that has been the society's default since twitter gained political fuel. It's older than Tik Tok
Though my only thought about all of this is:
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Will FailWorlds ever apologize and explain what happened?
- Thread starter StewVader
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Though my only thought about all of this is:
This isn't true, but even if it was, judging by screenshots the game looked more or less identical to how it does now as early as 2015. Just look at that gamescom 2015 video, it's hardly changed in the last 7 years, at least superficially based on those videos.
The reason the game looks "archaic" in 2012 is because they were just using a lot of the same assets as warband and not lighting them well. If for example I remade warband in unreal engine 5 with the same assets, it would just look like warband. Counterintuitively, the "engine" has almost no inherent effect on how a game looks, plays, or even runs. It's a developer-side office organisation of code that means absolutely nothing to the player. Thus game developers over the last few years have consistently lied about what a game engine does so that they can wow customers when they make a "new" one. It would be the equivalent of a car company telling you how their offices are now arranged differently.
Based on what I've gathered by speaking to devs and reading their comments, by 2015 the game was basically done, but they had a slow decision-making process and couldn't decide on stuff like the UI or game mechanics which got multiple reworks over the years.
Done by the standards of the thing we got in 2022 or something else? Theyve shown us dialogue and diplomacy and delivered none. Why strip it all off then? Keep it rudimemtary as it is, but keep it. That makes me think the game was restarted altogether and not just redesigned
Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I am a big opponent to monopolies and big corpos. You somehow have it twisted inside your head that TaleWorlds is some big bad corporation. It is a family company who happened to make a buck. I support them because they made a good product that can be improved upon further.
I don't even use Tik Tok, Twitter or any other spam app.
Right now, I guess it could be argued that Mount & Blade is a monopoly, because no one else makes products like it. In that sense, it is bad. I would love it if there was competition to Mount & Blade, that would likely improve both franchises even better.
I don't know the specific reasons why they kept revising the UI and mechanics, but whenever developers have talked about it, it sounds like typical office politics where there are cliques of people with competing ideas and nothing gets done. An office is made of individuals who at the end of the day want to advance their own careers or make money. Sometimes this can result in a coherently made game, but in other cases it can actually be detrimental to your career to do the sensible thing.
It is exceptionally rare for a game to be remade from scratch during development, at least when a single company is working on it. Most engines are basically the same nowadays (as in, they use similar code libraries and have the same overall structure), and the main reason they make "new" ones is just because code bases tend to be difficult to maintain for long periods of time as new things get added. For example it's relatively straightforward to make warband look like a modern game (some modders have already done a pretty good job at that), but even with access to the source code itself, it's been edited and tinkered with for so long that it's difficult to make new games with.
Some competition is sorely needed. The issue is, it used to be considered a very niche genre, barely even touched upon by most developers.
But yes, Taleworlds is a big, bad company. They used to be a couple who made little medieval games, they're not anymore.
Proof? There you go.
They need the new office to finalize the missing stuff they´ll add after release, can only be done in a new office within this small family company (with 100+ employees). Sadly the new office is still not complete, same as Bannerlord.
I remember when it was speculated that leadership was too hard on the developers and their freedoms, and that's why it turned out so bad, but not it more seems like the developers weren't all held to some sort of standard in decision making, and that all of those conflicting ideas is what caused Bannerlord to be what it is. And the general lack of desire to do anything remotely complex or from the prior title...for some odd reason. 
Kervan is heading towards a cliff, at least gameplay wise.
engine makes a huge difference on the end-product. but I'm not going to feed such a discussion because it seems you don't really understand how they work.
If you were shown two screenshots of the same assets with the same lighting, one in unreal engine and one in unity, how would you be able to tell the difference?
There are threads like this on the unreal and unity forums all the time and the differences are negligible. They actually use basically the same formulas for calculating lighting, and the exact same algorithms for basic rendering that have been around since the 1970s. A game engine is just a collection of tools, the main difference between them is how the developer interacts with them, just like how you can't tell what brand of tools were used to make a house.
Gamebryo - Wikipedia
Look at the list of games in this article. What do any of them have in common?
hey, I'm not talking about lighting add-ons or patchups, I'm talking about the core engine architecture. But even on a graphic side, it's easy for someone knowledgeable with attention to detail noticing even graphic differences between engines.If you were shown two screenshots of the same assets with the same lighting, one in unreal engine and one in unity, how would you be able to tell the difference?
There are threads like this on the unreal and unity forums all the time and the differences are negligible. They actually use basically the same formulas for calculating lighting, and the exact same algorithms for basic rendering that have been around since the 1970s. A game engine is just a collection of tools, the main difference between them is how the developer interacts with them, just like how you can't tell what brand of tools were used to make a house.
Gamebryo - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Look at the list of games in this article. What do any of them have in common?
Gamebryo for instance carries a lot of rubber/plastic feeling to it, Unreal on the other hand was always more gritty. You can tell without knowing if a game was done on either (very noticeable, at least to me).
Now, Unity's more of a jack-of-all-trades and harder to identify, yet the engine's limitation towards processing power will eventually be caught up and you'll have a pattern emerge defined by it's limitations.
With that out of the way, engine architecture determines what can be done or not done in a game, and that's the truth, it isn't "office organisation", it's a piece of engineering, software engineering, that will dictate a game's limits. Gamebryo, for instance, was driven above it's limits by Bethesda, and kniwng that they've "updated it" into "Creation Engine" which's basically the same. There's a reason why their games support so few actors per scenery. The key swap of engines for TW was supporting larger battles, it now does, warband, on the other hand, no matter how much tinkering, will explode a computer if there are too many actors at once. In the case of Gamebryo, if you put as many actors as we have in Warband in battle, 75% of them will T-pose and glitch, the entire log will fill with errors and that if the engine doesn't crash.
Now, for those who don't know, softwares are responsible for making the interaction between your hardware and your interactive interface (monitor, kb, mouse, audio), if the architecture of an engine isn't done in specific ways, the usage of hardward won't be able to support certain features, so engines are important, not just "office thingies".
Last edited:
Bugger off me lawn
No my friend much longer. Been headed this way since 1789.
Since the plebs opinions mattered they have had to be controlled/educated by those who have an interest in doing so.
Welcome to the corporatist cyber gulag. We have ****posting.
Just remember to consume product no matter what. The product is always right. The product is always good.
This next update wil change EVERTHING!
idk how you came to that conclusion, but you're thoroughly wrong. In the past ppl used to respect and listen to specialists, professionals and those who honed a craft. You'd go to a doctor, he'd tell you X and X it was. You'd debate a product with the engineer who made it, engineer would tell you Y and Y it was. This societal IQ drop only really happened after the internet picked-up pace with google and endless pages of misinformation started to fill the mainstream of the search engines. The majority of the web's just a massive "con", it's hard to find valid founded info about most things, and so we started to see this pattern emerge: Young idiots discussing disrespectfully with Doctors about treatment - specialists being dissed by social networks because they pointed out an educated opinion over a "controversial"(for laymen) subject. Even journalists started publishing blatant lies and charlatanism as if it was the absolute objective truth over subjects they don't even begin to comprehend nor have the mental capacity to do so...
The thing's a modern trend and it has everything to do with social media along with generational upbringing. Apparently Gen X loves to teach their kids that they are "supermen" capable of anything, always in the right, with all rights to everything. Just start observing those kids behavior whenever their opinions or beliefs are proven wrong... And they are the worse case, it started with my millenial gen, where tons of ppl were already like that but "toned down" a little bit.
There are endless subjects of which charlatans started trying to cash-in while most specialists would say the complete opposite, guess who they choose as the "carrier of the truth"? The ahole who tells them what they want to hear. It's a mentality that basically favors the perversion of reality filling it with fantastical lies feeding an ever growing "disney fantasy world" perception of reality itself for many of those infantile minds.
The list of controversial subjects that have been fed into a brain-dead official stance's massive, it includes stuff like "veganism's healthy" (which isn't, and cannot be due to chemical biology), up to the perversion of what gender is (gender's a sex identifier, not a "concept"). And there we went downhill, and are still going ever downwards into a mass idiocy. The charlatans who defend absrudity, sometimes are "specialists" but if you look closely are always cashing-in on their "positioning" somehow, milking money out of the masses who can't accept reality as it is. The bb-boomer term used for millenials years ago isn't actually wrong, we're dealing with a delusional snowflake horde who can't deal with nature, they idealize something and want their fantasy to be the truth, and will go lengths to try and force that as if objetive reality would bend to their will.
In history, there was never anything like this on this scale. We'd see it happen with cults like Jonestown, the problem with such a larger scale's that ppl are really commiting slow-suicide in a pretty odd manner. To add salt to injury, the media has been defending these lunacies by omitting factual statistics, like the amount of suicides sourced through surgical sex changes, deaths by malnutrition from vegans, vegans who abandon the lifestyle because they started to suffer symptoms caused by lack of nutrients, etc...
The second layer's political, which's cultural marxicism - IE: destruction of any culture that hasn't yet adhered to socialism/comunism > theres literature on the planning of such maneuvers to try and manipulate societies since the 19th century, it isn't new nor a "conspirational theory", and somehow it's now working. The curious part is that I'm a leftist, but rather than a disingenuous marxist, I'm a bakunist, Bakunin curiously have proven all marxist theories wrong in the execution of change department. I'd not adhere to the first anarchist ideal of "full sudden revolution" though, because I believe there are gradual paths possible and that it's sort of in the human nature to be collectivist once certain level of wisdom, knowledge and experience has been achieved (just observe how older ppl tend to be more "communal" than younger asshats). Often those who aren't like that naturally lack intellect, knowledge or have a really narrow life-experience of which makes them devalue humility.
So, as leftist, I'm also disgusted by the entire wave of woke syndrome, I see it as a collective mental impairment keen to cultivate delusional irrationality, yet that isn't even the core of the issue...
Arguably, though, someone could try and turn this point of argument I just made against me doing a "funny-guy" by using my criticism towards the BL as an example, but the reality's that I'm a specialist, I just don't work in the field anymore so the only thing i lack's experience, not the knowledge, had to mention that because it was the first thing that came to my mind (a witty way to mock myself)
Now, back to the topic of which started this mini-subthread discussion: The problem with social networks like twitter's how the management of the network itself tends to lean towards a bias and strengthen the propagation of nonsense while silencing and censoring anyone who doesn't join the bandwagon. It's hard to tell, though, if it's a defect in the algorithm or a deliberate manipulation. Either way, places like twitter are the sewer of society's intellectual power, as such, I'd avoid any social network as a source of information. I've never used twitter, never will, same goes with tiktok, instagram, etc. The only worth mainstream social networks really hold is as means of keeping in touch with ppl who were part of your life once, any other use's a waste of time and a potential to turn you into a zombie. - Mini social networks like communities, forums, etc, can be mitigated by the fact that we are objectively threading discussions about certain subjects, and not dealing with a insane mix of self-publicity, pictures, desperate-ego fillers, "like highs" and other trash like that. We're also shielded from ads, meaning there isn't an interest at perverting these kinds of network in general (except for TW who could do it to curb criticism or paint a better light to their products - thankfully they've never done anything of the sorts)
Last edited:
Bugger off me lawn
Way to jump the shark my good man.
I suppose i shall respond. I'm not sure why i have dragged myself into a political arguement on a videogame forumn but i now feel obliged to respond. At least what i am going to mention will be rather relevent given my quite litterally medieval political tendancies. Or at least early modern. I suppose it is relevent, it just feels kind of wierd.
First of all i think that you didn't quite understand what i was saying. Possibly because it came completely out of left field in terms of the modern intellectual paradime.
What i was doing was linking the notion of the mass media, mass state, consumerism ect. to the assumptions of the enlightenment and the revolutions. Which in my opinion are one of the main roots of many of our modern woes among other things. I am certainly not going to go on a tirade about oswald spengler that is for sure. Mainly the advent of democracy or that of egalitarianism.
To be clear i was not bemoaning the current "populist" tendancies, which i regard as reasonable for the most part, even if i myself do not subscribe to such a thing as i come from a high tory perspective.
If the people are soveriegn. For such a thing i shall use the schmittian definition which i find most useful, despite the oft used attempts to smear by assossation. Which would be a shame given the quality of his legal scollarship and to throw away schmitt would also to throw away Clausewitz, Machiavelli and other exetremely important modern thinkers given that schmitts work in many ways is simply the logical continueation of these thoughs. For needless clarity more than any particular obsession with the minuture of the defintion, most definitions of the word would work so i have just chosen the best one. He who is soverign is he who makes the exeption, given the absurdity of any absolute monopoly on violence as reality doesn't conform to such idealistic conceptions.
If the people make the exeption, forgeting any issues with notions of the "common good" and the notion of the "people" let alone the imposibillity of having a society without an elite I am just writing on the justifications for actions. Then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the people to have to be informed in making said ruling decisions. And they are also responsible for such a thing.
As such it doesn't seem unreasonable to create a system wereby the people are informed by "experts" on such subjects. And as such it is important for them to defer such opinions effectively to these "experts" whomever they are.
But the people are still in charge, as they should be naturally, so they have to make their positions on said issues known. Exercise their rights and obligations as sovergien.
Which in actually is just parroting whatever someone has told them to think and do it publicly and invasively. As opposed to quite submission to ones rulers everyone from the lowest and highest has to boldly proclaim their loyalty to complete and utter absurdities that are put before you.
NUANCE BE DAMNED!
What you now have is an oligarchy or rhetoric.
In the old system the opinions of the masses would still be controlled but the legitamacy and power of the regime was not in fact bound to any sort of popular support. So opinions that were not usual were an outright threat to the base of the regime were generally tollerated. If you didn't believe for the most part you could sit down and shut up. Now you have to hang up your "workers of the world unite" sign or modern western equivolent (please don't smite me for mocking the current thing) so as to not be crushed or to get any power or legitamacy.
Now it's everyone's job to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Not just the theologians.
So no, to have everyone defend the acceptable position is not new. It is a logical continueation of the power structure and ideology of revolutionary government. At least such a thing on this mass scale.
And it has been this way for your entire life i would bet and certainly my entire life, unless you are several hundred years old that is.
The progression of workers rights to racial rights to womens rights to homosexual rights to transexual rights are a mostly linear porgression of egalitarian logic and purity spiraling. Lying for a "good cause" didn't just happen yesterday. Nor was brazen ideological historical revisionism. Funny how history has a direction and it is always the so called "good guys" winning. Funny that the "good guys" have investigated this and found no evidence of any wrong doing by the "good guys". And that even questioning the "good guys" is a sign that you obviously are not a "good guy".
This may be of interest also.
I would actually contend that wokesters have slightly above average intellegence. Being clever enough to figure out how to show their intellegence by slightly challenging the current paradime without rocking the boat too much.
Learn some history of the french revolution. Of the mass terror in the capital. The storming of the bastille, where the garrison was slaughtered under false pretences and the violent criminals released into the streets. The civil war brought on by mass conscription and the appointment of constitutional priests. The blatantly horrific acts perpetraited by the french revolutionary Army in the countryside for example in the vendee were they butchered the rebels in the countride, calling them brigands drowning them to save on bullets and r***ng the women before they drowned them. All of this came from revolutionary sources mind you, they openly boasted about bringing freedom to the region after helping to kill of about 1 in seven people and conscripting the survivors.
All this mind you is actively praised by most of the regimes around the world, as they are logical continuations of the prior revolution. All of the 20th century horrors were perpetrated by revolutionary regimes. Be it the Americans or the british with Fabian style socialism, the national socialists and the fascists with their more reactionary nationalist form of revolution or the comminturn with soviet style communism.
In the west we now have the hipest form of it. But it is still weak or has made major mistakes and is now. As such people can still see it exists as opposed to sitting quitely in the background as assumed wisdom.
1789 was a disaster for mankind. Back to fuedalism. Back to some real artisanship.
I suppose i shall respond. I'm not sure why i have dragged myself into a political arguement on a videogame forumn but i now feel obliged to respond. At least what i am going to mention will be rather relevent given my quite litterally medieval political tendancies. Or at least early modern. I suppose it is relevent, it just feels kind of wierd.
First of all i think that you didn't quite understand what i was saying. Possibly because it came completely out of left field in terms of the modern intellectual paradime.
What i was doing was linking the notion of the mass media, mass state, consumerism ect. to the assumptions of the enlightenment and the revolutions. Which in my opinion are one of the main roots of many of our modern woes among other things. I am certainly not going to go on a tirade about oswald spengler that is for sure. Mainly the advent of democracy or that of egalitarianism.
To be clear i was not bemoaning the current "populist" tendancies, which i regard as reasonable for the most part, even if i myself do not subscribe to such a thing as i come from a high tory perspective.
If the people are soveriegn. For such a thing i shall use the schmittian definition which i find most useful, despite the oft used attempts to smear by assossation. Which would be a shame given the quality of his legal scollarship and to throw away schmitt would also to throw away Clausewitz, Machiavelli and other exetremely important modern thinkers given that schmitts work in many ways is simply the logical continueation of these thoughs. For needless clarity more than any particular obsession with the minuture of the defintion, most definitions of the word would work so i have just chosen the best one. He who is soverign is he who makes the exeption, given the absurdity of any absolute monopoly on violence as reality doesn't conform to such idealistic conceptions.
If the people make the exeption, forgeting any issues with notions of the "common good" and the notion of the "people" let alone the imposibillity of having a society without an elite I am just writing on the justifications for actions. Then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the people to have to be informed in making said ruling decisions. And they are also responsible for such a thing.
As such it doesn't seem unreasonable to create a system wereby the people are informed by "experts" on such subjects. And as such it is important for them to defer such opinions effectively to these "experts" whomever they are.
But the people are still in charge, as they should be naturally, so they have to make their positions on said issues known. Exercise their rights and obligations as sovergien.
Which in actually is just parroting whatever someone has told them to think and do it publicly and invasively. As opposed to quite submission to ones rulers everyone from the lowest and highest has to boldly proclaim their loyalty to complete and utter absurdities that are put before you.
NUANCE BE DAMNED!
What you now have is an oligarchy or rhetoric.
In the old system the opinions of the masses would still be controlled but the legitamacy and power of the regime was not in fact bound to any sort of popular support. So opinions that were not usual were an outright threat to the base of the regime were generally tollerated. If you didn't believe for the most part you could sit down and shut up. Now you have to hang up your "workers of the world unite" sign or modern western equivolent (please don't smite me for mocking the current thing) so as to not be crushed or to get any power or legitamacy.
Now it's everyone's job to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Not just the theologians.
So no, to have everyone defend the acceptable position is not new. It is a logical continueation of the power structure and ideology of revolutionary government. At least such a thing on this mass scale.
And it has been this way for your entire life i would bet and certainly my entire life, unless you are several hundred years old that is.
The progression of workers rights to racial rights to womens rights to homosexual rights to transexual rights are a mostly linear porgression of egalitarian logic and purity spiraling. Lying for a "good cause" didn't just happen yesterday. Nor was brazen ideological historical revisionism. Funny how history has a direction and it is always the so called "good guys" winning. Funny that the "good guys" have investigated this and found no evidence of any wrong doing by the "good guys". And that even questioning the "good guys" is a sign that you obviously are not a "good guy".
As far as i know Flynn effect is an illusion. There was no precipitous lowering of intelligence. All throughout the time when it was observed other correlates of G were going down like reaction time for example. Suggesting that people were reaching their phenotypic maximum despite the selection for intellegence in the population being negative in industrialised society. Which was not the case in pre-industrial even pre-enlightenment conditions where child mortality was much higher but lower for the higher classes. Social class is highley correlated with IQ as such one would expect this to be indicative of a strong selection for intellegence in said population. Caused by a better access to reasources, including food, shelter, safety even early inoculation which was picked up by the upperclasses first.
This may be of interest also.
I would actually contend that wokesters have slightly above average intellegence. Being clever enough to figure out how to show their intellegence by slightly challenging the current paradime without rocking the boat too much.
Did you forget the thing that almost everyone seems celebrate like its a good thing but was infact a totalitarian nightmare that was subsumed by a effective yet despotic millitary commander.
Learn some history of the french revolution. Of the mass terror in the capital. The storming of the bastille, where the garrison was slaughtered under false pretences and the violent criminals released into the streets. The civil war brought on by mass conscription and the appointment of constitutional priests. The blatantly horrific acts perpetraited by the french revolutionary Army in the countryside for example in the vendee were they butchered the rebels in the countride, calling them brigands drowning them to save on bullets and r***ng the women before they drowned them. All of this came from revolutionary sources mind you, they openly boasted about bringing freedom to the region after helping to kill of about 1 in seven people and conscripting the survivors.
All this mind you is actively praised by most of the regimes around the world, as they are logical continuations of the prior revolution. All of the 20th century horrors were perpetrated by revolutionary regimes. Be it the Americans or the british with Fabian style socialism, the national socialists and the fascists with their more reactionary nationalist form of revolution or the comminturn with soviet style communism.
In the west we now have the hipest form of it. But it is still weak or has made major mistakes and is now. As such people can still see it exists as opposed to sitting quitely in the background as assumed wisdom.
1789 was a disaster for mankind. Back to fuedalism. Back to some real artisanship.
"Specialization" isn't what it used to be, though. Part of the problem lies there. Specifically, if you look at the sciences; the current scientific community has a catastrophic problem with replicating and verifying the results of other studies, with half of scientists surveyed here saying that they couldn't even replicate their own results. The academic community (who educates everyone) is difficult to trust when it can't even replicate it's own results. And the modern quasi-worship of 'science'("Trust the Science!" makes my blood boil for several different reasons), even though it has become so subverted by petty politics and big money, has created a strange set of social expectations which will make the aformentioned problems more difficult to resolve. That laymen are distrustful of specialization in the 21st century is less to do with the idiots outside of academia as it is to do with the idiots inside it, in my opinion. The internet sometimes providing incorrect counter-positions is merely a consequence of that, rather than the problem itself; especially since many of those counter-positions end up being correct in the end due to the inflexibility and incompetence of the system as a whole.
Bugger off me lawn
I think social science has about a 60 percent replication rate. Or something absurdly low like that.
But when considereing the glaring methodological bias and issues of construct validity, studies on cognative heuristics and racial discrimination come to mind, it's hardly suprising. The fact that it took nearly till if i recall correctly 2019 for anyone to even seriously consider the construct of left wing authoritarianism tells you something too.
No, Taleworlds will never apologize for naming their game "Bannerlord" and subsequently creating the most barebones banner creator they could. We will forever wonder what happened to the promise of a true banner creating simulator, where you could place 2 whole icons and change their size, color, location, and rotation even. A true pipedream of personal creativity where you could choose between patterns and use the brand new feature which dropped this year that makes color selection a breeze, the RGB Color Wheel! We will never hear an apology for this (or all the pages of issues that still persist in the talewatered down game)
