Why do you all hate this game?

Users who are viewing this thread

lukethisup

Regular
The game is named "Bannerlord", yet you cannot be a lord carrying a banner?

There is no other reason for people to be livid after already waiting 11 years to carry their banner.

Banners or death '22
 
I am quite baffled by the number of threads here..

I'm not against some constructive criticism. But I feel like if I have to make a post to ask why so many people here and elsewhere seem to hate the game so much, I think that criticism probably hasn't been very constructive.

There's been A LOT of constructive criticism. Either you're blind or you're a troll.


just gonna copy/paste my steam review
6/10
i just downgrade from 10 based on major flaws

1. unit balance is non-existent:

armour's basically 2-3 hit ko, no armour's 1-2 hit ko
arrows ignore armour, from the weakest 0-skill unit to khans guard and fian (last 2 1-shot everyone)

skill progression is... there is none, just perk unlocks. the difference between 50 and 250 is 10%
some skills are ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ insane to level. medicine for example needs 30,000+ casualties for 200, then another 20,000 for 250. i'm not exaggerating... 50,000
to sum up: everyone is looter.


2. economy is either simple or neurotic meta. there's no in-between
the AI is not neurotic meta. they're all bankrupt
(still basically looters) [this is fixed in 1.72]

3. faction interaction with other factions and the clans is non-existent
they're just bandits or not
they want 10k/day for truce after i kill em 3:1 and have all the lords prisoner
break truces in a week
never-ending merc village raids
mesui was passed over for 20 fiefs by mochung, is broke, under 100 troops, and has 100 relation with me. refuse to join me
akit has 3, lots of troops and money, i executed one of their members. joins easy
(still, basically looters...)

4. there's no growth/progress/soul whatever you want to call it, everything you do is meaningless

take care of a village till it has 100 milita and 800 hearths? merc bro w/ 30 peasants demolish it
or they'll need 30 horses and want some bandits killed, demolishing themselves
defeat 5 1000 armies? get ready to do it again just as frequently.
make best friends with everyone, its a influence discount
imprison 1/2 a nation? they all escape in a week

Jesus, i can fill a steam forum page with #4...
the game in its entirety can be summed up in a looter encounter repeated endlessly, the player is also a looter.

it's disappointing. i aint angry or sad about it, just bored



#4 is my biggest gripe, there's no point in doing anything, and no impact to actions. everything gets back to equilibrium almost instantly

This comment here sums it up quite nicely. #4 is also my biggest gripe.
 

Fellington

Recruit
This forum has been whining since launch. It's nothing new. Lots of the veterans, including myself wanted this game to be paradox level of depth with deep medieval rpg mechanics and battles. Annoyed with the missing features from the devblogs. Overhyped. And this is the result.

But it's still a good game compared to the rest of the trash out there. I will play both Bannerlord and Warband to the end of time until a worthy contender comes fourth. Only Starsector and Kenshi come to mind but they have little to no faction building. Point me to a game that offers similar gameplay to Bannerlord or Warband. Maybe Nobunga's Ambition? The battles there are abit simplistic doe. There is practically none.

Taleworlds has done a good job. The hype was bound to attract a lot negative attention. Did I want more in-depth diplomacy? Yes. Did I want more mechanics from paradox games? Sure do. But I won't let those elements sour my enjoyment of the game, especially when mods can add those things.
 

Maximum997

Squire
This forum has been whining since launch. It's nothing new. Lots of the veterans, including myself wanted this game to be paradox level of depth with deep medieval rpg mechanics and battles.
No, i dont. I just want this game to be better then warband in basic things. Moders will do the rest. And now It only looks better.
I see the same issues that forced me to quit one year ago. They wasnt fixed in a year. Only at 1.8 i see some steps.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
This forum has been whining since launch. It's nothing new. Lots of the veterans, including myself wanted this game to be paradox level of depth with deep medieval rpg mechanics and battles. Annoyed with the missing features from the devblogs. Overhyped. And this is the result.
I don't care about paradox levels of mechanics. If Taleworlds would've just revamped Warband with better graphics, UI and added QoL improvements and a better level of diplomacy I would've been perfectly fine with it, in fact I would've loved it. I suspect plenty of Warband vets would've been ok with it too. Don't get me wrong I'd also love having more in depth mechanics but that's apparently not Taleworlds "vision" so whatever. But claiming that people who have complaints are just whining is way too dismissive. There are issues with the game and if no one complains nothing will ever get fixed.
But it's still a good game compared to the rest of the trash out there. I will play both Bannerlord and Warband to the end of time until a worthy contender comes fourth. Only Starsector and Kenshi come to mind but they have little to no faction building. Point me to a game that offers similar gameplay to Bannerlord or Warband. Maybe Nobunga's Ambition? The battles there are abit simplistic doe. There is practically none.
Compared to what trash? There have been some very good open world games released in the last year. But while there are good parts to Bannerlord there's also plenty of things about the game that need addressing.
Taleworlds has done a good job. The hype was bound to attract a lot negative attention. Did I want more in-depth diplomacy? Yes. Did I want more mechanics from paradox games? Sure do. But I won't let those elements sour my enjoyment of the game, especially when mods can add those things.
What have they done a good job at? Communication? Staying on schedule? Frequent updates? The game isn't horrible but there are plenty of things to complain about and the fact that the game has taken 10+ years development and 2+ years of ea (and counting) is beyond ridiculous.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
This forum has been whining since launch. It's nothing new. Lots of the veterans, including myself wanted this game to be paradox level of depth with deep medieval rpg mechanics and battles. Annoyed with the missing features from the devblogs. Overhyped. And this is the result.

But it's still a good game compared to the rest of the trash out there. I will play both Bannerlord and Warband to the end of time until a worthy contender comes fourth. Only Starsector and Kenshi come to mind but they have little to no faction building. Point me to a game that offers similar gameplay to Bannerlord or Warband. Maybe Nobunga's Ambition? The battles there are abit simplistic doe. There is practically none.

Taleworlds has done a good job. The hype was bound to attract a lot negative attention. Did I want more in-depth diplomacy? Yes. Did I want more mechanics from paradox games? Sure do. But I won't let those elements sour my enjoyment of the game, especially when mods can add those things.
Well said, similar sentiments.
They banked on the reputation of M&B ip for the (very) EA release; obvious still some disappointments and features they should've implemented. Game is not trash and there really isn't another similar game in mind and I know I will spend countless more hours on this until a contender does come forth.
At the beginning, ~2 years ago, was looking forward to the update/patches for new playthrough but as of past half-year or so; I just want the 'final/stable' version so I can do a sincere playthrough as I'm done being the QA tester.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I don't care about paradox levels of mechanics. If Taleworlds would've just revamped Warband with better graphics, UI and added QoL improvements and a better level of diplomacy I would've been perfectly fine with it, in fact I would've loved it.
Sort of seconding this - my expectations for a sequel were basic too: Warband's feature base plus better sieges and better graphics. We got the last two but we still don't have the first one.

It's kind of amazing that 10+ years later this game still isn't a straight upgrade to Warband in the feature department, despite the missing features requiring less than a week of work for an amateur modder.
But claiming that people who have complaints are just whining is way too dismissive. There are issues with the game and if no one complains nothing will ever get fixed.
Yep. This is the right place to complain (a forum isn't meant to be just for positive feedback!), and it's the right time to complain (while things can still be changed), and there are plenty of good reasons to complain.

1.8.0 is a better version of Bannerlord which makes the game more fun and that is partially due to player feedback.
 

kreamy

Sergeant
The game is named "Bannerlord", yet you cannot be a lord carrying a banner?

There is no other reason for people to be livid after already waiting 11 years to carry their banner.

Banners or death '22
Probably the biggest reason in all honesty.

In close second was the previous radio silence and lack of firm commitment on features as well as disputable portrayal of actual state of the game/development.

Also, that console seems to be priority for how game is continuing development (with emphasis on optimization vs. 'big' features) seems to play a part too...
 
I got to here and stopped, you've already answered your own question. You said there's plenty of threads explaining that but you've obviously not bothered to actually read them
A few others which I cba finding
Its okay to enjoy the game, its not a bad game, but when you compare it to its predecessor its pathetic and the amount of criticism is amplified by lack of communication
Yea as soon as i read that he had never played mount and blade I immediately stopped reading.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
And as a total noob in M&B who in facts finds Bannerlord quite fun, I would like someone to explain to me what is so wrong with this game in the eyes of so many people?
Mostly because it is grindier and more difficult than Warband, as a general thing.
  • Partially because party sizes were much, much smaller and armor was way more effective. It was totally doable to go into a battle between mid-game parties and have you + companions rack up a third or more of the kills, while losing zero troops.
  • Partially because Warband's difficulty settings were buried in the options menu and defaulted to the easiest, so lots of people went through the game not realizing they were basically fighting against enemies wielding figurative whiffle bats.
  • Partially because there was a lot less map to conquer.
  • And also partially because Bannerlord has a campaign quest that puts players on a path to form their kingdom way too early, followed by getting ****ing wrecked because the AI is smart enough to target weakness.
There is other stuff, quibbles mostly, but really a Bannerlord playthrough takes much more time and it puts you on a treadmill towards the mid- to late-game. Also the endgame is an endless grind of sieges, interrupted only by the occasional field battle where you effortlessly stomp the enemy faction because you outnumber them literally all the time, but that's more of a me-thing than most other posters on the forum. Warband was similar (and I also think it sucked back then). A fair few actually enjoy that they get to fight like a hundred plus sieges, or whatever the count is between castles and towns.
 
Fix cavalry. Try sending in 20 melee cavalry vs 20 looters and see how many you end up losing. Why is this the case? Cavalry AI is absolute garbage they miss 90% of swings and stabs. We need separate commands if you want them to charge thru an enemy formation or if you want them charge and stay fighting the formation they attacked.
 

bunions

Veteran
You've not only played 400 hours before deciding you wouldn't recommend it, you've actually played another 200 hours after that.
Apart from the points Five Bucks and Bjorn made in response (which are pretty effin accurate)...

Nothing in your post changes the way I feel bout the game, or invalidates the complaints listed. As I said - I don't hate the game, I hate the terrible job TW has done RE: expected features, and the shoddy overall effort with Early Access.

With the amount of defending of the slipshod effort they put forth, TW should put some folks around here on retainer.
 
I don't care about paradox levels of mechanics. If Taleworlds would've just revamped Warband with better graphics, UI and added QoL improvements and a better level of diplomacy I would've been perfectly fine with it, in fact I would've loved it. I suspect plenty of Warband vets would've been ok with it too. Don't get me wrong I'd also love having more in depth mechanics but that's apparently not Taleworlds "vision" so whatever. But claiming that people who have complaints are just whining is way too dismissive. There are issues with the game and if no one complains nothing will ever get fixed.

+1

Lots of issues.
 

Jehiel

Recruit
If Taleworlds would've just revamped Warband with better graphics, UI and added QoL improvements and a better level of diplomacy I would've been perfectly fine with it, in fact I would've loved it.

As someone with hundreds of hours in Warband .... isn't this what Bannerlord already is? lol better graphics? Check. Better UI, absolutely. QoL, absolutely.

Diplomacy is the only thing that is arguable there but 3/4 isn't bad.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Fix cavalry. Try sending in 20 melee cavalry vs 20 looters and see how many you end up losing. Why is this the case? Cavalry AI is absolute garbage they miss 90% of swings and stabs

This really bothers me and is a major hit for the Series Mount and Blade -which literally means Horse and Attack. How could this STILL be a problem when this has been the absolute strength of the series from the GetGo?! What other game had serious and accurate horse attacks especially en masse from an AI?

I just dont get how this isnt a major issue. Have the Devs ever addressed it? Was literally one of the major reason I uninstalled it and have been waiting to hear its been revamped and is gold now

Pretty strange how the game can no longer hold its namesake: no proper horsemen for Mount and Blade and no BannerMen for BannerLord..
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
As someone with hundreds of hours in Warband .... isn't this what Bannerlord already is? lol better graphics? Check. Better UI, absolutely. QoL, absolutely.

Diplomacy is the only thing that is arguable there but 3/4 isn't bad.
That's not what he said. He said revamped Warband, which Bannerlord definitely isn't - it's missing a long list of features from Warband (see the linked thread in my signature) and still isn't as balanced, stable or enjoyably designed as Warband in many areas either.
 
Top Bottom