This game sucks

Users who are viewing this thread

Qwezz

Sergeant at Arms
I like it. Played singleplayer sandbox for the first time in a year last week and enjoyed myself untill I hit lategame and it became a slog (no diplomacy lmao). Was honestly impressed the game could run 1000 man battles even on my subpar rig(even though I play on low/medium graphics).
The only thing that's actually unacceptable about this game is multiplayer servers still crashing consistently even after full realese, but it seems the devs have given up on that front.
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
Actually, it is. Because your statement is blanketed. If selling good = good quality, then you can see the insanity of the statement by pointing to other more obvious examples as to why that cannot, reasonably, be even half way true.
My statement wasn't blanketed at all. I specified show-business, which is in the arts. Computer games also belong in the arts category. Good or bad are judged in terms of satisfaction. You brought in illegal substances, which have clearly defined detrimental effects to one's health and prosperity - and you used 'good' in a way that belonged to a completely different standard. Not one tied to consumer satisfaction, but to health and/or morality. It really isn't remotely comparable.
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
yeah - im also a musician -congas player over 30 years. And if you cant appreciate that Pop culture does not always equal quality despite its mass appeal -then I cant help you.
What sort of quality are you referring to? If it appeals to the masses, it appeals to the masses - that's proof of concept right there. The purpose of pop music is precisely to appeal to the masses. Good or bad quality in that regard refers to the ability to do just that. It's not meant to compete with other niches of music. And indeed, most high brow art doesn't appeal to the masses. People who love Britney Spears aren't likely to appreciate Schnittke, but quality is not the reason why. If it were, then you could level accusations of "bad quality" on any genre of music, or the arts besides - using standards they aren't meant to conform to.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
What sort of quality are you referring to? If it appeals to the masses, it appeals to the masses - that's proof of concept right there. The purpose of pop music is precisely to appeal to the masses. Good or bad quality in that regard refers to the ability to do just that. It's not meant to compete with other niches of music. And indeed, most high brow art doesn't appeal to the masses. People who love Britney Spears aren't likely to appreciate Schnittke, but quality is not the reason why. If it were, then you could level accusations of "bad quality" on any genre of music, or the arts besides - using standards they aren't meant to conform to.

You still fail to understand the analogy. The point being -having a high Steam score in of in itself does not equate with absolute quality without taking in all of the factors in context of the history of the Franchise. Surely you can understand this..or maybe not..
 
It's one of the biggest frustrations that a community has ever experienced. This game had a potential, but it sucks. Devs are incompetent, the job is unfinished, the boss doesn't give a damn, and seems like no one knows what to do. Here's the fundamentals of Turkish business mentality. As a Turkish man myself I shouldn't have been surprised at all.
based
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
My statement wasn't blanketed at all. I specified show-business, which is in the arts. Computer games also belong in the arts category. Good or bad are judged in terms of satisfaction. You brought in illegal substances, which have clearly defined detrimental effects to one's health and prosperity - and you used 'good' in a way that belonged to a completely different standard. Not one tied to consumer satisfaction, but to health and/or morality. It really isn't remotely comparable.

The whole "sells = good" thing is blanketed, unless you want to explain in detail how you think it makes sense it somehow only works that way when it concerns "show business"? Otherwise, how convenient.

And I'm quite sure that the consumers of meth are quite pleased/satisfied with their purchase. So, thus, sells = good, right? And I didn't use it in a health or morality sort of "good", only that the customers of meth must believe it to be good, because otherwise it would not be selling so well.

But sure thing. It makes complete sense that something selling well means the quality must be good...
 

BRAZZDA

Recruit
After all Mr. and Mrs. Yavuz are the ones who come up with this awesome idea. But I gues they just don't care about it anymore.
they haven't made anything innovative in a decade. bannerlord is the same as warband just on a newer engine.
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
The whole "sells = good" thing is blanketed, unless you want to explain in detail how you think it makes sense it somehow only works that way when it concerns "show business"? Otherwise, how convenient.

If you want to be that argumentative about it, then I suggest you amend your definition of 'good' to be comparable. In which case, yes: objectively, meth is good, as it provides just the sort of satisfaction the customer is looking for. If you insist on using a broader definition of 'good', then we must also apply that broader meaning to music, and then we're in "Rock & Roll is evil" territory.

And I'm quite sure that the consumers of meth are quite pleased/satisfied with their purchase. So, thus, sells = good, right? And I didn't use it in a health or morality sort of "good", only that the customers of meth must believe it to be good, because otherwise it would not be selling so well.

But sure thing. It makes complete sense that something selling well means the quality must be good...
You absolutely can talk about good and bad quality meth, yes. But you are using different standards as you see fit, and the only reason I can see is that you want to pick a fight.
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
If you want to be that argumentative about it, then I suggest you amend your definition of 'good' to be comparable. In which case, yes: objectively, meth is good, as it provides just the sort of satisfaction the customer is looking for. If you insist on using a broader definition of 'good', then we must also apply that broader meaning to music, and then we're in "Rock & Roll is evil" territory.


You absolutely can talk about good and bad quality meth, yes. But you are using different standards as you see fit, and the only reason I can see is that you want to pick a fight.

I want to understand why you think your argument makes any sense only for what you want it to and why you can ignore the insanity of it elsewhere, but you're unable to explain why. And now apparently I'm trying to just pick fights with you because I dared to question your argument? Okay, I don't even know what to say to this. Good luck with life with that kind of attitude, I guess? :neutral:
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
You still fail to understand the analogy. The point being -having a high Steam score in of in itself does not equate with absolute quality without taking in all of the factors in context of the history of the Franchise. Surely you can understand this..or maybe not..
That's not why the Britney Spears analogy was brought into the discussion. I agree that in the context of the franchise, Bannerlord has more potential quality than realised quality - and Warband has significantly higher realised quality. But that's a comparative assessment. Judged on its own merits, Bannerlord still has plenty of quality to appeal to players. Just because other games - even earlier games - are better, doesn't make Bannerlord bad. You had higher expectations, as did we all - especially after a decade of waiting. But the people writing rave reviews for Bannerlord are people without that baggage. They are in a better position to see the game for what it actually is, precisely because they haven't been here the whole journey. People like us, on the other hand, who have been here for a long time, are in turn better able to see the game for what it isn't. It's a different perspective, as we see how small the forward steps are - and we also see the steps backward. It is easy for us to see this as the game lacking in quality, but new players aren't going to see it that way.
 

Kissaki

Master Knight
M&BWB
I want to understand why you think your argument makes any sense only for what you want it to and why you can ignore the insanity of it elsewhere, but you're unable to explain why. And now apparently I'm trying to just pick fights with you because I dared to question your argument? Okay, I don't even know what to say to this. Good luck with life with that kind of attitude, I guess? :neutral:
I did explain why. On the one hand you have the arts, where "good" and "bad" are entirely in the eyes of the beholder and refer exclusively to how well they stimulate the audience... on the other you have an illegal substance, a chemical compound, for which you clearly include health hazards as part of the package of "good" and "bad". There is no rationale to compare the two fields at all, whatsoever.
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I did explain why. On the one hand you have the arts, where "good" and "bad" are entirely in the eyes of the beholder and refer exclusively to how well they stimulate the audience... on the other you have an illegal substance, a chemical compound, for which you clearly include health hazards as part of the package of "good" and "bad". There is no rationale to compare the two fields at all, whatsoever.

The entire point was that people who buy meth believe it to be good, whether or not it is actually harmful wasn't important, so it continues to sell. It was what they believed that drove them. You hyperfixated on the product in the comparison and ignored the point. People can believe anything they want, case in point someone buying meth because they think it's good (good however they might see it) or people buying Bannerlord because they believe it is good, but that doesn't make it true. Because it is never a direct and unbreakable point of evidence that proves that it is good.

You guys get so lost in every analogy anyone throws out. It's fun reading.

Why in the world did I immediately think of Matilda here?
 
The whole "sells = good" thing is blanketed, unless you want to explain in detail how you think it makes sense it somehow only works that way when it concerns "show business"? Otherwise, how convenient.

I have a question about this analogy. Has this game sold well? Well enough to be compared to any sort of mass appeal success? It sold ok, but it isn't on any charts anymore, is it?

It's a niche game that has only had any degree of success because there isn't any real competition for it. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it's hardly done anything to be compared to Brittany Spears or Taylor Swift at all. It's more like a local band that almost made it big and is still fun to go see live.

There may be a few console sales but I doubt there will be any huge movement on the PC sales charts.

It's got a ton of potential and is fun enough at realse, but it will rely purely on the mod scene to stay alive. This is no mass appeal thing, it's just filling a unique spot and that's all that's keeping it alive.
 

Ser Jon

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I have a question about this analogy. Has this game sold well? Well enough to be compared to any sort of mass appeal success? It sold ok, but it isn't on any charts anymore, is it?

It's a niche game that has only had any degree of success because there isn't any real competition for it. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but it's hardly done anything to be compared to Brittany Spears or Taylor Swift at all. It's more like a local band that almost made it big and is still fun to go see live.

There may be a few console sales but I doubt there will be any huge movement on the PC sales charts.

It's got a ton of potential and is fun enough at realse, but it will rely purely on the mod scene to stay alive. This is no mass appeal thing, it's just filling a unique spot and that's all that's keeping it alive.

Apparently, it has sold well? I guess it defines what you consider "well". In this case, I suspect that for Taleworlds, selling "well" is making a profit.

And I agree. It's filling a unique spot in an environment that lacks competition. That's what is allowing it to "thrive" so to say, and also giving TW less incentive to push themselves and the game to do better.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Whilst I agree with what you're saying because I've seen it elsewhere (such as Pokemon clones like TemTem), I had no idea those other games even existed. 😅 I think that goes to show just how total TW's control is over the genre. I don't necessarily think they need the competition to do better, but it sure would help if they were being pressed.
Gaming is a hype-based industry.
🤷‍♂️
 
TW leads the genre, but it doesn't control it by any means. There are plenty of products out there that take the tactical battles + open world formula of M&B and put their own spin on it. The problem is that their own spin tends to be doubling down on spectacle (Free Company VR, Tales of Glory, Armed and Armoured), focusing on MP (Falconer's Gate) or just being overly ambitious then getting stuck in development hell (Kingdoms, Legendary Sword, The Viking Way).
I got excited at first but these look bad. The first several on your list require VR headsets (no for me, at least currently) and the only one that looks halfway decent is The Viking Way and the reviews were worse than the forums here. It was called a Walmart Mount and Blade in one review, lol.


The only thing I've seen that may be good is Manor Lord but it isn't Mount and Blade game play.



 
Top Bottom