Přidáno: 24. května
A lot of people here are saying that Warband was an improvement in every regard, but I disagree. There are a couple of things that the original Mount & Blade did better.
- More complex level design allows for more tactical combat, with the exception of the plethora of invisible walls within these levels, specifically at castles. If I'm going too close to a ledge, I'd prefer to fall off and learn the hard way, rather than being blocked from falling at all.
- A condensed map makes campaigns move much quicker, and reduces a lot of the tedious running around, not to mention the fact that I can get to situations before they finish. Nothing quite angers me in Warband such as getting a notification for an event happening on the other side of the map, only to get there and find out I just missed it.
That being said, there are a few issues which I've noticed here that have been fixed in its sequel.
- The journal does not keep a record of everything that Warband does.
- Combat occasionally feels sloppy. Unresponsive controls and weird hit detection can make some fights, particularly melee, take too long.
- Getting in and out of a merc contract or vassalage without ruining one's reputation (with both leaders and opposing factions) is extremely difficult.
Of course, Warband ironed out these problems and added some graphical upgrades, a bigger map, and another faction. It improved on the original in almost every way, but I found it worth a few hours of my time to explore this game's superior castles, towns, and villages, at least until I ran into that problem of a gimped reputation system.