The lore of this game is just useless flavor text unless you do something about it.

Users who are viewing this thread

Grank

Master Knight
WBNWVC
Then they don't compete with each other, and them competing with each other only favours the player on getting better troops and nothing else. It's an a okey system, but again, this is an anti-lore feature. Recruiting in Bannerlord is closer to buyer slaves than raising armies, and recruiting it's the same in all factions, so again, that "notables variety" truly means nothing to me, it's a very shallow feature.
It's shallow as with many things in Bannerlord, yes, but it allows role play, which is my point. These notables enable you to imagine a world where there are several influential individuals in each fief, which reflects real life. The give quests that often have to do with other notables. That's role play potential.

I don't understand your point about buying slaves. I assume you think so because the simplified UI makes it look like we're merely buying them. I've always thought of it as the same in Warband. In Warband we asked the village elder if there's any people we can recruit. Now I just assume we're doing the same, but to notables instead.

This was invented by the Viking Conquest DLC, so technically we did have it in Warband. And here is worse, because is limited to what the game wants you to wear instead of just letting you wear what you want lol.
This limitation is exactly what I refer to as role play potential. In history, many settlements had laws that limit what civilians can wear in town, and this limitation reflects that, thus deepening role play. It allows Taleworlds and modders to design encounters with limited gears for increased difficulty, and thus more challenging and fun.

Back alley fights are a joke that serve no purpose, and they only exist because they featured it in a promo video. They were supposed to make you a gangster of some sort but the feature was either cut or "still working on it"
They're like a quest that increase/decrease relations with certain notables, and gives you rewards. While shallow, they allow for so much potential. The Fourberie mod already makes use of this feature for more role play.

These are fine. Clan in general it's an alright addition, but it's too bad you can't start as a nobody without a clan like in Warband.
Yeah it's a shame about that part. I've always wanted a feature where we can join another clan instead, and climb our "rank" within that clan to become the clan's leader or something. Still, the groundwork Taleworlds did is still to be appreciated, is my point.

Smithing is alright, but it's too bad you can't order something being made for you if you have the money to do so. What actual noble lords/kings were smiths and made their own swords??? History buffs refrain, if it happened twice of thrice i don't care.
You can kinda do that by having a companion smith a weapon for you, but I understand what you mean. The pricing is also a bit bonkers. Just like many things with Bannerlord, it lacks depth and fine-tuning, but I'd repeat myself by saying that this groundwork is worth appreciating.

You mean playing those awful minigames??? I don't know who actually takes the time to learn and play them, but I wouldn't spend a second in a system that doesn't take me anywhere than to get a small amount of denars in my pocket. Playing with lords is completely useless too.
I agree. It was only interesting for the first few tries. Then again, this allows for more funzies through modding. Something I appreciate.

As doable you mean, going as an archer and hitting a headshot on a sitting target, until you fight a big guy. Hideouts and bandits in general could have been great, instead hideouts are just very, very easy tasks, and repetitive too. To the point they're even boring to do.
Kinda. It's easier, and that allows you to roleplay as an errant knight soloing hideouts, which is a role play I often do. You couldn't really do so in Warband because the simpler AI and layout made it easier for the enemies to mob you. The duel is also a nice role play touch.

Hmm, Warband had this. I would even say that in Warband you didn't have the "ability" you had to earn it in your faction, be good enough and become the marshall. Here, it's affected not by how well you perform in battle in general but by:
I was referring to how parties can actually unite into a single big party called an army. Warband was plagued with army members running away because a single enemy party larger than them was approaching. They didn't take into account the total number of allies around them.

The influence system is the worst thing to ever happen to Bannerlord. The influence system is a complete piece of garbage, and I'm being nice here, and calm too. But the influence system is the worst piece of trash design to ever be thought for an RPG. Influence in no way, no place can be a currency. It's a dumb idea, and it shouldn't have had replaced reputation and right to rule. It's the example of the whole Bannelord issue: you have an okay feature that could have been expanded into, that could have been worked on and made better, and instead was replaced by a totally disruptive one in favour of being "simple" and "easy". I hope a mod destroys influence and we can play an actual game for once.
While it's true that the influence system is very basic and gamey, think about its other features. It allows you to propose kingdom policies and war. You can vote for change in fief ownership, etc. Again, these are currently too limited in-game. Voting is mostly strong-armed by the AI, but as with many things, it can be fine-tuned to unimaginable height by modding. I can appreciate Taleworlds for providing this groundwork.

in Warband they had complains, they didn't get along with other companions, they had something to say if you didn't act according to their ideology, and if the morale was low some would be eager to leave.
I admit I forgot about this when writing that. For one, I agree that it's barebone, just like with many things in Bannerlord. However, I can also understand why they need to make companions dynamic because of the death system. Besides, having not-so-noteworthy but competent retainers is pretty realistic in a way.

Remember the flavor text post I've made, talking about how backstories and text is just flavor, unless they affect the gameplay? Yeah, that is what the post is about. Consider reading it's points.
Don't worry I did read it. I also agree with you to a degree. I was referring to the idea that "Bannerlord has less lore" because I remember that it has more. Right now that lore only extends to the campaign mod's main quest.

Idk what your whole post was about, but it was fun responding to. Because truly, every addition in Bannerlord is either a complete ruin like influence, or it's "okay" to the point of elevating the game to Average. It's an average game, yes.
Then I'm glad it has achieved its purpose. I post here for fun. That whole post was just me reminding people that Bannerlord does have more features that allow role play. Those features are shallow, sure, but they're there. Because the groundwork exists, it allows for great potential through modding. I believe that's something to be appreciated. On the other hand, I understand that this shallowness is exactly why people are angry. Bannerlord shows us so much potential, but it's not explored yet. But come on. If Bannerlord didn't have these shallow features, there'd be fewer things to mod. A simple proof of this, is how there are already mods like Fourberie and those other countless tweak mods. People saw the potential and immediately modded them in. Bannerlord allowing us to mix-and-match mods is extremely useful for this. Merging mods in Warband was impossible for the common users.
 

Grank

Master Knight
WBNWVC
I've never seen anyone ignore positives outside of absolutely obvious trolls
I'm not sure about that. I wouldn't dismiss those people as obvious trolls. Many of them show earnest care and bring forth sound points, yet they can be biased too, as is common for humans. For example, when I list the good features that Bannerlord does have, most of the time people ignore the good things and just crap on a few ones like the influence system. Sure, we all know that Bannerlord has many shallow features, but they're still an improvement to Warband. There's something to be appreciated about all the groundwork that Bannerlord did, but you almost never see people mention this. It's mostly negativity, like claiming that the whole game is inferior to Warband, which I strongly disagree with.

This sort of thing is nothing more than the attempt at dismissing of an overwhelming outrage over the game by deflecting their complaints as nothing more than bias or "irrational"
Is it? You said we have no idea about how other people feel, but you assumed my intention was to merely dismiss outrage? You assumed others as being obvious trolls too. You see, it's common for humans to make mistakes. That doesn't mean their entire argument is pointless. You can bring something to the table despite being biased, irrational or hypocritical. All it does is lower your credibility, not erase it completely.

What I've been doing is trying to point these out. I don't mean to dismiss the outrage. Hell. I agree that Bannerlord is shallow and flaccid. The only difference is that I can still enjoy and appreciate it. Why am I trying to point out bias and hypocrisy? Because people seem to act like they're the only correct ones. There's a trend where if some newbie say they like Bannerlord and its features, they will be made fun of. They will point out these noobs haven't played the game enough, but if you call them out on their 3k hours clocked in, they get upset because time is not a measure of enjoyment... yet they insult the "noobs" for enjoying a game with only 10 hours of play time. Isn't that funny?

The rest of your points are valid and I agree with them. People prioritize different things, and that's fine. It'd be nice if Bannerlord was perfect at everything from the get-go and we don't need mods to have a great time, but the reality is not so. It's flawed and we discuss those flaws endlessly. I just wish people would do so in a civilized manner. Who am I to preach that we should be civil in discussion? Nobody. I'm just doing this for fun and debate training.

While I am waiting for modders to crack and destroy that "groundwork" and completely replace it with something that actually make sense.
They're making Bannerlord mods that can run without the game Bannerlord? Wow. That's impressive.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
There you go. You assume.

God forbid people criticize a feature, even one they asked for, must mean everything they say can't be trusted. It doesn't matter what state we got said content in, so long as they shoved it in our faces, right? They got their feature, now they should shut up about it or otherwise, they're just being biased and just plain mean.
I didn't say nothing they say can be trusted or they are biased. I said they would certainly get tired of a few lines of lore (or any other insignificant pure immersion feature) because the game -- the thing they obstinately booted up to play -- is otherwise the exact same, regardless of what they might claim otherwise.
People only remember characters like Jeremus and Harlaus because of memes. Players created the "lore"; it was essentially like a narrative community mod fuelled by love of the game. The writing in Warband was really barebones, it's just boilerplate for the gameplay, which is fine. Nothing is worse than static writing in a dynamic game, especially when it's not very good.

Some games with no writing at all have a lot of "spice" to them. You can tell a story with nothing but aesthetics and game mechanics. Super Mario has about 3 lines of dialogue but a grillion times more character and memorability than MnB. Obviously these are fundamentally different games, but my point is that more dialogue isn't going to make Bannerlord feel less sterile.
Yeah, anyone talking about quality being the reason to remember Warband's companions has to explain why Viking Conquest could put so much more effort and attention on their companions only to have almost everyone promptly forget every single one of them.
People asked for real reasons to enter cities -that is obviously implied that they be a worthwhile game mechanic not a trivial piece of fluff. It is a false example to say people asked for ANYTHING -no, if you insist on speaking in general terms then at least be honest with these implications.
People literally asked for this.
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
It's still fairly bare-bones. The original M&B only had Swadians and Vaegirs at first, the rest being added post .808 (Sarranids being the one extra addition in Warband). I guess the reason Bannerlord starts with a clean slate is because they didn't want people complaining that it's just a slightly touched up version of Warband (which, at present, is precisely what it is). But I am hopeful that this game gets fleshed out, too. Although in the end, I guess I'll be playing it mainly for the mods - same as M&B and M&B Warband. And there's nothing wrong with that.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
People literally asked for this.

Yeah? Well then I guess its you having a difficult time discerning what are quality type well thought out requests and what is fluff. I mean on a forum of this size - people have and will ask for everything and anything -hell theres a guy with a 34 page thread on Bald guys for the game. Would I consider that as my premium example of a strong and well thought out community request to thereby discern the trustworthiness of the community's requests vs game deliverance...? Think about it. Im pretty sure you realize this but have a knee jerk reaction to grind your argument into a little knub
 
People literally asked for this.
So what? Why should I care about these people you are talking about? What you are doing is taking a bunch of people opinions and reflecting that opinion on to someone else's. Who are these "same people"?
pure immersion features do get added
"Pure" immersion features? So I am playing a game where I fight, pillage, doing conquest and becoming king of Calradia, the barber feature becomes "pure" immersion feature? I would not consider it is a pure immersion, I would consider that a dev throwing its bull**** idea to a wall to see if it sticks while all of the other parts of game, especially diplomacy, are barebone features and guess what it did not stick. Immersion is a subjective term, anyway.
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I didn't say nothing they say can be trusted or they are biased. I said they would certainly get tired of a few lines of lore (or any other insignificant pure immersion feature) because the game -- the thing they obstinately booted up to play -- is otherwise the exact same, regardless of what they might claim otherwise.

I was making a point as to why your argument is flawed, by pointing out the absurdity of it all. Asking for something without immediately specificizing the quality and later being upset over the implementation of said feature because it was done lazily/poorly, is not indicative of "being clueless". Anyone with standards would be upset over a feature they requested coming out in the most barebones, lazy fashion possible.

I'm not sure about that. I wouldn't dismiss those people as obvious trolls. Many of them show earnest care and bring forth sound points, yet they can be biased too, as is common for humans. For example, when I list the good features that Bannerlord does have, most of the time people ignore the good things and just crap on a few ones like the influence system. Sure, we all know that Bannerlord has many shallow features, but they're still an improvement to Warband. There's something to be appreciated about all the groundwork that Bannerlord did, but you almost never see people mention this. It's mostly negativity, like claiming that the whole game is inferior to Warband, which I strongly disagree with.

Is it? You said we have no idea about how other people feel, but you assumed my intention was to merely dismiss outrage? You assumed others as being obvious trolls too. You see, it's common for humans to make mistakes. That doesn't mean their entire argument is pointless. You can bring something to the table despite being biased, irrational or hypocritical. All it does is lower your credibility, not erase it completely.

What I've been doing is trying to point these out. I don't mean to dismiss the outrage. Hell. I agree that Bannerlord is shallow and flaccid. The only difference is that I can still enjoy and appreciate it. Why am I trying to point out bias and hypocrisy? Because people seem to act like they're the only correct ones. There's a trend where if some newbie say they like Bannerlord and its features, they will be made fun of. They will point out these noobs haven't played the game enough, but if you call them out on their 3k hours clocked in, they get upset because time is not a measure of enjoyment... yet they insult the "noobs" for enjoying a game with only 10 hours of play time. Isn't that funny?

The rest of your points are valid and I agree with them. People prioritize different things, and that's fine. It'd be nice if Bannerlord was perfect at everything from the get-go and we don't need mods to have a great time, but the reality is not so. It's flawed and we discuss those flaws endlessly. I just wish people would do so in a civilized manner. Who am I to preach that we should be civil in discussion? Nobody. I'm just doing this for fun and debate training.

That's sort of my point though. People are dismissing them because how they feel about what they are saying. They said "so and so and in such a manner, so thus they cannot be genuine". They only approve of messages that speak it in their acceptable language, but that doesn't mean those people are trolls. It just means you (plural) don't like what they are saying and how they are saying it, that's all. And they shouldn't have to discuss the good to discuss all the bad. That was another one of my points, the "baby people/game" thing. And yes, if I see people like MostBlunted, I am going to assume they are a troll. I don't go around assuming everyone's a troll because I don't like what they are saying, but somehow, that is what people are doing to those who heavily critic Bannerlord...all because said people don't like what is being said and how it is being said.

And no Grank, I don't think that was your intention. I went to great strides to ensure that I did not use isolating language against you or used plurals when I could (we etc etc), because I was only directing your points and the people you are talking about etc. I can discern when a person is bringing up a topic/issue vs them supporting said thing. Regardless, again, there's no way you can prove any of that. You can call it bias, irrational or hypocritical, but it all boils down to just not liking what is being said and how it is being said.

So, if someone cannot enjoy Bannerlord and speaks on those issues regardless of not enjoying the game, what are they? Automatically biased? Hypocritical? Irrational? Or would it be them saying bad things about Bannerlord in a specific way that would induce those assumptions?

I think people need to stop conflating rigid honesty with not being civilized, at least in a debate/discussion setting. If someone is being respectful to the other person, that's more than enough. That's my opinion, at least. 🤷‍♂️

EDIT

Also, Grank, unrelated but... where is your avatar from? The art is super cute. lol
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Yeah? Well then I guess its you having a difficult time discerning what are quality type well thought out requests and what is fluff. I mean on a forum of this size - people have and will ask for everything and anything -hell theres a guy with a 34 page thread on Bald guys for the game. Would I consider that as my premium example of a strong and well thought out community request to thereby discern the trustworthiness of the community's requests vs game deliverance...? Think about it. Im pretty sure you realize this but have a knee jerk reaction to grind your argument into a little knub
When I say, "people asked for this," that in no way is an endorsement for those ideas. Gnu's thread aside: those haircuts definitely need to be in game, GOTY contender type content for BL.

To be clear, they are bad, they were bad when they were made, they will remain bad ideas. But it probably wasn't TW's original idea (for example) to add a barber in the game in the name of immersion. Or waste time on adding cheering that people did maybe four or five times before they stopped caring. Or the person talking about how getting little lore snippets, as if the lack of them is what makes the late game so boring.
So what? Why should I care about these people you are talking about? What you are doing is taking a bunch of people opinions and reflecting that opinion on to someone else's. Who are these "same people"?

"Pure" immersion features? So I am playing a game where I fight, pillage, doing conquest and becoming king of Calradia, the barber feature becomes "pure" immersion feature?
What other objective do you think they had in making a player walk into town and track down an NPC to change their appearance? It certainly wasn't gameplay.
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
So what? Why should I care about these people you are talking about?
What an odd question - no one is asking you to care. But the developer cares what the players want. Now why should he care more about what Bjorn The Upset wants, than what other players want? Because you're asking so nicely?
 
What other objective do you think they had in making a player walk into town and track down an NPC to change their appearance? It certainly wasn't gameplay.
Well, this is a language barrier or my understanding of immersion is wrong. Gameplay and immersion are intertwined for me.

"People wanted reasons to visit the cities, Tw implemented barbers into the game, people still complaining so people are confused or not credible". What can I say? This way of thinking sucks, man.

What an odd question - no one is asking you to care.
Very true. However, most times, Apocal comes here and writes "people wanted this", "people did not understand this", "people are not credible" etc. one liners. Its source of thread for this particular "barber" example turns out to be one page long so I am asking who are these people he is talking about. He often generalize what the community thinks and does so that is why my post is like that.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Yeah theres a strong case for Oppositional Defiance Syndrome on these boards. Like angry cats needing to constantly scratch against something...ANYTHING

 

Grank

Master Knight
WBNWVC
Ah okay. Looks like I misunderstood you a little there. But allow me:

all because said people don't like what is being said and how it is being said.
How things are said is important. That's where respect lies, doesn't it? The same point can be delivered in different ways, getting different results. It's fine if people want to criticize the game. I just wish there weren't so much hatred. Such emotions often distract real discussion and lead people into making ridiculous claims.

Regardless, again, there's no way you can prove any of that. You can call it bias, irrational or hypocritical, but it all boils down to just not liking what is being said and how it is being said.
I argue that you can. Logical mistakes can be observed, and communication is more important than you might think. The field of research puts great emphasis on it. Your ideas might be correct and useful, but if you communicate it poorly, it won't pass. On the other hand, when someone can't communicate an idea properly, it's common that the reason behind that is that the idea is lacking in something. Therefore much study is done to improve on these.

One of the obvious differences is that if someone is being polite and respectful when saying something, someone who disagree with it will response is a dignified manner, advancing the discussion productively. If the point is said poorly, it will turn into poo slinging. The fault in such scenario is not entirely on the responder. It's on both.
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Ah okay. Looks like I misunderstood you a little there. But allow me:

That's fine, don't worry about it. I do have a bit of difficulty getting my thoughts down, so I'm sure it didn't help at all.

How things are said is important. That's where respect lies, doesn't it? The same point can be delivered in different ways, getting different results. It's fine if people want to criticize the game. I just wish there weren't so much hatred. Such emotions often distract real discussion and lead people into making ridiculous claims.


I argue that you can. Logical mistakes can be observed, and communication is more important than you might think. The field of research puts great emphasis on it. Your ideas might be correct and useful, but if you communicate it poorly, it won't pass. On the other hand, when someone can't communicate an idea properly, it's common that the reason behind that is that the idea is lacking in something. Therefore much study is done to improve on these.

One of the obvious differences is that if someone is being polite and respectful when saying something, someone who disagree with it will response is a dignified manner, advancing the discussion productively. If the point is said poorly, it will turn into poo slinging. The fault in such scenario is not entirely on the responder. It's on both.

But my question is, why does respect need to be applied to make something right? If someone is very rudely screaming at someone about the planet not being flat, they are still right even if they are being incredibly rude. Don't get me wrong, I understand your point that polite debate gets issues discussed better and I agree about that entirely, but I do not agree the lack of politeness should equate to trolling etc etc (again, unless it's like MostBlunted). And I agree on that too. Emotions always distracts from the real discussion.

Well, that just sounds like a different thing altogether though? Advancing the discussion wasn't what I was focusing on, but rather why people perceive another as troll/etc simply because they do not coddle the game or use extremely pleasant language about the product in question all of the time. The message is still accurate despite the behavior.

All in all, I think the "troll" thing is way over used these days. It's thrown out at anyone who even remotely attempts discourse on issues or in any subject, rather. And it's often obviously used to disregard something one doesn't agree with, rather than because that person is legitimately a troll.
 

Grank

Master Knight
WBNWVC
But my question is, why does respect need to be applied to make something right?
It doesn't. I wasn't saying that it does. I was saying that lack of respect results in poo slinging and leads people into making wrong claims to emphasize their argument.

Advancing the discussion wasn't what I was focusing on, but rather why people perceive another as troll
I understand. I brought that up because such dismissal results in discussion not advancing. That's exactly why I think being civil is important. If the community in general was less toxic, people wouldn't perceive it as a bunch of toxic trolls who only insult the game unfairly. In turn you will get fewer "TW simps" that piss off the community. As I've said, fault in communication is on both sides. Therefore it's best for everyone to be civilized whenever possible, to avoid nonsense.
 
Top Bottom