 and New Vegas which are the same.
Comparing F3 with NV I enjoyed the latter much-much more. And I think enemies not levelling _at all_ is an important part of it.
At the beginning, there are areas which you should avoid, because the enemies (or radiation) there will kill you in a second.
At level one, a legion soldier is a terrifying opponent. (level 8-10 or so, with much better - but still only medium level - gear)
The brilliant part of New Vegas is that these are fixed: when you are level 30, the legionary soldiers are still level 8-10, so the tables have turned, you can wipe the floor with them. With a high level melee character (and good gear), you can go toe to toe with a deathclaw, and win.
I think this
1: adds to a more believable atmosphere in general
2: adds tension to the game
3: makes it possible for crafty players to take high risks for high rewards
I actually bought Fallout 3 GotY edition after New Vegas grew on me. It was a great disappointment.
You could beat a super mutant senseless on level one, with a wrench, losing about 10-20% of your health in the process. When you encountered a super mutant warrior 20 levels later, and attacked him with a super sledgehammer, you won again, losing 10-20% of your health.
Another game ruined by this kind of training is Obsidian's rpg, Tyranny. Luckily it has the lock down skill (= you forbid the player character to use it) option, which is not perfect, but if you understand the game, it helps a bit.
Oh this **** was terrible in the singleplayer elder scrolls games after Morrowind (oblivion and skyrim) because of everything being scaled to your level so there wasn't any threats or really dangerous places that you should come later whatsoever, that's why one of the first things i always did on these games was to install a mod that removed or reworked leveled content to be more static and like you said this gives a much better sense of progression, more tension and a much more believable atmosphere.
they've been correcting the bugs for 1 year, everyone has more than enough. and I think adding emotes and hairstylists to cities is not the real community vision for what might be new real features and the much hoped-for game improvements. But I repeat myself. Only the rebellion seems to be the only feature that goes in the right direction
Oh christ if this is true we are all screwed. They chose the console crowd over us...Thats a business decision and by doing so they have spent and wasted our good faith capital. Fool us once shame on them, fool us twice shame on us. They may have made a nice profit off this title -lets see how well sequels go when they start releasing dev blogs to promote its features..
StewVader
Sergeant
I believe they said something like 'Action RPG with a sprinkling of strategy' - turns out it was an honest statement, despite all the hate I got highlighting it at the time.
ridiculous... just make a separate version for console and stop ruining the pc version.
To the people that want that, someone needs to tell them this:
Similar threads
