Mount and blade 2

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Gamescon has delivered onto us some mount ad blade 2 news and I think we might have enough to chew on. We get two videos. The first is the trailer that shows off tavern games, weapon crafting, weather effects and the really cool looking sieges, but I think the B-roll is the more telling. It shows the character creator, the equip screen as well as the new map. (And other stuff I forget to mention.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbaWgLjN6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpkrdMAyCmo

So what do people think? I think the siege battles look impressive, but I am worried that we didn't see any enemies, so I don't know if they are even in a working state. The character creator looks good, not super advanced, but it has all the choices I need. The big thing for me is actually the map because it shows villages with different improvements right on the map. It would be good if villages weren't all the same this time around. (MnB has a problem with cut and paste.)

 

[Zhukov]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

 

[Frission]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

I thought it was an improvement over the original. The combat itself is decent at it's core and I prefer new content over graphics personally.

OT: Yeah, Mount and Blade Vanilla could start to become bland after-awhile, which is why it was important to install mods. Any attempt to make the land feel more 'alive' is welcome.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

I'm in agreement here. The original M&B had decent animations for its' time, but the fact that the Bannerlords animations so far seem to be just as stiff is rather odd. Seeing as how both War of the Roses and War of the Vikings have had a very similar system but managed to have better animations, one could at least expect Bannerlords to achieve their standard.

 

[Tilly]

Loved Warband very muchly. I hope they don't mess this one up. As long as they keep that combat in place, it should be cool. And please no guns this time, they added too much pure luck into it.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

I thought it was an improvement over the original. The combat itself is decent at it's core and I prefer new content over graphics personally.

Eh, I never found the combat to be mechanically all that great. It's not terrible, but there isn't much to it.

Cavalry battles were fun in the original, but then Warband fucked up the cavalry pathing AI, changing mounted battles from wheeling, mobile skirmishes to big bunched up clusterfucks, just like the infantry battles.

I don't demand cutting edge, million dollar animation from an indie outfit. But it's 2015 damn it, I expect better than this. M&B's amateur efforts don't even measure up to late PS2 standards.

 

[Frission]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

I thought it was an improvement over the original. The combat itself is decent at it's core and I prefer new content over graphics personally.

Eh, I never found the combat to be mechanically all that great. It's not terrible, but there isn't much to it.

Cavalry battles were fun in the original, but then Warband fucked up the cavalry pathing AI, changing mounted battles from wheeling, mobile skirmishes to big bunched up clusterfucks, just like the infantry battles.

I don't demand cutting edge, million dollar animation from an indie outfit. But it's 2015 damn it, I expect better than this. M&B's amateur efforts don't even measure up to late PS2 standards.

Yeah, the AI is very stupid. The issues sort of gets better in multi-player, but hopefully the devs will make some smarter AI lords and units, because one of the major drawbacks in M&B, when you realize how the stupid the lords are. The Combat isn't that great, but I thought it got weight, speed and momentum down right. It only works on small instances though and large battles and sieges are a mess. Not to mention the cavalry problem.

I don't mind the combat as much if they fix large battles and add something more than the usual, parry, block and riposte. Hopefully the graphics will get on line with War of the Roses and they might add better political options.

 

[Elfgore]

Voiced dialouge, shiny new graphics, actually semi-realistic death animations, and gambling. Release it already, you bastards! It's been going on three years now!

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

I thought it was an improvement over the original. The combat itself is decent at it's core and I prefer new content over graphics personally.

OT: Yeah, Mount and Blade Vanilla could start to become bland after-awhile, which is why it was important to install mods. Any attempt to make the land feel more 'alive' is welcome.

Combat would be hard to improve without dropping what makes the combat different. You know, you wouldn't really want to do something like a brawler.

Vanilla could get down right dull after awhile. I mean I can think of of so many tweeks and changes I whould want to see. (Mostly on the overland portion.) I think the big issue is that MnB establishes a gameplay loop early and then never changed it in anything but numbers.

 

[the_dramatica]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

making board games costs a lot less resources than animations if you use irl people.

 

[DEAD34345]

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

The terrible animations are a side effect of the way the combat system works, I don't think the problem is that they just don't care to improve them. They could make a new combat system that isn't about holding and blocking attacks in cardinal directions if they wanted I'm sure, but it'd be a bit of a silly risk to take when the combat system is one of the things people really liked about the first game.

 

[Silverbeard]

Warband's animations felt fine, actually. Straightforward, quick to execute and perfectly useable.
I really don't want to see my avatar doing flips or pirouettes. In a Mount and Blade fight, every second counts and if I've just parried a blow, I want to transition to a swing of my own before the other bastard gets his guard up. Flashy but complex twirlie whirlies would get in the way of that.

What I believe Mount and Blade combat needs, though, is some sort of lunge move. As presently designed, there's no way for a foot character to charge at an enemy and deliver a strike. One has to plod over and bop the foe, which aside from looking drab, doesn't really give an attacker many options for the first strike in combat.

 

[Bat Vader]

Can't wait for the first Game of Thrones and Lord of The Rings mods for it. Bannerlord is going to be awesome.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I want a new skill system. They haven't show any of that so I can still hope. The skills in MnB are kind of boring in that they are basically just improvements in numbers. (A critical problem through out the game in fact.) I want something more like a perk system because they allow for a lot of flexibility and diversity.

 

[StormShaun]

*Bangs table*

Be good, be good, be good, be good, be good, be good!
Lord above, please make it damned good!

If it is good, I'll get a damn good PC to play it.
Because I love this series, and Viking Conquest keeps pooping out on my computer.

Apart from that, the videos show some neat things. I like the way the map looks. I just hope that they've added more features, and improved the most essential things.

EDIT:
One thing I would love, if there was a more in-depth kingdom/ruler system.
Such examples would be, to have children, a mistress, or to even adopt children or have your lover die.
Also a new game plus mode, except basically, you die, and you become your child. I think it would be interesting if you suddenly became King and have to build up your skills again.

 

[Silverbeard]

EDIT:
One thing I would love, if there was a more in-depth kingdom/ruler system.
Such examples would be, to have children, a mistress, or to even adopt children or have your lover die.
Also a new game plus mode, except basically, you die, and you become your child. I think it would be interesting if you suddenly became King and have to build up your skills again.

This reminds of Sword of the Samurai, a Microprose title from... the mid 90s, maybe?
It was basically this except very much in need of seasoning. Your first character would rise through the ranks of his clan until dying (of either old age or a spear in the chest) and his son would take over. If the player had no sons at the time of death, it was game over.
Could be a good title for Mount and blade, no doubt. It might be constrained a bit by the timeframe- no campaign I've played lasted more than 400 days- but maybe there'll be a way to retire or 'jump' time forward by a few decades...

 

[Kontarek]

One thing that always drove me nuts about sieges in Warband was when you had to continue the fight in the streets and castle keep. It didn't matter if you brought 700+ troops with you at the start, you were always stuck leading like 2 or 3 shitty units against 8 enemy knights. At the very least, the game should have only pooled these randomly selected troops from your own army and not your allies' armies--then you could've ensured that only elite units would be backing you up.

I also hated the fact that you couldn't control how many archers were spawning in a siege. You only need archers for countering the enemy's archers (and for putting them in a strategic spot within the walls once your infantry have broken through), but the game keeps spawning goddamn archers with every round of reinforcements. Eventually, you've got nothing but archers remaining and are forced to send them up the wall in order to cull their numbers and get more reinforcements to spawn. It's complete fucking madness.

So uh, it'd be great if sieges weren't entirely comprised of annoying bullshit this time around.

 

[Pseudonym]

Looks nice. Shiny new graphics, bigger and better looking cities, a replay function more stuff in general. I hope they do the same thing to mount and blade as paradox did with CKII and add some non-feudal cultures. The kergit khanate could be nomadic, the nords could be tribal so that rather than castles they'd have encampments or tribes. I really liked the first mount and blade. Warband was a bit too similar to the first one for my taste but I will certainly get this when it's out.

I'm a little mystified as to why they'd prioritize things like seasons and board games over making the combat animation look not-shit.

I probably won't be playing the boardgames but properly executed seasons can add a lot to immersion and variety. The combat animations look fine to me but I don't have much of an eye for that. The last mount and blade didn't look that good but it was never the graphics that made it good. So it makes sense to me why they wouldn't focus on that now.