Was it a good idea?
- Thread starter Walloyd
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Yes and no.
Yes, because it gives a chance to learn something instead of just smashing buttons like a zombie. The history of eastern Europe in 1650-s is not discussed a whole lot these days. There is currently a big debate over how the Polish Republic (according to the game) was actually called. Also, based on history, means that there are a lot of familiar places. I live in Dorpat, by the way, today by the name of Tartu. The main reason I joined the Swedes, actually.
No, because it does limit the gaming possibilities quite a bit. You cannot create your own kingdom, because there were exactly these kingdoms at that time. Also, since there weren't any influential women at that time, your char can only be male. This has also raised a debate over the importance of female chars in gaming.
Yes, because it gives a chance to learn something instead of just smashing buttons like a zombie. The history of eastern Europe in 1650-s is not discussed a whole lot these days. There is currently a big debate over how the Polish Republic (according to the game) was actually called. Also, based on history, means that there are a lot of familiar places. I live in Dorpat, by the way, today by the name of Tartu. The main reason I joined the Swedes, actually.
No, because it does limit the gaming possibilities quite a bit. You cannot create your own kingdom, because there were exactly these kingdoms at that time. Also, since there weren't any influential women at that time, your char can only be male. This has also raised a debate over the importance of female chars in gaming.
Klaas said:
not Like a zombie. I am a zombie.
brb, arm fell off.
In all seriousness, Warband didn't offer much for education, you'll have to agree. The gameplay also wasn't much of a challenge - round up a bunch of swadian knights, order to attack, wait for battle to end, rinse and repeat until world conquered.
By playing WFaS people will know where were Reval and Dorpat (nowadays known as Tallinn and Tartu). The very distinctive shape of the north-western part of the map will make people recognize this place. As this is a tiny country in eastern Europe that nobody wants to hear about, every bit of attention counts.
This is true, you do learn a little...but, when you come home from school, do you really start a game to learn something or to become a zombie and have fun 
, not saying you don't have fun in wfas
[/quote]
Aah, but this is where the genius comes in. You're learning and you don't even know you are.
An example: Thanks to games like GTA4, Driver: Parallel Lines and Prototype I can safely say I know my way around the center of New York although I've never ever been there.
Little things like that. You learn from games, you want it or not. If what you learn is actually true is a different matter altogether.
, not saying you don't have fun in wfas [/quote]
Aah, but this is where the genius comes in. You're learning and you don't even know you are.
An example: Thanks to games like GTA4, Driver: Parallel Lines and Prototype I can safely say I know my way around the center of New York although I've never ever been there.
Little things like that. You learn from games, you want it or not. If what you learn is actually true is a different matter altogether.
Timst
Recruit
tarakan said:
See, there is a problem here. Even as a french guy which try to maintain a bit of international awareness, the only Estonian city I know (and by "know" I mean "have heard of like, three times, top") is Tallinn, so if it's concealed behind its original XVIIth century name, there's few chance I will remember it. I already only recently realized that the game's Riga is probably also the real world's Riga, and the name didn't even change...
And as you said, the north coast is kind of a unique place, with a distinct coastline and all that. But the rest of the continent is just a mesh of plains, rivers and forests, with nothing special about it, so how am I supposed to guess which modern city is represented by "T'hrer", or which Babice are we talking about ? I appreciate the historical settings, but it's a bit far from home (both geographically and temporally), and I guess it must be even worse for an American or Indian player.
It was a good idea to try it.
Players have been modding historical settings the whole time, it was natural for Taleworlds to wonder what would happen if the main game followed that path. But the discussions about that were always theoretical. Now they have good feedback, and can make a more informed decision on where to take their games.
But if you say 'Is it a good idea to make future Mount and Blades historically accurate', I say no. Part of the freedom of Calradia is freedom from historical expectations and limitations. Like an Elder Scroll. There are all too few games of this type, and it doesn't seem necessary to change to make money. As long as modding is supported, Mount and Blade will effectively have both worlds anyway. As many worlds as modders care to create, in fact.
- Teggs
Players have been modding historical settings the whole time, it was natural for Taleworlds to wonder what would happen if the main game followed that path. But the discussions about that were always theoretical. Now they have good feedback, and can make a more informed decision on where to take their games.
But if you say 'Is it a good idea to make future Mount and Blades historically accurate', I say no. Part of the freedom of Calradia is freedom from historical expectations and limitations. Like an Elder Scroll. There are all too few games of this type, and it doesn't seem necessary to change to make money. As long as modding is supported, Mount and Blade will effectively have both worlds anyway. As many worlds as modders care to create, in fact.
- Teggs
Mavkiel
Regular
Timst said:
As an American player I can agree with that. Heck, I cant even recognize where the heck a couple of the factions came from. Cossack Hetmanate and Crimean Khanate, if you told me those were made up factions, I'd not have blinked. Which is somewhat embarrassing to admit.
This is further compounded when they start using names for faction specific units. For example, what the heck is a Kapikulu? Or why is the Swedish musket user called a lifeguard? In the states that's described as : an expert swimmer employed, as at a beach or pool, to protect bathers from drowning or other accidents and dangers. That complaint could have been addressed with some sort of simple description though, which would have been neat.
So in the end, I'd say no. Basing this game on a book was limiting. I'd rather to have had this game set in a fictional land (Caldera with guns?). It'd allow more freedom to come up with an interesting plot.
RavenHawk88
Regular
tarakan said:
If it's geography you want to learn, play some of the Total War games. Because it's on a grander scale, you can see where places are in relation to others and are thus easier to find them on a real map. All of this with historical background worked in.
Tbh, I think it was a bad idea. M&B games are considered to be a sandbox style of game. WFAS introduced restrictions. Nothing more.
original
Knight
It is a good idea to make an RPG game based on a book, because authors have great imagination and story, and a game can expand on them.
Fire & Sword being based on a book has potential, but it did not expand on the story like NPC backgrounds. Surely they could do more with npcs like Sarabun? Personal quests? Fleshing out his story?
I think the storyline quests are where the money's at, but I haven't tried them so I have no comment on them. They should have made more simple quests based on the book. This is a huge opportunity to create lore and story to flesh out this sandbox more, but unfortunately they didn't and the huge RPG potential is lost. Like previous M&B games, the full potential is never attained.
Making M&B based on a book is a good idea for a side-project or a mod expansion. It is however a bad idea for a full game. That is because the developers have a weakness, and that is following realism almost down to every detail, at the expense of practical and fun stuff. Back in Warband, it would be very easy to just create a tax rate to solve the income problems. But nijis created enterprises instead. Following a book will restrict the devs.
Fire & Sword being based on a book has potential, but it did not expand on the story like NPC backgrounds. Surely they could do more with npcs like Sarabun? Personal quests? Fleshing out his story?
I think the storyline quests are where the money's at, but I haven't tried them so I have no comment on them. They should have made more simple quests based on the book. This is a huge opportunity to create lore and story to flesh out this sandbox more, but unfortunately they didn't and the huge RPG potential is lost. Like previous M&B games, the full potential is never attained.
Making M&B based on a book is a good idea for a side-project or a mod expansion. It is however a bad idea for a full game. That is because the developers have a weakness, and that is following realism almost down to every detail, at the expense of practical and fun stuff. Back in Warband, it would be very easy to just create a tax rate to solve the income problems. But nijis created enterprises instead. Following a book will restrict the devs.
In theory yes. I am about 600 pages into the novel and I can see why someone would think it a good idea to adapt to Mount and Blade. It's got everything in it that would appeal to a player in the action, bandits, quests etc. Honestly if you read the book you can see why someone thought it a good idea. I think some of the buggyness of the game puts people of though and those feelings are valid. I think they should base the next release in Calradia and leave the historical offshoots to the modders.
Cerlin
Regular
Personally, I love historical settings in games because it makes it have more connection to history, and that was the reason I started gaming back in the day (I am a historian and currently getting a post-graduate degree, so that is probably a reason too.)
I also love the time period because it was the 100 years were pikes/bows/muskets/heavy cavalry all were competing for parts of the battlefield and the dynamic is really interesting.
When it comes to the book this game was based on, I have ordered it and will have it next week. It is my first summer reading book and I am sure reading it will give me a better perspective on this game.
I also love the time period because it was the 100 years were pikes/bows/muskets/heavy cavalry all were competing for parts of the battlefield and the dynamic is really interesting.
When it comes to the book this game was based on, I have ordered it and will have it next week. It is my first summer reading book and I am sure reading it will give me a better perspective on this game.
Walloyd said:
Bit of a silly question really. A better one would be why you shouldn't.
Also the book isn't historically accurate, so it'd be a push to say the game was
