Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord

[Shin]

It looks like exactly the same game as before, with some new shaders, character models, a new UI and a crafting system. Which is fine but does makes me wonder wtf they've been doing for all this time (show me some siege combat dammit). Eh, they did mention they had a board game in the tavern now, so I guess there's that.

I'll still buy it at day one, as repentance for buying M&B:W heavily discounted.

 

[Siveon]

This really is just tweaked up Warband. Cool.

Dream RPG, is that you...?

Your dream RPG looks a lot like a strategy game.

 

[M. AQVILA]

This really is just tweaked up Warband. Cool.

Dream RPG, is that you...?

Your dream RPG looks a lot like a strategy game.

My favourite genres are Role-playing and Strategy so... I also like history, particularly classical antiquity. The only way this game could be better is if it was set in the classical period and featured fantasy elements.

 

[Mustawd]

This really is just tweaked up Warband. Cool.

Dream RPG, is that you...?

Your dream RPG looks a lot like a strategy game.

My favourite genres are Role-playing and Strategy so... I also like history, particularly classical antiquity. The only way this game could be better is if it was set in the classical period and featured fantasy elements.

Reminds me a bit of DAoC MMO.

 

[Metro]

Looks like something that shouldn't be taking six years to develop.

 

[Merlkir]

They announced it September 2012, so given they might've started working on it half a year before, that's still only 4 years, not 6.
I've talked to an ex dev from the studio and according to him, there were some issues circa 2014, with a problematic employee, some re-dos of assets etc.
Still, entirely new engine and all that. Plus the game is twice the size of Warband. It's not something I personally cared about, but if you look at the videos, the cities look really good now. Having worked on The Last Days of the Third Age for years, I know all too well how long locations take to build.

edit: Oh and I absolutely think Paradox fucked them over big time (legally) and in some shape or form delayed Bannerlord a LOT, so their shitty MP Warband clones had a chance of success. Luckily they split up not that long ago.

 

[Raapys]

Well, look at how little they did from the M&B alpha in 2005 to the release of Warbands in 2010; the combat, overland movement and cities was already implemented when I bought it in 2005. The amount of progress they did in those 5 years is miniscule. They're arguably the slowest developers in history.

 

[Merlkir]

You do realize they mainly focused on developing multiplayer at that point, right?

 

[Got bored and left]

edit: Oh and I absolutely think Paradox fucked them over big time (legally) and in some shape or form delayed Bannerlord a LOT, so their shitty MP Warband clones had a chance of success. Luckily they split up not that long ago.

Oh, I was not aware of this. What happened?

 

[Merlkir]

edit: Oh and I absolutely think Paradox fucked them over big time (legally) and in some shape or form delayed Bannerlord a LOT, so their shitty MP Warband clones had a chance of success. Luckily they split up not that long ago.

Oh, I was not aware of this. What happened?

It's all speculation and I would have to go do some digging to put a complete timeline together. But while it was clear TW were working on a sequel and even after the uneventful announcement of Bannerlord (an empty teaser trailer with a press release saying nothing), there was zero press, none of the developers talked about Bannerlord at all.
It wasn't until the split with Paradox that they started doing the dev journals and so on.
I think there was definitely something going on, either stalling production itself, or a gag order on production updates.

Paradox published Warband to (I would call it that anyway) great success and then proceeded to have another company make one clone of its multiplayer part after another. (War of the Roses and War of the Vikings) Even at the time I thought it was a major dick move towards TW, but people were happy to see some games trying to do the same thing as Warband.

People sometimes say that developing With Fire and Sword, Napoleonic Wars and Viking Conquest took away from TW's resources they could've devoted to Bannerlord, but I think the sum effect was minimal. They did help with the port of WFaS to the Warband engine and did support it with patches for some time, they did help with patching of NW and VC, but all these games/DLC were made by separate teams who licensed the engine, TW were working on Bannerlord at the same time.

As I said, it's my speculation that something went seriously sour in the deal with Paradox. Another possibility could be that they did waste time and somehow forced Paradox to drop them, but it sure as hell didn't feel like it - everything loosened up and things actually started happening with Bannerlord, after they split up. (the way they announced it too, seemed quite happy about having the power over their games back)

edit: quick Googling:
January 2008 - TW sign on with Paradox
March 2010 - Warband release
October 2nd 2012 - War of the Roses is released.
October 29th 2012 - Bannerlord announced.
November 22nd 2013 - First Bannerlord dev blog released
January 2014 - TW and Paradox split up.

So the first blog was released before they split up officially, but I think it's safe to assume it was already decided at that point.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Looks like something that shouldn't be taking six years to develop.

You must be as good at Mount&Blade as Eddard Stark.

 

[Old One]

Atmosphere and graphics are fine, but what MB1 always needed was a simpler way to mod dialogue and quests. That was nightmarish.

I'd also like better collision so swinging your giant sword means anyone in the path of it gets hit whether they are friend, foe, or neutral. I hate it when combat systems ignore potential damage to allies.

Prevent horses from galloping along extreme slopes as well.

Oh, and a nude mod, of course.

 

[Moink]

Well, look at how little they did from the M&B alpha in 2005 to the release of Warbands in 2010; the combat, overland movement and cities was already implemented when I bought it in 2005. The amount of progress they did in those 5 years is miniscule. They're arguably the slowest developers in history.

Wasn't that just the husband and wife team, no extra staff? I would imagine they weren't working full time on the game at the time.

 

[Raapys]

I don't know when they started hiring other people, but I'm fairly certain they were working full time on it in 2005. They were selling the alpha, and the game had an explosive popularity at the time. When the game was released two years later, it was still pretty much the same, just minor tweaks and additions(like the improved arena and hirable npcs). Then, when Warbands came three years later, they had tacked on mp battles and the kingdom stuff.

 

[Metro]

They announced it September 2012, so given they might've started working on it half a year before, that's still only 4 years, not 6.

It's not out yet.

 

[Merlkir]

I think they expanded the studio for Warband, after the success and after they could afford it.

Multiplayer was a big deal, for years we've been told they couldn't add it to MnB because of the game's architecture. Obviously with Warband, they counted on having MP from the start and I assume that's what the majority of the work went into.

 

[Bliblablubb]

Does it feature tastefully done rape?

You have to wait for the "Bonerlord DLC" for that.

Heh, it's been so long that I played a M&B, I am actually pretty hyped for this game. When it comes out in 2017. Or 2018.

 

[Lemming42]

It doesn't look much different, but all they really needed to do to justify it as a sequel was have more and deeper quests with player choice, slightly touched-up combat, visual enhancements, a new world map and factions/characters and a couple of tweaks.

Even then, as long as the multiplayer is as fun as it was in Warband then it's completely worth the purchase.

 

[Excidium II]

I never played M&B but this seems neat. Some hairstyle options caught my eye.

 

[Tacgnol]

I never played M&B but this seems neat. Some hairstyle options caught my eye.

It's probably worth playing the original or Warband to get a feel for the (in my opinion, excellent) combat. The combat engine seems to be mostly the same.

 

[Mark Richard]

Chat was rowdy during the live showing on Youtube. The show made the mistake of pushing the Bannerlord presentation to the end of the day, so for hours any game that wasn’t Bannerlord received a poor reaction. Democracy 3 appeared and the mood was ‘Boo! Give us Bannerlord ya twats!’ When Dawn of War II: Retribution showed up it was ‘Bannerlord or we riot!’

And those were just the comments from me.

Digesting the footage has left me wondering whether it’ll command the same attention as Warband, but for those who are underwhelmed by the improvements shown thus far, keep in mind that single-player in Mount & Blade: Warband could be described as icing on top of the original Mount & Blade, and the result was fantastic.

 

[Moink]

They put bannerlord at the end of the stream on purpose so people will actually bother to watch the entire thing, even if people were screaming for it in chat they were still viewing the other games on stream.

 

[Turisas]

I never played M&B but this seems neat. Some hairstyle options caught my eye.

 

[Old One]

I wouldn't want the graphics to be too good anyway. They're improved a bit, and that's enough. It's much more important to have bigger maps and more soldiers on the screen at once. In fact, as far as graphics go, I'd rather have bloodstains, corpses, and ragdolls that don't nuke performance the way they do in Warband than larger, fancier textures.

 

[Tacgnol]

Hopefully they've optimised the engine better as well. M&B and Warband were not particularly well optimised.