It's WORTH the hype!

[Paddy]

I have about a dozen hours so far in this game and I can tell you that this game is certainly worth the hype. With 90%+ review score for early access I'm excited to see how it develops.

[Apples]

Originally posted by Paddy:

I have about a dozen hours so far in this game and I can tell you that this game is certainly worth the hype. With 90%+ review score for early access I'm excited to see how it develops.

The problem is, people say that about alot of games these days, and those games end up being so far from it, you have to take such comments with a pinch of salt.

People will hype up a turd just because either they themselves enjoy it, even if nobody else would, or simply because they bought it and just want everyone else to share in their misery.

[Scaristotle]

Was worth the hype, to me. I'm personally satisfied with my purchase. Having played Cities 2 at launch, I know what a broken city builder looks like, and this game is NOT broken. In fact, it's in a darn good state for any EA title at launch. Sure there are imcomplete features and some things are broken, like Archers being useless, and enemy Lords being easily deceived with negotiations. but the game is in a solid state for a good start.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Apples:

Originally posted by Paddy:

I have about a dozen hours so far in this game and I can tell you that this game is certainly worth the hype. With 90%+ review score for early access I'm excited to see how it develops.

The problem is, people say that about alot of games these days, and those games end up being so far from it, you have to take such comments with a pinch of salt.

People will hype up a turd just because either they themselves enjoy it, even if nobody else would, or simply because they bought it and just want everyone else to share in their misery.

Well given the sheer success of this game already over 90% of people who have reviewed it have done so positively which is rare in this era. Second many of the negative reviews were people who didn't even know it was early access 😂

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Scaristotle:

Was worth the hype, to me. I'm personally satisfied with my purchase. Having played Cities 2 at launch, I know what a broken city builder looks like, and this game is NOT broken. In fact, it's in a darn good state for any EA title at launch. Sure there are imcomplete features and some things are broken, like Archers being useless, and enemy Lords being easily deceived with negotiations. but the game is in a solid state for a good start.

Same. This game is far more complete in early access as Cities 2 was at full launch

[Týr]

I like it. But it needs a lot added and changed. Needs more substance. The fact you can't upgrade everything in the development tree in one region really bothers me.

[Apples]

Originally posted by Scaristotle:

Having played Cities 2 at launch, I know what a broken city builder looks like, and this game is NOT broken.

Originally posted by Paddy:

Same. This game is far more complete in early access as Cities 2 was at full launch

I must admit, that's definitely positive, but as you know there are still a great many who recommend CS2, even with everything thats gone on, making it painfully obvious even the devs knew it was released far to early, and people will still justify their own early recommendations.

So it's still difficult to believe the positive reviews, sure it's EA and if CS2 was released as EA, i think that too would be equally positive. But EA can mean a whole lot, some devs just see it as a patching phase where some content is added but it's mostly fixes, others where it's in a playable state but where there is alot more stuff they plan on adding before release, with bug fixing inbetween.

I felt Bannerlord was the former, and has always felt somewhat empty in the mid-late game, sure they added a few things, but some of it they had too prior to release (like voices on the story line) and i don't feel it's really changed on the single player portion all that much to really say there was a great difference between EA and the actual release.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Týr:

I like it. But it needs a lot added and changed. Needs more substance. The fact you can't upgrade everything in the development tree really bothers me.

While I agree with you it is only early access so we knew what to expect. I can't believe there are people out there who expected more yet didn't they watch 2 weeks or youtube streamers?

[PaganGamer2025]

Originally posted by Paddy:

Originally posted by Scaristotle:

Was worth the hype, to me. I'm personally satisfied with my purchase. Having played Cities 2 at launch, I know what a broken city builder looks like, and this game is NOT broken. In fact, it's in a darn good state for any EA title at launch. Sure there are imcomplete features and some things are broken, like Archers being useless, and enemy Lords being easily deceived with negotiations. but the game is in a solid state for a good start.

Same. This game is far more complete in early access as Cities 2 was at full launch

And Cities 2 had a full crew and a nearly unlimited budget and it was still a sh!t show

[Týr]

Originally posted by Paddy:

Originally posted by Týr:

I like it. But it needs a lot added and changed. Needs more substance. The fact you can't upgrade everything in the development tree really bothers me.

While I agree with you it is only early access so we knew what to expect. I can't believe there are people out there who expected more yet didn't they watch 2 weeks or youtube streamers?

Yeah its just one guy. I'm optimistic it'll evolve into something much better especially with the influx of cash from it going on sale.

The base is solid.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Apples:

Originally posted by Scaristotle:

Having played Cities 2 at launch, I know what a broken city builder looks like, and this game is NOT broken.

Originally posted by Paddy:

Same. This game is far more complete in early access as Cities 2 was at full launch

I must admit, that's definitely positive, but as you know there are still a great many who recommend CS2, even with everything thats gone on, making it painfully obvious even the devs knew it was released far to early, and people will still justify their own early recommendations.

So it's still difficult to believe the 90% reviews, sure it's EA and if CS2 was released as EA, i think that too would be equally positive. But EA can mean a whole lot, some just devs just see it as a patching phase where some content is added but it's mostly fixes, others where it's in a playable state but where there is alot more stuff they plan on adding before release, with bug fixing inbetween.

I felt Bannerlord was the former, and has always felt somewhat empty in the mid-late game, sure they added a few things, but some of it they had too prior to release (like voices on the story line) and i don't feel it's really changed on the single player portion all that much to really say there was a great difference between EA and the actual release.

There is no comparison between this game and CS2. CS2 has a negative review score. It's in the red. This game has over 90%.

As for what content is to he added. We already know that there will be much higher tier buildings. Full castle, high walls, siege weapons, cavalry, naval units, Ai lords with their own settlements on the map etc. This is just what has been confirmed so far.

I understand your caution but we had 2 weeks of youtube streamers. I seen every inch of this early access before I even bought it. That's the difference. It matched the hype because we seen what we were getting in every detail

[DC]

yeah im happy with it now i hope its not one of those for ever EA titles. but i also dont want them to rush it.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Týr:

Originally posted by Paddy:

While I agree with you it is only early access so we knew what to expect. I can't believe there are people out there who expected more yet didn't they watch 2 weeks or youtube streamers?

Yeah its just one guy. I'm optimistic it'll evolve into something much better especially with the influx of cash from it going on sale.

The base is solid.

Definitely. You just know when you are playing a game full of intense passion and ambition. I haven't played a game with this level of ambition and passion in a long time in which they met expectations. People thought it was overhyped. We now know it isn't

[Apples]

Originally posted by Paddy:

There is no comparison between this game and CS2. CS2 has a negative review score. It's in the red. This game has over 90%.

As for what content is to he added. We already know that there will be much higher tier buildings. Full castle, high walls, siege weapons, cavalry, naval units, Ai lords with their own settlements on the map etc. This is just what has been confirmed so far.

I understand your caution but we had 2 weeks of youtube streamers. I seen every inch of this early access before I even bought it. That's the difference. It matched the hype because we seen what we were getting in every detail

But we both know if Cities Skylines 2 was released as EA that it would have been received differently than it has been.


I have seen one specific Manor Lords review that i'd consider fair, even the dev considers it fair, but the fanbase has jumped on it like a dog in heat and tried arguing against it for 15+ pages.
When you have a fanbase that nutty, it's worrying, i think you can find it among the most helpful reviews.. If you have battles, not everyone automatically expects TW or AoE, but they may expect them to work within reason, otherwise it may aswell not be there.

I know what people's expectations can be like, some are so high that nobody could reach them, others are so low a sugar coated turd could satisfy, and there is so much of that it's trying to find whats real in between.


Sure it's Early Access, but from this point it's knowing how far it will go, like i said a few fixes and patches later one dev might consider it for release, another may have plenty more to add.

Originally posted by EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ:

Originally posted by Apples:

I must admit, that's definitely positive, but as you know there are still a great many who recommend CS2, even with everything thats gone on, making it painfully obvious even the devs knew it was released far to early, and people will still justify their own early recommendations.

So it's still difficult to believe the 90% reviews, sure it's EA and if CS2 was released as EA, i think that too would be equally positive. But EA can mean a whole lot, some just devs just see it as a patching phase where some content is added but it's mostly fixes, others where it's in a playable state but where there is alot more stuff they plan on adding before release, with bug fixing inbetween.

I felt Bannerlord was the former, and has always felt somewhat empty in the mid-late game, sure they added a few things, but some of it they had too prior to release (like voices on the story line) and i don't feel it's really changed on the single player portion all that much to really say there was a great difference between EA and the actual release.

You may want to check this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWHm_InzMjc

Thanks for the link, it's what i expected from reading the comment section of one review alone, Lol!!


It looks good, and worth keeping an eye on (no rush at the moment as i could plenty of other games too finish!)
But the dev may have a slightly up hill battle with people as Gaming has been hit by a number of unfinished early releases, some of those being dropped, and some games that havn't really changed between EA and it's full release.

But shouldn't take it too harshly, and just keep on chugging away to make the game how he wants it to be.

Originally posted by EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ:

Even in comments people still insist compare it to other games from same publishing company but different developer. Despise the fact that have no connections aside the the publisher, they still group it together and despite the fact that dev mentioned is Medieval historical city building game, people need to link it to other crap titles.

Depends how much control the publisher has, Paradox for example is digging quite a hole for itself, and considering the genre that they usually have games for, this game will attract some of those players, but may be rather hesitant to purchase.

But thats not really a bad thing, sometimes it's better to wait a bit :)