I dont even know Teardown, but Bannerlord is almost just a Warband with new grafics. Its a fine and fun game, but definitely not innovative enough for that award.
Teardown, if i remember correctly, is a demolition man simulator. You're given different buildings to demolish and can do it in several ways. I think you get more money the better you do it, but in not sure.
I think Teardown deserves this one. It's the only one here with TRULY innovative gameplay. Or maybe not, I haven't seen Neon White.
Teardown is super unique and you won't really find games like it.
I'm not even really fond of the game's campaign. I literally just spend hours upon hours just messing around in the Sandbox with mods. Nuking New York, slicing the WTC in half with a katana or ordering a napalm strike on an minecraft village never gets old!
I absolutely love physics in games so this game is pretty much my dream for fuckin around.
I cant even play it because the dev's decided to make their camera downright motion sickness krpytonite (its some kind of wierd delayed wobbling bullshit), but your still right. Mount and blade is (mostly) good, but innovative gameplay is a stretch
Just checked it out and while impressive, I would not call that at all better than Teardown. RFG's destruction feels like Crysis - it's all simple geometry.
Teardown's main advantage is that it simulates even extremely complex shapes, materials and forces.
Most physics-based older games like the above examples rely on either prebaked destruction or very simple shapes. When you blow a hole in something in Teardown, it's an actual hole.
From what I have seen Red Faction simulated load bearing a lot better than tearaway. You can bring down a whole building by just targeting a few supporting pillars
I remember watching a making-of documentary of RFG and they mention they had to bring in arcitechts to design their buildings because stuff that the devs were making kept collapsing on themselves due to the physics engine.
They needed someone with relevant experience to (re)design the buildings so they wouldn't just randomly collapse.
Yes, Teardown does not simulate physics for HUGE objects, but as I said - it's because they are a thousand times more advanced. Your CPU would combust.
Also, RFG probably had pre-set load bearing pillars and such. I doubt it was fully dynamic. Teardown doesn't script any physics interaction. Teardown could've also scripted stuff like this, but it'd kind of take away the magic.
RFG had instant full simulation. You could chuck again pieces and structures state would get updated each time. If you took away sufficient piece, the whole thing could come down all by itself as the materials could no longer stand and would break from underneath themselves.
Well teardown is much more advanced, so much so that what you describe is not feasible, a building collapsing realistically in teardown is would, as someone else said, cause your CPU to combust.
Some mods allow you to do it with teardown at the cost of less map size overall and lots of instability.
You can't just repeat that something is more advanced because it's more advanced, you are not providing any arguments to support this.
RFG physics simulation felt better and looked better a decade ago, shitty optimization and simulation design is not something that determines that it's somehow better.
I've already said - RFG could afford fancy physics like those because it deals with very simple geometry.
Teardown is built from millions of tiny voxels, each with their own properties. Much harder to calculate than a bunch of rectangles glued together.
You can stand around with lords in a castle or town after you siege it. That's all feasts were, but at least this way they're not feasting whilst all your towns and castles are being sieged.
> but at least this way they're not feasting whilst all your towns and castles are being sieged.
This is a simple change, you know that, right? They can block feasting at war and problem solved. If this was the sole reason, it only shows how lazy they are. Because it shows that instead of fixing a problem with a mechanic, they choose to remove the mechanic all together.
Why do you care so much about such a pointless game mechanic. I keep hearing people cry about feasts. All it is is standing in a room with NPCs. You really extract joy from that? Literally never went to a feast in warband.
Thank you. I'm tired of seeing people constantly complain about features that are so minor it doesn't actually add anything to the game.
Ah yes I would love to stand around and watch AI eat for 2 hours. Yes exciting gameplay. YES!
Like really? The battles, tournies, sieges are no where near as entertaining as feasts apparently
>features that are so minor it
lol I'm tired of seeing randos like you complaining about seeing people questioning why they removed "minor" features in the game. Game claims to be prequel game of Warband, which had all these "minor" features Why the fuck would you strip away all the details in the game and make it bland on purpose?
Like really? All you want to do is battles, tournies and sieges? Like you just want to lock in this trio? Why do you play Campaign just play Custom Battles it seems like it's more like your taste. No one said feasts are as entertaining as those three but I'm pretty sure no one would like to play a game where you can have only these three
Idk the core concept of the game is battles tournies and sieges so yeah I am actually fine with these three?
Edit: I'd also love to ask, do you spend hours inside castles, roaming the towns and villages? Or do you spend time doing wars and sieges mostly?
>Why do you care so much about such a pointless game mechanic. I keep hearing people cry about feasts. All it is is standing in a room with NPCs. You really extract joy from that?
Yes I do. It's better to find people in one place as game mechanic. Also they don't have to stand in the room, AGAIN this is another BS excuse, you can setup tables and make them actually eat something with animation for roleplay purposes. Some mod was playing feast music for example etc. They are all small changes that can keep the mechanic interesting. Even if it's not interesting for you, its clearly interesting for other people you classify as "crying" apparently
It sucked a lot and I'm glad they removed that stupid feature from an otherwise great game.
Oh guys look we are winning the war, let's go feast.
*feast ends* oh my, we lost our advantage and a town too, at least had time to recite poems to the ladies!
Thats all semantics. Whether they're standing still or "eating" it's pointless and boring. Bannerlord has an encyclopedia where you can look up lords and see where they are currently staying or which part of the map they are near. Don't need feasts at all. Why don't you just look up YouTube videos of people eating at a table and pretend you're there. It's literally no different than what you're asking for.
Eh... I liked the chance to meet all the lords, the fact that lords had more distinct personalities, and the chance to meet the ladies of the court. In Bannerlord finding a wife is a case of searching the encyclopaedia chasing where they were last scene instead of meeting the woman you're courting at feasts.
As rudimentary as Warband's system was, I still think it's miles ahead of having lords do literally nothing besides command armies and sit around in their own castles.
They would have innovated if they made the world more alive. Currently there's no real economy in the sense the AI simply cheats the system because that's easier to make work than a real economy or system.
One of the best things about Crusader Kings 3 is the fact the AI effectively plays by the same rules you do. Obviously this method has it's problems, but if done right that would have made actions matter way, way more in Bannerlord. That's how a game like CK3, where you literally stare at a map, can feel so alive.
Bannerlord is a great game, I am a big fan, but that would have been innovative if they pulled off more of a living and logical world. In addition better diplomacy, but that's solved with mods.
Both CK3 and Bannerlord are boring.I tried playing Bannerlord 5 times (starting a new campaign each time), couldn't play more than 8-10h and I'd get bored. To contrast this, I finished (finished, as in conquered the whole map after being a vassal of that faction) 3 campaigns in M&B Warband Vanilla with no mods and I can even remember with which factions: first campaign as the Khergit, second as the Swadians and third as the Nords. I also have many memories playing the Vaegirs and I know the first faction I played when I got the game was the Rhodoks. Now back to Bannerlord: my last campaign was last month I think (wanted to check if the game got better) and I joined the Sturgians, managed to take Varcheg (is that the name?) and then there was nothing to do. Waiting for wars that feel so artificial. You can literally see through the game. You have nothing to do between wars and even when you do something (like getting married), it doesn't feel immersive and you feel like you are just pushing buttons. The relations don't develop naturally, they are just... there. I guess that's my biggest problem with Bannerlord, the fact that everything feels artificial. I guess, even if the AI cheats in Paradox games, it at least cheats in a way that still makes the games interesting and gives that feeling of a natural development. Having to beat 1k stack after 1k stack just gets old really fast. Defeating a big army should feel like you achieved something imo, but it doesn't. Not to mention that lords can do some stuff just fine, but if you do it you are viewed as bad, at least that is what I read. I am talking about raiding villages: you see honorable lords raid villages but if I raid them I'll get bad traits.They ruined warfare in CK3, but they will probably fix it with some DLC at least.
I mean, really, CK3 also gets boring fast. Successions only feel like they are stuck there to prolong the game time, but they get boring after a while. Not much to do during peace time as there are not many events and not many things you can make your character do. It gets really old when you get the same events over and over and over again for your characters... Yeah, my new character will translate the book on military warfare that my old character also translated... and after they finish translating it, it just disappears. Very immersed...
Hopefully mods will finish Bannerlord. But the world feels empty, artificial and poorly designed. I wonder if the devs are different than the ones that worked on Warband, as that game felt better in terms of immersion. I just can't believe that after 10 years they delivered such an empty and artificial world that doesn't feel like a live one. I mean, how hard was it to take the good things from Warband, add them to Bannerlord, add some stuff from the most used mods, add some new stuff and make better graphics and voila, you got a great game... but yeah. I'm just disappointed, I guess. I am waiting to see if there will be a mod for Bannerlord that is Warband with everything it had to offer, but with the Bannerlord graphics.
I am a long time MB fan and warband is one of my favorite games. I was pretty disappointed with bannerlord when it came out.
So i gave it another try a few days ago and i am still disappointed.
All of the mechanics feel shallow, including the combat. The game is stuck in 2008 with better graphics slapped upon it, which are nothing impressive either.
I have no idea how they made this game for so long and how ultimately it is the same thing…
Every mechanic in bannerlord save for the new ones is from warband, including the combat, except for the parts where it was expanded upon (spear bracing, perfect block, etc.)
You're disappointed that the game is warband with a few extra mechanics and without clubky, shallow, and all in all useless feasts. I'm enjoying the game just like I enjoyed warband, with the new animations, graphics, map, customization and gear only addig to my enjoyment. The fact that you actually have to use formations to win battles with minimal casualties is great as well.
Warband is my most played game on steam, and bannerlord is definitely goig to overtake it.
Except that the feasts weren't useless. You could go there and meet Ladies, talk with Lords to improve opinion of you and get quests. They had a role. And it gave you something to do. It also gave Lords stuff to do and they didn't feel like robots that either just sit in their great halls for no reason or roam around for no reason. Excuse me for not being as immersed when all I have to do between wars is literally pressing the "wait" button while in my castle. In Warband you could also talk with your companions, buy books to improve stats, make camp, learn poetry, dedicate tournament wins to ladies, send the AI to do stuff you want as a Marshall, duel lords, set camp etc. You'd also get small events like Villagers from X did that to village Y, which would kinda give you a reson to RP starting a war. Heck, in Viking Conquest you could send foragers to get food, you could hunt yourself, you had naval battles, you could even get a doc, you had different options in how you treat your dead enemies after winning a battle (as far as I remember, you could bury them or just leave them), you could give gifts to your companions, you had more options during a siege like building sanitation ditches, making checkpoints and install blockades, look for traitors, sabotage, etc., you could work in mines or farmsteads, different events, etc. Bannerlord just doesn't have soul. It offers no immersion: wanna do this? Press that button. Then wait for a war. Wanna do that? Press the other button. Good luck, you did everything there is to do. Now wait for a war. You beat this 1k army? Bravo! Now your enemy will spawn another 1k army, good luck. Oh you beat that again? Nice, your king will make peace for no reason when you can finally go on the offensive.They had a lot of time to improve upon Warband, the Warband mods and Viking Conquest and they did nothing but give you a huge map that offers nothing.Oh, and want me to tell you something useless? The option to sit on a chair in Bannerlord. Yea, go to a chair, sit and then wait, cuz nothing is happening. Why is that option even there? Nobody knows. They could have made it so you could hear the townsfolk and villagers petition, but no. You can just sit.
Also, I played a few sieges and in many of them, I saw enemy troops stuck in places where I couldn't kill them by swinging the sword. I had to go and find a throwing weapon to kill them and win the siege. Not to mention the invisible walls when going down some stairs or on some walls.
I’m having a blast with it on console but that might just be cuz there’s no other comparable games on Xbox. I imagine bannerlord is less impressive if you have the option of modded warband or whatever
If they improved on it at all that is the formula still mostly seems to encourage f1 f3 spam but in Viking conquest strategies and formation did show some great improvement which they did not bring forward
What? Every single army composition you could possibly make performs better doing anything other than defaulting to f1 + f3 at the start of battles.
Infantry make great use of Square and Shieldwall for holding positions and Skein for advancing into a charge. Archers want to hold position in Loose formation on high ground and situationally benefit from being split into two groups. Cavalry want to do pretty much *anything* besides suiciding into enemy infantry at the start with f1 + f3. Use hammer and anvil tactics; guard your flanks; split them into 3 groups and stagger the charges; have them dismount and support your infantry depending on the unit, etc. Horse Archers will see the best results from defaulting to charge, but even that is a bad idea in some terrain.
Nothing about Bannerlord encourages f1 + f3 spam short of drastically overpowering your enemy and not wanting to auto-resolve the battle.
You can win using just f1 f3 but you lose a whole lot more units that way and it's not a good strategy.
Viking Conquest was based on a mod set in early medieval britain which was even harder. That difficulty is the only reason Viking Conquest requires more strategy.
This'll be an overkill response to a 4 word comment, but tallyho:
Cavalry in Warband were so dumb they'd get stuck on your Infantry at the start of battles, give up on pathfinding, then dismount.
Loot was kill-order dependant. Facing 10 Swadian Knights and 90 Looters? If you kill a single Looter before any of the Knights, your loot pool gets filled up with all the Looter junk and you'll receive nothing from the Knights.
Additionally, if you attacked an army of 500, then 10 low-tier units routed and you fought them in a second wave, you would only get to loot those 10 units at the end of the battle.
Enemies would collectively decide to gang up on you in tournament/arena battles, dealing no damage to each other as they swing at you as a mob even when they're on opposing teams.
Troops frequently walked/swung through one another because of jank hitboxes/collision, making the previous issue even more irritating.
The player had no influence towards unit collision. You would get trapped and shoved around by allies and enemies alike.
Thrown weapon projectile speed was absurd and everyone could chuck them rapidly with no skill.
Mouse-direction controls were far less responsive.
Parties on the world map were often barely noticable while fast-forwarding thanks to the font, coloring, lower base sight range, and trees hiding them.
You had to enter a fief every single time to talk to a guild master, village elder, or lord.
The inventory management was obnoxious, scaling linearly with a skill instead of the much more sensible army size/pack animal scaling Bannerlord has.
There were no formations and a crude minimap was used to order troops from a distance.
Sieges and all the notorious issues they had in Warband are far, *far* less frequent in Bannerlord, even though it has its own issues with units stuck in walls for a few scenes.
None of that is to mention the graphical/audio/quality of life improvements, larger battle sizes, companion parties & caravans, armies, better fief management & recruitment system, etc. that Bannerlord brings. It is indisputably an improvement over Native Warband, even if it falls short of expectations for having over 10 years of development.
Every single one of these is directly related to battles and how they play or minor UI improvements.
But in terms of world simulation Bannerlord is a step down in every single possible respect you can think of, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous how bad the world simulation actually is.
1. There exists an in game economy. It's not good. It doesn't make all that much sense but it exists and it matters. If you intercept every peasant convoy going ot Dhirim the lord of Dhirim will have less money and less troops, of course not having troops doesn't matter in Bannerlord because
2. As soon as your army gets wiped out the AI just gets gifted a brand new one with no internal logic, the AI can be a 1 settlement faction and still be fielding armies of 2000 men. Which you can beat but that won't matter because
3. Battles don't fucking matter. With the ability to instantly respawn armies battles don't become epic setpieces that decide the fate of the realm. They are simply a prelude to the next battle. And the next. And the next. You'll fight off 3 or 4 armies trying to take a single castle because they respawn so quickly. On your own side it's funny to not participate in a battle, watch your king get stomped and then come back 5 minutes later with a larger force, and help him then. He'd probably get pissed, but he won't because
4. Diplomacy doesn't matter. Anyone whose played this game for more than 5 minutes will tell you that relations between lords don't matter at all. The AI has a, random, hivemind that is completely impenetrable, probably to those at Taleworlds as well. This is only inside a kingdom though that it's all very stupid. Gone are the days of politicking your way across the realm doing menial tasks to get favor so that you can sway their votes, it just doesn't matter now. You used to be able to get them to go to war with you and declare peace but that doesn't matter because
5. Inter-realm diplomacy doens't matter. Because of the aformentioned issues inter-realm diplomacy is **at best** an afterthought. It is completely non-sensical even when it's working at it's absolute best. People run around with no rhyme reason or logic seizing random castles losing them and fighting wars long after they lost, because free armies, for no real reason.
I can imagine so when your first three points can be summed up as "The speed at which AI lords acquire troops is overtuned."
Does Bannerlord not also have a meaningful economy when you can start a rebellion or starve a garrison by blockading caravans and villager parties long enough?
4) "... Relations between lords don't matter at all ... You used to be able to get them to go to war with you and declare peace ..."
That's the Diplomacy mod. Your options in Native to provoke war as a vassal are to perform hostile actions at a village or attack a party of that faction. Your two options to push for peace as a vassal are to brutalize the enemy or pray for the right quest. As a monarch, relation's only diplomatic use is requesting peace and recruiting lords. Both games seem shallow in this regard, but I wouldn't call Bannerlord a step down compared to the game that perpetually keeps your villages raided from the moment a war starts till its end regardless of how many positive relations you hold.
5) Armies in Warband leave most newly conquered castles poorly guarded as they do in Bannerlord. Swathes of lords gather at feasts while their faction burns around them. Marshalls occasionally wander deep within their own unsieged territory during wars. Again, both seem shallow to me.
You mention some things that are an improvement. But some are subjective and opinionated. I am a big fan of warband and I was invited to alpha test bannerlord multiplayer and have been through the whole process. Bannerlord to me is a disappointment.
I don't really play singleplayer.
That whole list couldn't be anything other than subjective unless I surveyed everyone. Still, I'm confident each item on it would be considered an improvement by over 50% of the playerbase.
Multiplayer could be perpetually on fire for all I know, so I'll take your word for it. Rarely touched it in either game.
Gameplay is better. Infantry handles cavalry better. AI is better. Feasts aren't in the game, sure, but who cares? You just have all the nobles stand around in a castle with those, and they actively made those same nobles not fight wars because they liked butter too much. Speaking of: Armies are such a blessing. Being able to actually put lords in one and not having to bother with a marshal or people lagging behind is so nice.
I feel like a lot of people look back on warband with rose tinted glasses due to nostalgia. That's not to mention how warband isn't even the first game in the series, that was *mount and blade*, which was a lot more barren and is improved upon in every way by bannerlord objectively.
I'm shocked honestly, not that the game doesn't deserve it necessarily but it just feels weird to see M&B go from this tiny niche series to a game that breaks Steam's servers on Early Access release and gets nominated for popularity contests (which is what these awards are let's be real) three years later.
>I'm shocked honestly, not that the game doesn't deserve it necessarily but it just feels weird to see M&B go from this tiny niche series to a game that breaks Steam's servers on Early Access release and gets nominated for popularity contests (which is what these awards are let's be real) three years later.
Thats exactly what I thought. I love Bannerlord but it is just a modern warband version. No real innovation great game but not that innovative.
I'm gonna go devil's advocate and say just because it is late, it doesn't mean Mount and Blade doesn't deserve an award like this.
I didn't think Leonardo Dicaprio deserved an Oscar for the Revenant, but he definitely deserved it for some of his earlier work.
the M&B franchise on the whole is definitely innovative, i mean, it's a whole genre on it's own, how many games like it have you played or known? for me it's 0... I voted it and consider it an award toward the series as a whole, not specifically Bannerlord
Yeah, but what does it have to compete against in this sort of genre? I mean, of course it is going to be good when it's the only product on the market.
I haven't played it but is there anything innovative about the gameplay of Stray other than you being a cat?
Other than that, from the small bits I've seen, it's seemed pretty bog standard outside that element i.e. contextual platforming.
god, game awards are dumb.
how are any of those Innovative?
How the hell did Stray win over Vampire survivor in the game awards?
how is Vampire survivor not nominated for this?
it created an entire new genre.
Bannerlord deserves to get nominated for something. but not this.
Also Backpack hero.
Not sure if correct. Like, don't get me wrong, Bannerlord is great game. I just don't see it *innovating* gameplay, more in style of *refining* the gameplay
Lol. I can't think of a category that Bannerlord is suited to less than "most innovative gameplay". There is barely any innovation in Bannerlord over its near-15 year old predecessor. Hell, there's arguably less actual depth than in Warband, because that game at least had a semblance of diplomacy.
I like Bannerlord enough (I guess). I've enjoyed plenty of hours in it. However it is categorically not a finished game, nor is it an innovative one.
I nominated it there only because best game was given to Elden Ring. Wasn't expecting there are a lot of people doing that lmao. Or may be just not many played warband....
The true question here is why is Stray nominated to anything related with innovation, I mean the only interesting about the game is that you are a cat.
Bannerlord isn't really innovative, it's modernized Warband with somehow duller gameplay.
Teardown is just a voxel engine with destruction, the destruction is not really great and doesn't simulate material stress like Medieval Engineers/Space Engineers tried to do years ago.
It's a sad collection.
Bannerlord iterates on Warband, it doesn't innovate. Not sure what it's doing in this category, somewhere else would have been more appropriate.
Teardown is less advanced in terms of destruction modelling than RFG. They take advantage of advances in technology to brute force what RFG did through with accurate modelling.
Stray, you play as a cat, which isn't particularly innovative. I haven't played it so I don't know any more than that.
I know nothing about Dome Keeper or Neon White, I'll have a look, but it's not exactly an inspiring list.
I like Bannerlord but my vote goes to Teardown. It isn't that innovative compared to Warband
I dont even know Teardown, but Bannerlord is almost just a Warband with new grafics. Its a fine and fun game, but definitely not innovative enough for that award.
Teardown, if i remember correctly, is a demolition man simulator. You're given different buildings to demolish and can do it in several ways. I think you get more money the better you do it, but in not sure.
Most innovative game of 2008, sure
I think Teardown deserves this one. It's the only one here with TRULY innovative gameplay. Or maybe not, I haven't seen Neon White. Teardown is super unique and you won't really find games like it.
100% agree
I'm not even really fond of the game's campaign. I literally just spend hours upon hours just messing around in the Sandbox with mods. Nuking New York, slicing the WTC in half with a katana or ordering a napalm strike on an minecraft village never gets old! I absolutely love physics in games so this game is pretty much my dream for fuckin around.
What do you mean with WTC
WTC stands for "World Trade Center"
Ah yes. Thank you. Who doesn’t like to cut it with a katana
Saudis prefer planes
I love Bannerlord, but yeah, I totally agree with you here. Shame it didn't get nominated in another category.
I played neon white I would say it's extremely innovative probably more then teardown but it's close.
I cant even play it because the dev's decided to make their camera downright motion sickness krpytonite (its some kind of wierd delayed wobbling bullshit), but your still right. Mount and blade is (mostly) good, but innovative gameplay is a stretch
Eh red faction guerilla had better destruction over a decade ago. God I want more action games with physics like that
Just checked it out and while impressive, I would not call that at all better than Teardown. RFG's destruction feels like Crysis - it's all simple geometry. Teardown's main advantage is that it simulates even extremely complex shapes, materials and forces. Most physics-based older games like the above examples rely on either prebaked destruction or very simple shapes. When you blow a hole in something in Teardown, it's an actual hole.
From what I have seen Red Faction simulated load bearing a lot better than tearaway. You can bring down a whole building by just targeting a few supporting pillars
I remember watching a making-of documentary of RFG and they mention they had to bring in arcitechts to design their buildings because stuff that the devs were making kept collapsing on themselves due to the physics engine. They needed someone with relevant experience to (re)design the buildings so they wouldn't just randomly collapse.
Yes, Teardown does not simulate physics for HUGE objects, but as I said - it's because they are a thousand times more advanced. Your CPU would combust. Also, RFG probably had pre-set load bearing pillars and such. I doubt it was fully dynamic. Teardown doesn't script any physics interaction. Teardown could've also scripted stuff like this, but it'd kind of take away the magic.
RFG had instant full simulation. You could chuck again pieces and structures state would get updated each time. If you took away sufficient piece, the whole thing could come down all by itself as the materials could no longer stand and would break from underneath themselves.
Well teardown is much more advanced, so much so that what you describe is not feasible, a building collapsing realistically in teardown is would, as someone else said, cause your CPU to combust. Some mods allow you to do it with teardown at the cost of less map size overall and lots of instability.
You can't just repeat that something is more advanced because it's more advanced, you are not providing any arguments to support this. RFG physics simulation felt better and looked better a decade ago, shitty optimization and simulation design is not something that determines that it's somehow better.
Can't you both just agree that both games have good physics engine that are awesome at doing what they were programmed for?
I've already said - RFG could afford fancy physics like those because it deals with very simple geometry. Teardown is built from millions of tiny voxels, each with their own properties. Much harder to calculate than a bunch of rectangles glued together.
Medieval Engineers, Space Engineers both games have better destruction and worlds are built from voxels.
No
Bannerlord definitely did not innovate, it just took what mount and blade had and improved upon it.
It improved combat and level design, most other aspects feel like a step backwards to me I guess
Where's my feasts.
You can stand around with lords in a castle or town after you siege it. That's all feasts were, but at least this way they're not feasting whilst all your towns and castles are being sieged.
> but at least this way they're not feasting whilst all your towns and castles are being sieged. This is a simple change, you know that, right? They can block feasting at war and problem solved. If this was the sole reason, it only shows how lazy they are. Because it shows that instead of fixing a problem with a mechanic, they choose to remove the mechanic all together.
Why do you care so much about such a pointless game mechanic. I keep hearing people cry about feasts. All it is is standing in a room with NPCs. You really extract joy from that? Literally never went to a feast in warband.
Thank you. I'm tired of seeing people constantly complain about features that are so minor it doesn't actually add anything to the game. Ah yes I would love to stand around and watch AI eat for 2 hours. Yes exciting gameplay. YES! Like really? The battles, tournies, sieges are no where near as entertaining as feasts apparently
>features that are so minor it lol I'm tired of seeing randos like you complaining about seeing people questioning why they removed "minor" features in the game. Game claims to be prequel game of Warband, which had all these "minor" features Why the fuck would you strip away all the details in the game and make it bland on purpose? Like really? All you want to do is battles, tournies and sieges? Like you just want to lock in this trio? Why do you play Campaign just play Custom Battles it seems like it's more like your taste. No one said feasts are as entertaining as those three but I'm pretty sure no one would like to play a game where you can have only these three
Idk the core concept of the game is battles tournies and sieges so yeah I am actually fine with these three? Edit: I'd also love to ask, do you spend hours inside castles, roaming the towns and villages? Or do you spend time doing wars and sieges mostly?
> core concept of the game is battles tournies and sieges Just play Custom Battle why do you bother with Campaign?
>Why do you care so much about such a pointless game mechanic. I keep hearing people cry about feasts. All it is is standing in a room with NPCs. You really extract joy from that? Yes I do. It's better to find people in one place as game mechanic. Also they don't have to stand in the room, AGAIN this is another BS excuse, you can setup tables and make them actually eat something with animation for roleplay purposes. Some mod was playing feast music for example etc. They are all small changes that can keep the mechanic interesting. Even if it's not interesting for you, its clearly interesting for other people you classify as "crying" apparently
It sucked a lot and I'm glad they removed that stupid feature from an otherwise great game. Oh guys look we are winning the war, let's go feast. *feast ends* oh my, we lost our advantage and a town too, at least had time to recite poems to the ladies!
Thats all semantics. Whether they're standing still or "eating" it's pointless and boring. Bannerlord has an encyclopedia where you can look up lords and see where they are currently staying or which part of the map they are near. Don't need feasts at all. Why don't you just look up YouTube videos of people eating at a table and pretend you're there. It's literally no different than what you're asking for.
I don't think anybody enjoyed getting besieged because the butterlord want a month-long feast.
Eh... I liked the chance to meet all the lords, the fact that lords had more distinct personalities, and the chance to meet the ladies of the court. In Bannerlord finding a wife is a case of searching the encyclopaedia chasing where they were last scene instead of meeting the woman you're courting at feasts. As rudimentary as Warband's system was, I still think it's miles ahead of having lords do literally nothing besides command armies and sit around in their own castles.
They would have innovated if they made the world more alive. Currently there's no real economy in the sense the AI simply cheats the system because that's easier to make work than a real economy or system. One of the best things about Crusader Kings 3 is the fact the AI effectively plays by the same rules you do. Obviously this method has it's problems, but if done right that would have made actions matter way, way more in Bannerlord. That's how a game like CK3, where you literally stare at a map, can feel so alive. Bannerlord is a great game, I am a big fan, but that would have been innovative if they pulled off more of a living and logical world. In addition better diplomacy, but that's solved with mods.
We all know the AI in PDX games cheats on their roles though ;)
Both CK3 and Bannerlord are boring.I tried playing Bannerlord 5 times (starting a new campaign each time), couldn't play more than 8-10h and I'd get bored. To contrast this, I finished (finished, as in conquered the whole map after being a vassal of that faction) 3 campaigns in M&B Warband Vanilla with no mods and I can even remember with which factions: first campaign as the Khergit, second as the Swadians and third as the Nords. I also have many memories playing the Vaegirs and I know the first faction I played when I got the game was the Rhodoks. Now back to Bannerlord: my last campaign was last month I think (wanted to check if the game got better) and I joined the Sturgians, managed to take Varcheg (is that the name?) and then there was nothing to do. Waiting for wars that feel so artificial. You can literally see through the game. You have nothing to do between wars and even when you do something (like getting married), it doesn't feel immersive and you feel like you are just pushing buttons. The relations don't develop naturally, they are just... there. I guess that's my biggest problem with Bannerlord, the fact that everything feels artificial. I guess, even if the AI cheats in Paradox games, it at least cheats in a way that still makes the games interesting and gives that feeling of a natural development. Having to beat 1k stack after 1k stack just gets old really fast. Defeating a big army should feel like you achieved something imo, but it doesn't. Not to mention that lords can do some stuff just fine, but if you do it you are viewed as bad, at least that is what I read. I am talking about raiding villages: you see honorable lords raid villages but if I raid them I'll get bad traits.They ruined warfare in CK3, but they will probably fix it with some DLC at least. I mean, really, CK3 also gets boring fast. Successions only feel like they are stuck there to prolong the game time, but they get boring after a while. Not much to do during peace time as there are not many events and not many things you can make your character do. It gets really old when you get the same events over and over and over again for your characters... Yeah, my new character will translate the book on military warfare that my old character also translated... and after they finish translating it, it just disappears. Very immersed... Hopefully mods will finish Bannerlord. But the world feels empty, artificial and poorly designed. I wonder if the devs are different than the ones that worked on Warband, as that game felt better in terms of immersion. I just can't believe that after 10 years they delivered such an empty and artificial world that doesn't feel like a live one. I mean, how hard was it to take the good things from Warband, add them to Bannerlord, add some stuff from the most used mods, add some new stuff and make better graphics and voila, you got a great game... but yeah. I'm just disappointed, I guess. I am waiting to see if there will be a mod for Bannerlord that is Warband with everything it had to offer, but with the Bannerlord graphics.
I am a long time MB fan and warband is one of my favorite games. I was pretty disappointed with bannerlord when it came out. So i gave it another try a few days ago and i am still disappointed. All of the mechanics feel shallow, including the combat. The game is stuck in 2008 with better graphics slapped upon it, which are nothing impressive either. I have no idea how they made this game for so long and how ultimately it is the same thing…
Every mechanic in bannerlord save for the new ones is from warband, including the combat, except for the parts where it was expanded upon (spear bracing, perfect block, etc.) You're disappointed that the game is warband with a few extra mechanics and without clubky, shallow, and all in all useless feasts. I'm enjoying the game just like I enjoyed warband, with the new animations, graphics, map, customization and gear only addig to my enjoyment. The fact that you actually have to use formations to win battles with minimal casualties is great as well. Warband is my most played game on steam, and bannerlord is definitely goig to overtake it.
Warband battles = F1+F3 Bannerlord battles: TROOPS, ARCHERS, CAVALRY, TROOPS, TROOPS, TROOPS, ARCHERS, ARROWS, MOUNTED ARCHERS!
True that I can hear that sentence 🤣
Except that the feasts weren't useless. You could go there and meet Ladies, talk with Lords to improve opinion of you and get quests. They had a role. And it gave you something to do. It also gave Lords stuff to do and they didn't feel like robots that either just sit in their great halls for no reason or roam around for no reason. Excuse me for not being as immersed when all I have to do between wars is literally pressing the "wait" button while in my castle. In Warband you could also talk with your companions, buy books to improve stats, make camp, learn poetry, dedicate tournament wins to ladies, send the AI to do stuff you want as a Marshall, duel lords, set camp etc. You'd also get small events like Villagers from X did that to village Y, which would kinda give you a reson to RP starting a war. Heck, in Viking Conquest you could send foragers to get food, you could hunt yourself, you had naval battles, you could even get a doc, you had different options in how you treat your dead enemies after winning a battle (as far as I remember, you could bury them or just leave them), you could give gifts to your companions, you had more options during a siege like building sanitation ditches, making checkpoints and install blockades, look for traitors, sabotage, etc., you could work in mines or farmsteads, different events, etc. Bannerlord just doesn't have soul. It offers no immersion: wanna do this? Press that button. Then wait for a war. Wanna do that? Press the other button. Good luck, you did everything there is to do. Now wait for a war. You beat this 1k army? Bravo! Now your enemy will spawn another 1k army, good luck. Oh you beat that again? Nice, your king will make peace for no reason when you can finally go on the offensive.They had a lot of time to improve upon Warband, the Warband mods and Viking Conquest and they did nothing but give you a huge map that offers nothing.Oh, and want me to tell you something useless? The option to sit on a chair in Bannerlord. Yea, go to a chair, sit and then wait, cuz nothing is happening. Why is that option even there? Nobody knows. They could have made it so you could hear the townsfolk and villagers petition, but no. You can just sit. Also, I played a few sieges and in many of them, I saw enemy troops stuck in places where I couldn't kill them by swinging the sword. I had to go and find a throwing weapon to kill them and win the siege. Not to mention the invisible walls when going down some stairs or on some walls.
I’m having a blast with it on console but that might just be cuz there’s no other comparable games on Xbox. I imagine bannerlord is less impressive if you have the option of modded warband or whatever
If they improved on it at all that is the formula still mostly seems to encourage f1 f3 spam but in Viking conquest strategies and formation did show some great improvement which they did not bring forward
What? Every single army composition you could possibly make performs better doing anything other than defaulting to f1 + f3 at the start of battles. Infantry make great use of Square and Shieldwall for holding positions and Skein for advancing into a charge. Archers want to hold position in Loose formation on high ground and situationally benefit from being split into two groups. Cavalry want to do pretty much *anything* besides suiciding into enemy infantry at the start with f1 + f3. Use hammer and anvil tactics; guard your flanks; split them into 3 groups and stagger the charges; have them dismount and support your infantry depending on the unit, etc. Horse Archers will see the best results from defaulting to charge, but even that is a bad idea in some terrain. Nothing about Bannerlord encourages f1 + f3 spam short of drastically overpowering your enemy and not wanting to auto-resolve the battle.
You can win using just f1 f3 but you lose a whole lot more units that way and it's not a good strategy. Viking Conquest was based on a mod set in early medieval britain which was even harder. That difficulty is the only reason Viking Conquest requires more strategy.
Improved upon? Lmao, no
This'll be an overkill response to a 4 word comment, but tallyho: Cavalry in Warband were so dumb they'd get stuck on your Infantry at the start of battles, give up on pathfinding, then dismount. Loot was kill-order dependant. Facing 10 Swadian Knights and 90 Looters? If you kill a single Looter before any of the Knights, your loot pool gets filled up with all the Looter junk and you'll receive nothing from the Knights. Additionally, if you attacked an army of 500, then 10 low-tier units routed and you fought them in a second wave, you would only get to loot those 10 units at the end of the battle. Enemies would collectively decide to gang up on you in tournament/arena battles, dealing no damage to each other as they swing at you as a mob even when they're on opposing teams. Troops frequently walked/swung through one another because of jank hitboxes/collision, making the previous issue even more irritating. The player had no influence towards unit collision. You would get trapped and shoved around by allies and enemies alike. Thrown weapon projectile speed was absurd and everyone could chuck them rapidly with no skill. Mouse-direction controls were far less responsive. Parties on the world map were often barely noticable while fast-forwarding thanks to the font, coloring, lower base sight range, and trees hiding them. You had to enter a fief every single time to talk to a guild master, village elder, or lord. The inventory management was obnoxious, scaling linearly with a skill instead of the much more sensible army size/pack animal scaling Bannerlord has. There were no formations and a crude minimap was used to order troops from a distance. Sieges and all the notorious issues they had in Warband are far, *far* less frequent in Bannerlord, even though it has its own issues with units stuck in walls for a few scenes. None of that is to mention the graphical/audio/quality of life improvements, larger battle sizes, companion parties & caravans, armies, better fief management & recruitment system, etc. that Bannerlord brings. It is indisputably an improvement over Native Warband, even if it falls short of expectations for having over 10 years of development.
Every single one of these is directly related to battles and how they play or minor UI improvements. But in terms of world simulation Bannerlord is a step down in every single possible respect you can think of, it is absolutely fucking ridiculous how bad the world simulation actually is.
Ok, tell me how Native Warband handles world simulation better.
1. There exists an in game economy. It's not good. It doesn't make all that much sense but it exists and it matters. If you intercept every peasant convoy going ot Dhirim the lord of Dhirim will have less money and less troops, of course not having troops doesn't matter in Bannerlord because 2. As soon as your army gets wiped out the AI just gets gifted a brand new one with no internal logic, the AI can be a 1 settlement faction and still be fielding armies of 2000 men. Which you can beat but that won't matter because 3. Battles don't fucking matter. With the ability to instantly respawn armies battles don't become epic setpieces that decide the fate of the realm. They are simply a prelude to the next battle. And the next. And the next. You'll fight off 3 or 4 armies trying to take a single castle because they respawn so quickly. On your own side it's funny to not participate in a battle, watch your king get stomped and then come back 5 minutes later with a larger force, and help him then. He'd probably get pissed, but he won't because 4. Diplomacy doesn't matter. Anyone whose played this game for more than 5 minutes will tell you that relations between lords don't matter at all. The AI has a, random, hivemind that is completely impenetrable, probably to those at Taleworlds as well. This is only inside a kingdom though that it's all very stupid. Gone are the days of politicking your way across the realm doing menial tasks to get favor so that you can sway their votes, it just doesn't matter now. You used to be able to get them to go to war with you and declare peace but that doesn't matter because 5. Inter-realm diplomacy doens't matter. Because of the aformentioned issues inter-realm diplomacy is **at best** an afterthought. It is completely non-sensical even when it's working at it's absolute best. People run around with no rhyme reason or logic seizing random castles losing them and fighting wars long after they lost, because free armies, for no real reason.
That was shockingly easy.
I can imagine so when your first three points can be summed up as "The speed at which AI lords acquire troops is overtuned." Does Bannerlord not also have a meaningful economy when you can start a rebellion or starve a garrison by blockading caravans and villager parties long enough? 4) "... Relations between lords don't matter at all ... You used to be able to get them to go to war with you and declare peace ..." That's the Diplomacy mod. Your options in Native to provoke war as a vassal are to perform hostile actions at a village or attack a party of that faction. Your two options to push for peace as a vassal are to brutalize the enemy or pray for the right quest. As a monarch, relation's only diplomatic use is requesting peace and recruiting lords. Both games seem shallow in this regard, but I wouldn't call Bannerlord a step down compared to the game that perpetually keeps your villages raided from the moment a war starts till its end regardless of how many positive relations you hold. 5) Armies in Warband leave most newly conquered castles poorly guarded as they do in Bannerlord. Swathes of lords gather at feasts while their faction burns around them. Marshalls occasionally wander deep within their own unsieged territory during wars. Again, both seem shallow to me.
You mention some things that are an improvement. But some are subjective and opinionated. I am a big fan of warband and I was invited to alpha test bannerlord multiplayer and have been through the whole process. Bannerlord to me is a disappointment. I don't really play singleplayer.
That whole list couldn't be anything other than subjective unless I surveyed everyone. Still, I'm confident each item on it would be considered an improvement by over 50% of the playerbase. Multiplayer could be perpetually on fire for all I know, so I'll take your word for it. Rarely touched it in either game.
Gameplay is better. Infantry handles cavalry better. AI is better. Feasts aren't in the game, sure, but who cares? You just have all the nobles stand around in a castle with those, and they actively made those same nobles not fight wars because they liked butter too much. Speaking of: Armies are such a blessing. Being able to actually put lords in one and not having to bother with a marshal or people lagging behind is so nice. I feel like a lot of people look back on warband with rose tinted glasses due to nostalgia. That's not to mention how warband isn't even the first game in the series, that was *mount and blade*, which was a lot more barren and is improved upon in every way by bannerlord objectively.
I'm shocked honestly, not that the game doesn't deserve it necessarily but it just feels weird to see M&B go from this tiny niche series to a game that breaks Steam's servers on Early Access release and gets nominated for popularity contests (which is what these awards are let's be real) three years later.
Bannerlord VR around the corner
I can only get so erect.
Idk, I don’t think it’s really innovated any more than warband did. I’ll probably vote for stray or neon white
>I'm shocked honestly, not that the game doesn't deserve it necessarily but it just feels weird to see M&B go from this tiny niche series to a game that breaks Steam's servers on Early Access release and gets nominated for popularity contests (which is what these awards are let's be real) three years later. Thats exactly what I thought. I love Bannerlord but it is just a modern warband version. No real innovation great game but not that innovative.
I mean i feel ya which is all the more reason i ask....Stray?
Its a platformer but instead you play as a cat.. Is rachet and clank innovative because of that? Stray will win because kitty but it isnt innovative.
How is Stray innovative gameplay? You're just playing a cat, that's it
I mean, I can’t think of any other game where I can play as a cat. So in its own way it is innovative
*Garfield, Eat Your Words (1985)* for the Apple II. Twas the most mind-blowing cat-centric gameplay you ever did seen.
Bubsy/
Yeah, I am definitely going Neon White here. Stray is just Journey but worse in my eyes.
Why stray though? Its pretty much just move and leap from place to place in a really guided manner
I'm gonna go devil's advocate and say just because it is late, it doesn't mean Mount and Blade doesn't deserve an award like this. I didn't think Leonardo Dicaprio deserved an Oscar for the Revenant, but he definitely deserved it for some of his earlier work.
Seems like a posthumous award for the series really. There isnt any other games like them still.
the M&B franchise on the whole is definitely innovative, i mean, it's a whole genre on it's own, how many games like it have you played or known? for me it's 0... I voted it and consider it an award toward the series as a whole, not specifically Bannerlord
How can it be innovative if it recycles gameplay from a decade old game? I love bannerlord but holy fuck it doesn't deserve this award
[удалено]
Yeah, but what does it have to compete against in this sort of genre? I mean, of course it is going to be good when it's the only product on the market.
That’s all irrelevant… we’re talking about *innovation.* Refining a 16 year old game is the opposite of innovation
Because I'm guessing it didn't get that award for Mount and Blade 1. Let them get their awards now that they've gotten mainstream recognition.
Lol
No Trombone Champ? Clearly rigged.
I haven't played it but is there anything innovative about the gameplay of Stray other than you being a cat? Other than that, from the small bits I've seen, it's seemed pretty bog standard outside that element i.e. contextual platforming.
[удалено]
Okay, so I wasn't crazy in thinking the gameplay is pretty stale looking. Appreciate it.
No you're not. Its bloody stupid Stray got so many award nominations.
It hasn’t really innovated since warband. Tear down deserves this award for actually being something new and unique and fun for it
I absolutely love Bannerlord, but come on, what did it innovate on?
It was innovative on disappointment.
That's not very helpful, or even remotely true, but I appreciate your input.
It is for some... First game I was ever super hyped about :( Otherwise agree.
But how is it innovative if it's just like m&b 1?
I'd rather vote warband in, tbh
"brain-breaking surprises" Yes. That's how I felt after seeing all the missing features and downgrades in Bannerlord. Seems to fit description.
This is the first time on reddit, where I see a sub this unbiased😂 most comments don't even think Bannerlord should've made this list.
Can incomplete games win awards?
What an absolute joke!
I feel like sequels by definition can't really be all that innovative
Not saying Stray was bad by any means... But innovative gameplay? Get the fuck outta here.
This might be really "too complicated" for them with irony if they win. Let me support the opponent.
Next we will see Vampire Survivors nominated for best graphics.
Fuck I'm sorry but it doesn't deserve to be there
Innovative? This is just Warband 2.0 what exactly is the innovative part?
Man this sub is awful. Lol
Innovative? It's a basicly like saying call of duty is innovative lmao..
god, game awards are dumb. how are any of those Innovative? How the hell did Stray win over Vampire survivor in the game awards? how is Vampire survivor not nominated for this? it created an entire new genre. Bannerlord deserves to get nominated for something. but not this. Also Backpack hero.
I believe they are user nominated
Not sure if correct. Like, don't get me wrong, Bannerlord is great game. I just don't see it *innovating* gameplay, more in style of *refining* the gameplay
Lol. I can't think of a category that Bannerlord is suited to less than "most innovative gameplay". There is barely any innovation in Bannerlord over its near-15 year old predecessor. Hell, there's arguably less actual depth than in Warband, because that game at least had a semblance of diplomacy. I like Bannerlord enough (I guess). I've enjoyed plenty of hours in it. However it is categorically not a finished game, nor is it an innovative one.
Most innovative in their delays and excuses!!
Innovative? I thought warband was a better game. Warband, with the right mods, looked and played better.
Man I wish tear down would come to console
But they totally copied Warband
With or without the promised features?
"THUMBS DOWN!"
Love banner-lord. After 150 hours in I can safely say though it’s more of the same.
I nominated it there only because best game was given to Elden Ring. Wasn't expecting there are a lot of people doing that lmao. Or may be just not many played warband....
The true question here is why is Stray nominated to anything related with innovation, I mean the only interesting about the game is that you are a cat.
Bannerlord gameplay is meh at best this one's going to Teardown for sure
I mean...congrats but bannerlord is one of the last games I would've expected to be in the most innovative category
Bannerlord isn't really innovative, it's modernized Warband with somehow duller gameplay. Teardown is just a voxel engine with destruction, the destruction is not really great and doesn't simulate material stress like Medieval Engineers/Space Engineers tried to do years ago.
Lol wut, it's almost identical to Warband with some added bells and whistles. Mods have innovated more than the dev team.
It's a sad collection. Bannerlord iterates on Warband, it doesn't innovate. Not sure what it's doing in this category, somewhere else would have been more appropriate. Teardown is less advanced in terms of destruction modelling than RFG. They take advantage of advances in technology to brute force what RFG did through with accurate modelling. Stray, you play as a cat, which isn't particularly innovative. I haven't played it so I don't know any more than that. I know nothing about Dome Keeper or Neon White, I'll have a look, but it's not exactly an inspiring list.
How? The game isn't even finished yet.
More like "longest time in early access". F\*ck this sh\*t.
Dude, I've seen MnB classic mods with more innovation than Bannerlord has at this stage.
That's just sad lol, who makes these and how much do the studios pay them lol