I love mount and blade and while any improvements they warrant are welcome. This is feeling a little week especially for the price tag. What they are offering seems more like a patch especially when it comes to single player. Many of the user mods offer the same kinds of improvements if not more already.
When I first read about the multi-player expansion I was hoping to find out it was going to be an entire multi-player setup allowing for people to play cooperatively through a campaign style game. Instead all they are effectively providing is death match. It works well, for what it is. But it's just not that exciting of an option.
I love mount and blade and while any improvements they warrant are welcome. This is feeling a little week especially for the price tag. What they are offering seems more like a patch especially when it comes to single player. Many of the user mods offer the same kinds of improvements if not more already.
When I first read about the multi-player expansion I was hoping to find out it was going to be an entire multi-player setup allowing for people to play cooperatively through a campaign style game. Instead all they are effectively providing is death match. It works well, for what it is. But it's just not that exciting of an option.
I'd never even considered Mount & Blade co-op campaign. There are a lot of things that would have to be tweaked to make it work, but it would be a really unique experience.
Hey, I've played with a bunch of those guys in the multiplayer screen shot during the beta. Did they change the combat system at all for single player? Or were the changes to couched lance and new weapons only for multiplayer?
Well you can aim a couched lance to the left or right of the horse's head just like the multiplayer.
Oh and I didn't see you mention the whole 'become your own king quest' where you send out your own companions on public relation's quests to stir up public support for your kingship.
I've been fiddling with it but I don't have near enough renown to get lords to follow me yet.
I hope ya'll who were whining for multiplayer so badly are happy. Apparently it took so many resources to get that done, EVERYTHING ELSE suffered. I had assumed this was a sequel when I purchased, but after playing a bit, "realized" it was just an expansion. (A really modest one at that--there's a ton of mods with more enhancements!) The new map isn't even interesting. I've seen throw away mods with more exciting maps.
And come on--couched lance to the LEFT of the horse's head? How is this even possible? The impact would probably rip you off your own horse as the lance wrapped around in front of you!
Oh and usually I flame articles like this as expecting too much or whatever, but TOTAL agreement with the author of the article. In fact, I think the author was pretty generous as I'd have pointed out all the other areas where improvements should have been made, but were not, because some loud people incorrectly thought multiplayer would add the most value to the game. Co-op campaigns (which is what I figured MP would consist of) would be the ONLY redeeming feature if it could be worked out, but we don't even have that.
Heck MP M&B could have been a stupid Half life mod and it would have been exactly the same!
I'm curious. Who exactly has been marketing M&B:W as a sequel other than TaleWorlds' website? Because online sellers make it efficiently clear to call it an expansion. The only reason it's called a sequel is because the game is stand-alone--you don't need the first game to play Warband.
But to compare it to L4D2 in controversy is laughable at best. It's no secret that M&B is not as polished as a triple A title, but when considering there's only SIX people developing the game (and they live in Turkey), then I say that's pretty damn impressive. Compare that with Valve, a company with infinitely 50 times more resources and a hundred employees and then step back and realize the scope of what you just said, because I'm sure six Turks could've developed L4D2 as well.
However, the first M&B came out, it did not sell out. So what were you expecting the developers to do? Continue free updates indefinitely? They're a family developer. And yet when Valve pulled that crap for L4D2 no one batted an eye lash, and yet when the little independent developer does it to the best of their abilities and resources, well, I guess that means it's time to knock it down and complain how it's not a title with a multi-million dollar budget.
Graphics have been completely revamped, I'm not sure how you can think they weren't.
Also, a few of your comments are gross exaggerations; for example, a horse can be taken down in a single shot or bolt, which is completely incorrect.
I can only go by my own experience with the game, and in my experience, the graphics appeared to be unchanged. I played the first game for over a hundred hours, and firing up the new one didn't feel any different in that department.
I admit that the horse damage thing is based on it happening to me twice, which may not be a good sample (rode past a guy with a sword, and he killed my horse with one swipe, later my horse got hit with a crossbow bolt, and died instantly). It's possible that they were flukes, or that my horse had been previously injured without my noticing, I suppose. But my experience was that my horse was much easier to kill in the multi-player mode than in single-player.
Horse slaying is a fact of life in multiplayer. Even after dispatching the rider, you always kill the horse. Many horses have been slain before my eyes. It gives credence to King Richard III's cry for such a beast on the war-torn battlefield.
I suspect that anyone stating that the graphics are unchanged have got used to playing the MODs on the original that included improved graphics.
Also, there are lots of little tweaks that the reviewer fails to acknowledge. Small things like the inability to swivel 180 degrees in your saddle, thereby unrealistically shielding yourself from most arrows after ploughing through a line of archers.
As for couching the lance across to the left side of the horse's head, clearly the reviewer has never seen a jousting competition. If they had, then they'd know that this is the standard way of jousting. Otherwise, the shield wouldn't be on the correct side for defending the rider from the person they are attacking.
That was a fairly good game, I shouldnt have gotten rid of it. How is it doing nowadays though? I remember it having alot of problems and having fairly loose gameplay.
The game really not worth the price. The author already mentioned the SP. The MP, you dont get as much people playing to get full battle; and with a 12years old customer/gamer base, you get to be called "gay" or "voted to be kicked" if kills more than average.
Granted, it's probably not worth full-price to a casual player who's already got the original game, but it still fixes a lot of little issues that plagued the original M&B. I would also say the map is a significant improvement over the one we got in the orginal.
Overall it feels like a more polished game, and what (the original) M&B should have been.
Comments
When I first read about the multi-player expansion I was hoping to find out it was going to be an entire multi-player setup allowing for people to play cooperatively through a campaign style game. Instead all they are effectively providing is death match. It works well, for what it is. But it's just not that exciting of an option.
I'd never even considered Mount & Blade co-op campaign. There are a lot of things that would have to be tweaked to make it work, but it would be a really unique experience.
Oh and I didn't see you mention the whole 'become your own king quest' where you send out your own companions on public relation's quests to stir up public support for your kingship.
I've been fiddling with it but I don't have near enough renown to get lords to follow me yet.
And come on--couched lance to the LEFT of the horse's head? How is this even possible? The impact would probably rip you off your own horse as the lance wrapped around in front of you!
Heck MP M&B could have been a stupid Half life mod and it would have been exactly the same!
But to compare it to L4D2 in controversy is laughable at best. It's no secret that M&B is not as polished as a triple A title, but when considering there's only SIX people developing the game (and they live in Turkey), then I say that's pretty damn impressive. Compare that with Valve, a company with infinitely 50 times more resources and a hundred employees and then step back and realize the scope of what you just said, because I'm sure six Turks could've developed L4D2 as well.
However, the first M&B came out, it did not sell out. So what were you expecting the developers to do? Continue free updates indefinitely? They're a family developer. And yet when Valve pulled that crap for L4D2 no one batted an eye lash, and yet when the little independent developer does it to the best of their abilities and resources, well, I guess that means it's time to knock it down and complain how it's not a title with a multi-million dollar budget.
Also, a few of your comments are gross exaggerations; for example, a horse can be taken down in a single shot or bolt, which is completely incorrect.
I can only go by my own experience with the game, and in my experience, the graphics appeared to be unchanged. I played the first game for over a hundred hours, and firing up the new one didn't feel any different in that department.
I admit that the horse damage thing is based on it happening to me twice, which may not be a good sample (rode past a guy with a sword, and he killed my horse with one swipe, later my horse got hit with a crossbow bolt, and died instantly). It's possible that they were flukes, or that my horse had been previously injured without my noticing, I suppose. But my experience was that my horse was much easier to kill in the multi-player mode than in single-player.
Also, there are lots of little tweaks that the reviewer fails to acknowledge. Small things like the inability to swivel 180 degrees in your saddle, thereby unrealistically shielding yourself from most arrows after ploughing through a line of archers.
As for couching the lance across to the left side of the horse's head, clearly the reviewer has never seen a jousting competition. If they had, then they'd know that this is the standard way of jousting. Otherwise, the shield wouldn't be on the correct side for defending the rider from the person they are attacking.
Overall it feels like a more polished game, and what (the original) M&B should have been.