I don't agree that a sequel must automatically have everything first game had plus lots of extra. That works when you compare games like BG1 and BG2 where both games use same engine and you can port most of the work done for BG1 into BG2 and then just improve upon it. But this game was done from scratch so you need to recreate it all from zero. Only thing you got is idea of how you did it the first time and how you can do it better now and try to do that but amount of work is still the same or more (if new engine is worse in some ways or very different than old one).
It's not about reusing assets or code. It's about having a better understanding of how to design the game. Bannerlord is fundamentally the same game as Warband, yet with the exception of the combat, they failed to improve it in any meaningful way.
Most people would consider that a major failure, especially after TEN FUCKING YEARS of development.
1. So you are saying 1st game had all these advanced AI and strategizing? If not, I don't see how it is worse than 1st game.
Is your argument that if Warband was bad at something, that it's okay for Bannerlord to be bad at it too?
Again, TEN FUCKING YEARS of development. For what? To shit out the same game with a new coat of paint but all the same flaws as the original? Your expectations are shockingly low.
2. I do agree that costs for troops and your own equipment is completely crazy but I can understand why they designed it that way and in the end I don't mind it. Makes it fun to grind your way to good stuff while also be able to have and pay for elite units. Blacksmiting thing was fixed in the meantime and I am sure it will be changed even more if needed. While you can say building stuff in cities is "free" the reality is that if you don't leave 50 000 gold in each city/castle to speed it up, it might as well be never built. Also while you are building stuff you cannot choose to use passive bonuses like getting more money from it so it is easy explained that you are spending that money into this.
If they needed a gold sink so badly, the fief upgrades were a much better option. Because unlike equipment, fief upgrades can't be looted and sold, and it actually makes sense why building a huge piece of infrastructure would cost a lot of money compared to something like a suit of armor. And a player is going to have a lot more emotional investment in something like their home base, compared to just a generic suit of armor that isn't even special but for some inexplicable reason costs more than an entire army of troops.
3. I don't know about modding scene in either games so I cannot comment on it, but base game Bannerlord is fun enough, I didn't see a need to mod that. Especially since it is Early Access, I don't know why you would expect Early Access game to provide full modding support like a game that was worked on a lot, polished, had expansions and shit.
It was expected to provide extensive mod support because (a) mods were an absolutely vital part of why the first game was so successful and (b) the developers advertised it as a selling point for Bannerlord.
4. I don't care about multiplayer at all.
Me either, but it's something else they managed to fuck up, despite having all the time and resources in the world to get it right.
5. I don't see a problem with quests, did first game not have quests? Reward is better than getting some gold or items, you get those in other ways. Being able to recruit better troops is awesome reward. Also you can have your clan parties roam around and they do these quests automatically and raise reputation for your clan with all the villlages or you can put a companion to be a governor and it raises reputation automatically over time. Did 1st game have any more complex relationships with nobles in the world? As for head chopping, killing captured nobles was considered breaking all social contracts even in our history. And since you want to compare to GoT, it is similar to what happened there. Starks killed noble prisoners, it ended up with their heads on spike in Red Wedding. In game you lose rep only with those connected with killed person (clan+family+friends), not everyone.
Again, you're back to "if Warband didn't have it then it's okay if Bannerlord doesn't" which is absurd.
If the devs weren't trying to create meaningful NPC interactions, then why did they design a relationship system, an influence system, personality traits, a persuasion mini-game, etc? Why not just copy Pirates and have generic, nameless governors and enemy captains for you to beat up? The answer is they tried, they just suck, so none of it works and none of it is fun.
And speaking of the Red Wedding, the reason that happened is because Robb Stark was in open rebellion against the King, and he agreed to married one of the daughters from House Frey in order to secure their support in the war. However, Stark went back on his agreement, which pissed off Walder Frey and led him to switch his allegiance to the Lannisters and orchestrate the massacre.
This is exactly the sort of storytelling that the interpersonal systems in Bannerlord should at least be attempting to emulate. But it doesn't even come close.
Combat is the best part of this game, the rest of the systems can be improved but they are already pretty fun. You seem to want some kind of Crusader Kings with real time combat game. I don't think expecting grand strategy mechanics in a game like this is realistic. It would also slow down the main part of the charm of this game which is awesome combat and commanding your troops.
Yes, I wanted a game that allowed me to have fun roleplaying as a feudal lord. Fighting wars is a big part of that, but there is plenty more that goes into it... diplomacy, negotiation, managing your lands, managing your image to the common people, etc etc etc.
Like I said, if you enjoy autistically grinding your way through battle after battle after battle just for the sake of it, then more power to you. Most of us were looking for a deeper experience.
But most of all I asked for comparison with first game with details and you went on rant without really comparing and your main reason for being unhappy is not that 1st game did things better (it seems to have did most important things worse like you said) but that you had unrealistic expectations for this game. You made it in your head into something that was never going to be made and was never planned to be made.
No, if I was inventing stuff in my head to be mad about, I'd ask why they didn't include castle building, or naval combat, or any gameplay systems to emulate the immense role that religion played in feudal societies.
What I expected from Bannerlord was (a) fun combat and (b) an interesting role-playing experience. They did pretty well on the first one, and absolutely horrible on the second.
If the devs were smart enough to understand what did and didn't work about the RPG aspects of Warband, there is no reason why they couldn't have improved them quite a bit. Especially after TEN FUCKING YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT. But they didn't, which brings us back to the point that started this whole debate. Which is that developers often don't understand why people actually like their game. And my god, these guys are the fucking worst of the worst at that, as far as I'm concerned.
