Why so concerned about this being a historical game?

Currently viewing this thread:

David9610

Recruit
Why so concerned about this being a historical game?

Most of the posts one reads around here always have a "this is not historically correct" or "this is a historical game" mention. I think the source of a lot of frustration is a misguided view of the game, and of the past. There is a very big difference in "historical game" and "historically inspired". The first one would be Kingdom Come Deliverance which does have that claim, the second one could be a novel like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

And in this topic , which retrieved it from a post posted by someone, most of the "this was different in the past" arguments is more of a bias or argument to justify what one wants for the game and not necessarily what it was. I'm not going to get into a debate about epistemology of history and theory of history, but it would be nice if we were aware that this is not a historical game, the developers and moderators themselves have said so several times. So they can do what they like with gender roles, armor functioning, etc....

The problem in these things could be that it has no congruence with the narrative of some characters or the overall construction of the world itself. For example gender roles, where most of the female companions complain about their role in society but in practice it is not different. But other than that it's not a problem that you find many women leading an army if that's how the world the creators built works. Because it's a game... we shouldn't be bothered by that and integration is not a problem either.

What I do want to repeat, the game is inspired by history, but it is not historical. They can take from it what they like and what they don't like from it; values in armor, army formations, etc... they are not limited by accuracy and veracity. Because if it were like that, let me tell you, it would be a super boring game where battles would be 2 min. So I recommend that we focus our energies on other things and not just "I want the game to be like this because I like this o its not historycally" By that, I mean it's fine for us to discuss armor values. But with an internal idea of the world they made, with the balance in progression, costs, investment, etc... Point out the flaws that for example is investing in caravans and hardly getting the investment back, the balance of wars, etc....

It would help us if we are less passionate to us to avoid frustration and developers or moderators would find it more pleasant to read our requests.

Last thing my original language is not English so excuse spelling or writing mistakes.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Why so concerned about this being a historical game?
Because that is the main reason some people play it.

It is the same reason you can get a lot of goodwill by just releasing new models on Nexus that do nothing to fundamentally change the game at all: it is just a coat of paint, but for a lot of people, the paintjob matters.
 

redmark

Squire
OP - I agree, but I think you're overstating the 'problem'. Quite a small number of people seem to really insist on historical parallels; more may use historical comparisons to illustrate a point, but aren't fixated on the game obeying history precisely. Historical plausibility matters more than historical accuracy.
 
But other than that it's not a problem that you find many women leading an army if that's how the world the creators built works
To me this kind of stuff is a problem because it is a drastic and unneeded change from how things were in Warband. This was probably changed just to appease SJWs.
 
I don´t want this game to be historical, but to be kind of realistic in it´s universe. Like a group of 10 looters killing one of my T5 knigths in my army of 80 units in auto resolve? Nope....so better "fight" it with F1 > F3....

I have no issues with womans leading parties or beeing the queen of a kingdom, but other stuff annoys me because it doesn´t make sense at all.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree. I enjoy the historical nature of the game. I love history, it's my major in university and still research history as a hobby today. That said, gameplay and fun should always come first.

I like having female warrior nobles. I like swinging a 2 handed weapon on horseback. Both of these things while rare, actually existed. But more importantly these things are fun for me. I'm not asking for dragons or machine guns,.

Fact is that 90%+ of people in medieval times were peasants. If realism was the most important factor then 90% of playthroughs should be spent as a serf harvesting grain or whatever. And personally as a Jewish person there are a lot of negative parts of medieval history I'd prefer to avoid in a game I play rather than being exactly realistic.
 

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Totally agree. I enjoy the historical nature of the game. I love history, it's my major in university and still research history as a hobby today. That said, gameplay and fun should always come first.

I like having female warrior nobles. I like swinging a 2 handed weapon on horseback. Both of these things while rare, actually existed. But more importantly these things are fun for me. I'm not asking for dragons or machine guns,.

Fact is that 90%+ of people in medieval times were peasants. If realism was the most important factor then 90% of playthroughs should be spent as a serf harvesting grain or whatever. And personally as a Jewish person there are a lot of negative parts of medieval history I'd prefer to avoid in a game I play rather than being exactly realistic.
Yup, i like history and want the game to be as historically plausible as possible but good gameplay and fun should always come first over that.
 

Old-Bull

Sergeant at Arms
Why so concerned about this being a historical game?

Most of the posts one reads around here always have a "this is not historically correct" or "this is a historical game" mention. I think the source of a lot of frustration is a misguided view of the game, and of the past. There is a very big difference in "historical game" and "historically inspired". The first one would be Kingdom Come Deliverance which does have that claim, the second one could be a novel like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.

And in this topic , which retrieved it from a post posted by someone, most of the "this was different in the past" arguments is more of a bias or argument to justify what one wants for the game and not necessarily what it was. I'm not going to get into a debate about epistemology of history and theory of history, but it would be nice if we were aware that this is not a historical game, the developers and moderators themselves have said so several times. So they can do what they like with gender roles, armor functioning, etc....

The problem in these things could be that it has no congruence with the narrative of some characters or the overall construction of the world itself. For example gender roles, where most of the female companions complain about their role in society but in practice it is not different. But other than that it's not a problem that you find many women leading an army if that's how the world the creators built works. Because it's a game... we shouldn't be bothered by that and integration is not a problem either.

What I do want to repeat, the game is inspired by history, but it is not historical. They can take from it what they like and what they don't like from it; values in armor, army formations, etc... they are not limited by accuracy and veracity. Because if it were like that, let me tell you, it would be a super boring game where battles would be 2 min. So I recommend that we focus our energies on other things and not just "I want the game to be like this because I like this o its not historycally" By that, I mean it's fine for us to discuss armor values. But with an internal idea of the world they made, with the balance in progression, costs, investment, etc... Point out the flaws that for example is investing in caravans and hardly getting the investment back, the balance of wars, etc....

It would help us if we are less passionate to us to avoid frustration and developers or moderators would find it more pleasant to read our requests.

Last thing my original language is not English so excuse spelling or writing mistakes.

They had to chose between high fantasy or loosely based on history when they built the original Mount and Blade. The niche they chose was a medieval combat simulator loosely based on history.

The fan base has already been built with that platform. If they add magic and other nonsense it will alienate their already constructed fan base. Let the modders create the high fantasy.
 

Bluko88

Recruit
Why so concerned about this being a historical game?

Most of the posts one reads around here always have a "this is not historically correct" or "this is a historical game" mention. I think the source of a lot of frustration is a misguided view of the game, and of the past. There is a very big difference in "historical game" and "historically inspired". The first one would be Kingdom Come Deliverance which does have that claim, the second one could be a novel like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.
Yeah I don't get the cries for historical accuracy. It's a fictional game world.

Much better for it to follow it's own rules, and work as a balanced game.

I guess some people really want a Mount and Blade game where there's a Pope that can ex-communicate them? To be fair there is definitely a market for historical games - but really in that case it's in Taleworld's best interests to develop new historical based game. I would be very surprised if TW didn't sell their game engine to other developers at some point. That's really in everyone's best interests.

I think TW made the right move, because very historical games also tend to turn-off a lot of players who aren't effectively historians. Really they should be trying to flesh-out the narrative of their world more as that would make the game more engaging. Right now it's little more then a battle simulator which is part of the problem. Everyone wants it simulate their favorite historical period and little more, because the game is utterly lifeless otherwise.
 

Moton

Squire
Some people simply find it important. Why so concerned about what people like and find interesting?

Altho the whole game shouldn't be forced to change because of them as little as it shouldn't be built and changed because of others. The developers should be able to have their own vision of the game the rest will modders fix for uss. You want a hard historical setting? Sure just wait a couple of months after release and I'm sure it will be there.
 

Moton

Squire
That's pretty optimistic...

Well I mean a full fledged total overhaul wont be here but many things can be changed with simple value changes and early versions of overhauls wont take more then half a year to be released. Will they work? Probably not. Will they still be better then the official version? Probably yes.
 
Its not historical and shouldn't be. Its a game and games must be fun to play.
If I want history, I will read other forums, books, podcasts etc.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Well I mean a full fledged total overhaul wont be here but many things can be changed with simple value changes and early versions of overhauls wont take more then half a year to be released. Will they work? Probably not. Will they still be better then the official version? Probably yes.
I'd still say six months is pretty well optimistic. Modding Bannerlord isn't as easy and straightforward as it was for Warband. I'm thinking more than a year and change before first overhauls get released, unless they do things completely piecemeal.
 

Moton

Squire
I'd still say six months is pretty well optimistic. Modding Bannerlord isn't as easy and straightforward as it was for Warband. I'm thinking more than a year and change before first overhauls get released, unless they do things completely piecemeal.

Well we'll see. I think early versions may come out 6 months after release.
 
Its not historical and shouldn't be. Its a game and games must be fun to play.
If I want history, I will read other forums, books, podcasts etc.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but keep this in mind not everyone has the same definition of fun, different strokes for different folks.
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I don’t get people saying that they prefer having fun over history. They are kinda saying that history cannot be fun. So you guys prefer Skyrim’s combat over the combat system of Kingdom Come: Deliverance? If so, well our preferences of having fun is totally different. Why wouldn’t historical accuracy be fun?

Yes I want realistic gender roles because it would make playing as a female a whole different gameplay experience. Right now it is just the same as playing a male character which doesn’t excite me for another playthrough and decreases replayability. I want to prove my mettle to those having fun of me in the game as a female. I want to achieve my goals despite all the difficulties of being a female in a medieval setting. But we have a game that when we marry a lord as a female, that lord comes to our clan instead of the other way around. Like it is inconsistent in the first place. When you are playing as a male, your spouse joins your clan and when you are playing as a female it is the same thing too. Is it the same for the NPC ladies too? I don’t think so? So what makes our situation different? I have my opinion on it but I’ll leave it to you.

And about historically accurate armor... What is fun about spending lots of money on the best armor and again dying to four arrow shots instead of three? Wouldn’t it be more fun if all those arrows broke on impact, get deflected by armor and spin midair etc.? What is fun about an arrow stuck in a metal helm? I just want arrows to not penetrate and only harm me a symbolic amount of damage if I’m buying an armor which looks protective historically. If you are OK with spamming archers and winning all the battles, then we have different preferences of having fun, so please don’t accuse me of wanting unfun stuff.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom