Why so concerned about this being a historical game?

Currently viewing this thread:

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
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 arrow 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.
I love history and find it fun but what i was saying before is that when it came to a choice between accuracy OR fun gameplay the later should always come first but not forgetting about the first one of course, there should always be a balance.
 
I just love the way M&B takes a general period of a few centuries from history and creates an authentic feeling fictional world out of it. If this was an actual historical game set in the 6th century Mediterranean world I'd just be getting annoyed at certain things not being accurate.
 

David9610

Recruit
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 arrow 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.
At no time am I saying that history or historical games are boring. In fact, I'm a historian so I find the past and historical processes quite fun.

What I am saying is; it is not valid as a criticism to say that something is poorly designed because it is unrealistic in a fantasy game. This game literally takes place in a different world, with different societies, different customs, etc... One thing is to want congruence or balance in the mechanics (which should always be sought) and another thing is to think that making it historical in some cases, specifically the ones we want which makes the vision of the game subjective to make the game better.

The case of congruence (exposed here in armor) I feel the same as most here, an armor of some level should give you a feeling of greater protection or that there really is an advancement in your initial character.But one thing is what I want and the feel I'm looking for in the game and another is what I feel it should be because historically/realistically it was something. Both are perceptions, but one "tries" to be more objective and hide the "I want it to be so".

At the end of the day, it is also valid to expect or want certain things from what we play. Already here it is the field of the game experience, the same with the subject of women. Obviously it would be nice to have different experiences if you play a game as a man or a woman, but even if it is an egalitarian society it should not be that way, and it is because the developer thought so. Again, what we want to have and what it is is not justified by saying "this happened in the past and therefore here too". And again I say, it is not that the criticisms are unvalid or we have to just accept everything they give and that's it, that's the extreme. But it is not valid to justify only "what I want and so it must be because it happened in X and so it must happen here" which is often done with the argument of "historically correct".
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I think the big problem is how homogenized the entire gameworld feels -everything, every place and everybody feels the same. I have little motivation to travel around and see or meet anyone because they are literally all the same. If you want to have a fictional Europe with the entire spectrum of racial types and total sexual equality -you better have some really distinct reasons, lore and characters to match to make it interesting. Else it just feels like a not well thought out mish-mash of "ahh just throw everything in there..."
 

redmark

Squire
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?
It depends on the game. If I'm playing EU4, I want it to be so historical that I get annoyed if the wrong country colonises the wrong bit of America, or Roussillon is on the wrong side of the French-Spanish border. If I'm playing RTW, I do care whether a unit is historically accurate or not.

But Bannerlord isn't historical; it's 'inspired by' elements of medieval/early medieval history. All it needs is to be historically plausible.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Master Knight
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.
The rule is that anyone marrying a clan leader (gender agnostic) moves to their clan. In one of my playthroughs Mesui married a Battanian dude and he went over to the Khergits.
 

cyberonn

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I love history and find it fun but what i was saying before is that when it came to a choice between accuracy OR fun gameplay the later should always come first but not forgetting about the first one of course, there should always be a balance.
That is fair but when people suggest some realistic feature, they most probably think that, that feature will be fun too. It is not always like "choose fun or accurate".

What I am saying is; it is not valid as a criticism to say that something is poorly designed because it is unrealistic in a fantasy game. This game literally takes place in a different world, with different societies, different customs, etc.
In my opinion, Mount&Blade series take place in a different world because they don't want to make all the kingdoms and states in a historical period because of a hard to balance game, lots of required work to make all those different cultural elements etc. So they just made 7 different cultures in a different world and they don't have to make all real life cultures. So it is just for simplifying the game development. There is no fantasy element in the game other than a different world map and different names of culture. Even cultures are heavily based on real world cultures. There is no original cultural element in the game. So defining the game as fantasy really doesn't work for me because it is just being used to escape from realism demands and doesn't serve anything else. I understand their choice of simplifying the game because the game is very original as a whole and they are learning on the process. So I respect that choice. But I think if a historically correct thing (which would be fun if implemented) is not in this game, it is not because it is a fantasy game but because it usually is hard to implement for TW.

The rule is that anyone marrying a clan leader (gender agnostic) moves to their clan. In one of my playthroughs Mesui married a Battanian dude and he went over to the Khergits.
That makes sense for the current setting of the game, thanks for clarifying that! Now I wonder what would happen if two clan leaders marry each other though.

But still current gender roles cause things like pregnant women participating in battles and tournaments. The game made me fight my wife who was pregnant at that time on the final of a tournament. It was very immersion breaking for me.
 
Last edited:

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
That is fair but when people suggest some realistic feature, they most probably think that, that feature will be fun too. It is not always like "choose fun or accurate".
Agreed, it changes for everyone but some realistic features i find fun while others would be more like a chore if the game isn't designed specifically around them.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Why so concerned about this being a historical game?

Simply because the game is based on historical medieval warfare. If the game was based on full on Fantasy or Sci-Fi, then the developers have carte blanche to do whatever, but once you confine yourself to a specific theme like historical medieval warfare, the expectation is that the game mechanics will be based on historical medieval warfare.

That being the case, this game, at its core is a historical medieval warfare "Simulation" so of course most people would want things to be as historical accurate as possible. This is why so many people want things like formations or armor that protects as well as armor did historically and other historically accurate depictions at least as far as a game can take it.

Of course, most of us all realize that given to much simulation and things tend to lose the fun factor, at least for most people, so most of us are willing to give up some historically accuracy in the face of fun However, lets be honest, what is fun is a matter of perception different for each and every one of us and that is the crux of the problem. I mean lets look at flight sims. Some people spend thousands of dollars to build a cockpit in their home while others would prefer flight to be arcade-like as as simple as moving your mouse and using the WASD keys. Same I guess goes for the people playing this game.

However, since this game is kind of marketed and quite frankly developed in a fashion that simulates historical medieval warfare, I honestly think the devs should be erring on the side of historical and shooting for as historical a feeling as possible.

That being said, I am more about how the core gaming mechanics work and feel than about any specific setting. For example, I don't feel just because historically, in medieval times, it was a male dominated society, that Bannerlord has to be a male dominated society. I mean Calradia is a "Fictional" setting after all so why can't there be gender equality? On the other hand, only the world is fictional, not the time period or the type of warfare it is based upon so I want the game to "Feel" like the historical medieval setting it is based upon as much as possible.
 

ratschbumm

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
honestly I never saw a player wanted straightforward "historical accuracy" here. I guess, the OP meant people who want less illogical and stupid simplifications (or generalizations, otherwise). Here is a lot of them, and this is good.
 
Last edited:

Akka

Sergeant
Why so concerned about this being a historical game?
Because a game that feels authentic increases immersion, and immersion is fun.
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?
Thanks. That's one of my pet peeve, the recurrent "we prefer to put fun over realism/historical accuracy/whatever". As if the latter was incompatible with the former.
I love history and find it fun but what i was saying before is that when it came to a choice between accuracy OR fun gameplay the later should always come first but not forgetting about the first one of course, there should always be a balance.
That's a false dichotomy. There is another way to look at it : when such choice appear, maybe it's possible to find a way to integrate the constraint into something interesting gameplay-wise.
 

Pizi_G

Veteran
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....
yes but you can also look at it this way:
the horse stumbled over a hole in the ground and the knight flew of and broke his neck
 

Sithrain

Sergeant
I think most people want verisimilitude from the game, not veracity. For instance there are no romans in the game, thus it is fine for the Calradian empire to be somewhat different from the Roman or the Byzantine because you didn't put those in the game. You did put armour in the game though, and swords and bows and spears and horses and so long as those things feel like the real life equivalents we are familiar with it all works out.

If we suddenly decide that Calradian swords have an accurate throwing range of 100 meters you can't very well say that they don't because none of us have ever thrown a Calradian sword, but I think most people would agree that would detract from the setting unless you set up a specific reason why it should be so. Similarly it may be that armour in Calradia is only minimally protective, but you should probably present a reason for that within your game world before players find out that a hundred-thousand denar suit of steel has the protective qualities of wet cardboard or some of them are likely to be annoyed.
 

Aurex

Recruit
WB
I enjoyed Warband's setting because it was believable. I wouldn't say I want Bannerlord to be historically correct, but historically plausible? That'd be most welcome indeed.
 

Berzerker Jay

It's mostly just relevant because of the setting. The game is set in a specific time-period, and preceeding the specific time-period Warband was set in. It's basically mostly relevant in this relative sense, in technology reflecting the earlier time-period so there's more a sense of immersion in the game's world.

I imagine this makes most of a difference for people who have played the other games in the franchise, but might not make that much of a difference for others. It is kind of interesting to play this with the understanding that it's all leading up to Warband's scenarios.
 

Berzerker Jay

es 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.
This. I miss this aspect from Warband so much. Most of my Warband characters were female because I loved having the various lords try to pick fights with me in the beginning, and I liked having to work harder to gain nobility. In Bannerlord this just feels off, and I guess they did it this way to avoid social politics -- I actually respected Taleworlds for its position with Warband, though, and thought it taught some valuable lessons and maybe even offered a bridge for empathy around these issues.
 

Stromming

Sergeant
WBWF&SNWVC
I haven't seen a lot of calls for historical accuracies tbh. However most people seem to want the game to be at least somewhat realistic, and this is also applicable to fictional worlds.

And by realistic i don't mean that we can't have female leaders, but rather that armor actually makes a difference, lords have unique personalities etc.
 
Top Bottom