• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Mount & Blade 2 early access 3/31/20

Feb 4, 2009
27,426
7,878
136
I know Early Access is a controversial topic so let’s not bicker about Early Access.


I’ve had tons of fun over the years with Mount & Blade. Still occasionally load it up to build an Army or do the simple missions. Interesting game and very cheap to buy today.
$50 for Early Access breaks my typical rule and the long development time has me concerned but I’ll likely pick it up just not on day one.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,736
484
126
hol up... we've been waiting on this for like 10 years and its releasing to early access? lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: DigDog
Feb 4, 2009
27,426
7,878
136
hol up... we've been waiting on this for like 10 years and its releasing to early access? lol
Yeah I know.....
They claim 1 year in early access & game is mostly completed. Early Access is to write up storyline stuff and see how players break things.
Not sure if this is accurate but that’s what the Developer says.
 
Last edited:

Stg-Flame

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,835
218
106
hol up... we've been waiting on this for like 10 years and its releasing to early access? lol
The developers have been saying this for a while though. Given what they plan on doing with the game, it needs extensive testing and that's where we come in. Most people who play Warband aren't aware of how deep the game can actually be and instead just think you become a vassal to a kingdom and steamroll the land. From what I've read, they intend to let the player play through the game any way they see fit, so I'm not opposed to this going into early access; but that may be because the developers are already known for creating outstanding games and not trying to make a quick buck with no intentions of ever completing the game (looking at you 7DtD).

That being said, I still won't be paying $50 for an unfinished game. I plan on picking it up well after its release once I know most of the bugs and glitches have been ironed out. With a game of this magnitude, it's going to take a while for the developers to provide a seamless experience (especially considering Warband and F&S are still riddled with issues).
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,426
7,878
136
The developers have been saying this for a while though. Given what they plan on doing with the game, it needs extensive testing and that's where we come in. Most people who play Warband aren't aware of how deep the game can actually be and instead just think you become a vassal to a kingdom and steamroll the land. From what I've read, they intend to let the player play through the game any way they see fit, so I'm not opposed to this going into early access; but that may be because the developers are already known for creating outstanding games and not trying to make a quick buck with no intentions of ever completing the game (looking at you 7DtD).

That being said, I still won't be paying $50 for an unfinished game. I plan on picking it up well after its release once I know most of the bugs and glitches have been ironed out. With a game of this magnitude, it's going to take a while for the developers to provide a seamless experience (especially considering Warband and F&S are still riddled with issues).
More or less my opinion except I’m okay buying EA, I just want to see some reviews.
Good news is it appears to have full steam workshop support for mods. Also this is the type game that will sell for $30 after release and $10 or $15 a year later.
 

GodisanAtheist

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2006
2,415
837
136
Mount & Blade was always a weird game that I really enjoyed playing even though I had no idea what I was doing. I'd typically make it to having a keep or castle before summarily getting steamrolled by one of the major factions and quitting the game.

Might be worth coming back to at some point with some guides and walkthroughs under my belt.

Didn't even know they were making a second one. I'll wait and see.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,426
7,878
136
Mount & Blade was always a weird game that I really enjoyed playing even though I had no idea what I was doing. I'd typically make it to having a keep or castle before summarily getting steamrolled by one of the major factions and quitting the game.

Might be worth coming back to at some point with some guides and walkthroughs under my belt.

Didn't even know they were making a second one. I'll wait and see.
I played a bit last year. Game has aged well, looks okay in an older game sense.
Fun to just wander around and do stuff for the various Royals with a small band of characters.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
11,178
897
126
please appreciate how not-long my post will be. i could talk about M&B for .. years. Mount & Blade was one of the few games that really had an impression on me.

i played the early, EARLY beta when you didnt need to thrust the lance, and in those years the combat was very 1-sided; if you had a decent horse, lance, and decent armour ... GG.
Which is, in fact, a realistic representation of what mounted combat is like.
Subsequent upgrades made the game better one way (the overworld map events) but worse the other. i really liked that you could easily become overpowered, and only other likewise overpowered enemies mattered. Early M&B didnt try to artificially balance enemies.

And then. it went to sit. i mean Sith. i mean tshi. I mean poop. Whomever was in charge decided to change the way combat works and, well, it wasn't fun anymore.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,910
3,727
146
please appreciate how not-long my post will be. i could talk about M&B for .. years. Mount & Blade was one of the few games that really had an impression on me.

i played the early, EARLY beta when you didnt need to thrust the lance, and in those years the combat was very 1-sided; if you had a decent horse, lance, and decent armour ... GG.
Which is, in fact, a realistic representation of what mounted combat is like.
Subsequent upgrades made the game better one way (the overworld map events) but worse the other. i really liked that you could easily become overpowered, and only other likewise overpowered enemies mattered. Early M&B didnt try to artificially balance enemies.

And then. it went to sit. i mean Sith. i mean tshi. I mean poop. Whomever was in charge decided to change the way combat works and, well, it wasn't fun anymore.
Buh? Last time I played, you could still couch with the lance. Just point, full steam ahead, don't miss.

Regarding M&B2, I just hope someone makes a Last Days mod for it. I spent far more time playing LOTR M&B than vanilla M&B.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,736
484
126
Functioning siege warfare is the difference maker to me. I never got past having a large roving band because watching my units get mulched walking up pregenerated ladders 1 by 1 was no fun.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,426
7,878
136
Functioning siege warfare is the difference maker to me. I never got past having a large roving band because watching my units get mulched walking up pregenerated ladders 1 by 1 was no fun.
I sort of liked that, hop on the crowed ladder or use a bow to pick off the defenders so my dudes could break the line or have a bunch of archer troops.
However I agree the static approach routes got tiring.
 

Stg-Flame

Platinum Member
Mar 10, 2007
2,835
218
106
i played the early, EARLY beta when you didnt need to thrust the lance, and in those years the combat was very 1-sided; if you had a decent horse, lance, and decent armour ... GG.
I'm confused because if you have a decent horse, lance, and decent armor, you can win a 1v50+ battle without any issues. Are you saying it was even more OP back then?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Aikouka PC Games 0
Stg-Flame PC Games 37

ASK THE COMMUNITY