Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Agreed with this guy, I have over 500 hours of gameplay in my Mount and Blade, it is the most original game I have played in a while, and there isn't really a huge amount in game terms that would actually match it.

The Napoleonic mod for it is also fantastically awesome!

Thanks for that review! Really appreciate the time you took to write that. Sounds awesome. I will download the demo.

Once I had begun typing, words just started flying from my fingers. You're welcome - hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

And definitively take a look at the modding community if you like the game's general style of combat: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?board=165.0

Worth noting M&B is ugly as feth and has a terrible interface, bordering on the insulting. Rome Total war had better graphics.

Some call it ugly, others call it sleek.

Also, gameplay > graphics, though this too is a matter of personal preferences, judging by public reception (or ignorance) of some games these days. Or movies.

Colour me crazy, I for one still like to play some MoO2 every now and then simply because no other game got close to it yet.

Lynata wrote:Colour me crazy, I for one still like to play some MoO2 every now and then simply because no other game got close to it yet.

You're not crazy. Fast-rack Merculite Missile boats forever!

Palindrome wrote: On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse about 2.5% of a levy having womens names does not mean that they actually fought. They may have, they may not.

Like I said in my previous post, that fact is based on modern research, it really does not apply to society over 500 years ago where we all know that people worked MUCH harder than we do now, and ALL people (even women) were required to be much tougher and stronger than they are now.

I dont see how anyone can really argue that women shouldnt be in the game. The game is not going to be historically accurate anyways, it is not a simulator that is built on historical accuracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Worth noting M&B is ugly as feth and has a terrible interface, bordering on the insulting. Rome Total war had better graphics.

You should note that your post is entirely your opinion, many people enjoy how the game looks and the interface. In fact, I think the game interface is fantastic, it operates very smoothly and is easy to navigate. You can also look up many different types of information (your standing with other lords and other factions. Party morale. Income and expenses, kill counts, your character's renown). The original mount and blade had mediocre graphics, but it also came out several years ago. The warband expansion came with a massive graphics upgrade that makes the game look very good, especially for such a large scale RTS. I think the world map view turns people off to the game, as they did not include much detail.

King Kodo, you were warned, so now you shall be executed by the Inquisition. Please remain where you are, and keep your hands behind your head.

I will say the combat in this games looks way, way, way too Mount and Blade, and M&B, despite graphics, does still look better, especially with the campaign aspect.

I think I shall just wait for M&B 2 rather than picking this up!

KingKodo wrote:

Palindrome wrote: On average men are 30-40% stronger than women. It is simple physiology.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse about 2.5% of a levy having womens names does not mean that they actually fought. They may have, they may not.

Like I said in my previous post, that fact is based on modern research, it really does not apply to society over 500 years ago where we all know that people worked MUCH harder than we do now, and ALL people (even women) were required to be much tougher and stronger than they are now.

I dont see how anyone can really argue that women shouldnt be in the game. The game is not going to be historically accurate anyways, it is not a simulator that is built on historical accuracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Worth noting M&B is ugly as feth and has a terrible interface, bordering on the insulting. Rome Total war had better graphics.

You should note that your post is entirely your opinion, many people enjoy how the game looks and the interface. In fact, I think the game interface is fantastic, it operates very smoothly and is easy to navigate. You can also look up many different types of information (your standing with other lords and other factions. Party morale. Income and expenses, kill counts, your character's renown). The original mount and blade had mediocre graphics, but it also came out several years ago. The warband expansion came with a massive graphics upgrade that makes the game look very good, especially for such a large scale RTS. I think the world map view turns people off to the game, as they did not include much detail.

I agree with women in game. Many silly arguments were posted here to speak up against women in the game.

However people were not stronger or thougher in these days. Although they had more and harder work to do, their food was bad, their health often spend before reaching the mid 20s.

Melissia wrote:

Palindrome wrote:On average men are 30-40% stronger than women.

In modern times, because women are expected to be rather lazy compared to men these days. A woman who has worked hard days on the farm all her life, like a drafted soldier in medieval times, is going to have far less of a difference, if any difference at all.

No.
Take a man and a woman of the same age who have never worked out.
Give them a weight training regime. The man will be immediately able to lift more than the woman, he will improve weights quicker, increase muscle mass quicker, and have a higher ceiling. To suggest otherwise is a gross mis-representation of the human condition, to the extent that I have to wonder if you've actually seen what people are like.
Go into any street and you'll see plenty of well-built guys. You will not see many, if any, well-built girls.
Funnily enough I got into a play argument with a woman rugby player a few years ago who got insulted when I said I could out-wrestle her with one arm behind my back. Obviously I could, but that's besides the point. Men are about 50% stronger than women, and that difference is even greater with excersise.

This thing still going on? I thought we had established by now that a proper debate is impossible due to bias.

Also lol @ that 50% argument - have you even read the original document?
And the idea that the difference grows greater with exercise is extra BS, and I'm assuming the NSCA has to know.

I suggest we open another thread for this debate, maybe then this one can finally get back on its tracks.

Lynata wrote:This thing still going on? I thought we had established by now that a proper debate is impossible due to bias.

Also lol @ that 50% argument - have you even read the original document?
And the idea that the difference grows greater with exercise is extra BS, and I'm assuming the NSCA has to know.

I suggest we open another thread for this debate, maybe then this one can finally get back on its tracks.

Did you even read that?

50-60 per cent as strong in the arms.

muscle pound to muscle pound women are similar in strength to men.

Guess who weighs more?
This is a no-brainer. Anyone who's ever worked out knows full well the difference in strength between men and women.

Joey wrote:Did you even read that?

Yup. Unlike you, I didn't take "52% in the upper body" meaning every single muscle, though.

I thought it was pretty interesting that women can supposedly train their muscle groups faster, though this is probably due to the greater gap between untrained individuals. Either way, you come off as if every single woman out there was a scrawny beanpole who hasn't got a chance against any man, which is just wrong on so many levels. Or, to bring this back to medieval times, I would think that some village's female blacksmith would be much stronger than a male tailor. And both could be drafted for a levy. As I said, on the battlefield there is no such thing as the "average men" - that kind of stuff looks neat on paper but falls apart in practice.

Physical differences are a fact, but you probably wouldn't want to bar men from becoming fighter pilots just because the female gender has some innate advantages there, or do you?
The only fair treatment would be a case-by-case examination, as people are unique and often do not conform to averages.

You're off-topic; last warning.

IMO, Mount and blade warband looks to have better graphics than this game. We havent seen much besides the combat, so, it is difficult to say which game is more immersive, but I doubt it will be more so than mount and blade warband.

It sort of looks like you just select equipment for your character and then jump into games and fight other people, which would be neat for a while, but that kind of gameplay can get boring after a while.

Joey wrote:Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
But the premise was awesome. Start off as some random guy, work with the completely open world (not some bs one like skyrim), build up an army and work your way up to king. I assume this will be a deviation on that.
Also the graphics look sweet.

Oddly enough, that's what I think I enjoyed most about Morrowind. As soon as they put in the option to just follow a Quest Marker, the game stopped really being the same series to me. Especially with the sudden switch to Generic Midieval Fantasy #3.

Anvildude wrote:

Joey wrote:Mount and Blade reminded me so much of Morrowind. There was a good game somewhere but the interface hated you. You had to find some dude who was marching around the country...and you had no idea where he was. Had to go to random towns and ask people until somone told you where they'd been recently. Then you'd go THERE and ask them, then when you found their vague location you'd have to look around the countryside for them. Dude, not cool.
But the premise was awesome. Start off as some random guy, work with the completely open world (not some bs one like skyrim), build up an army and work your way up to king. I assume this will be a deviation on that.
Also the graphics look sweet.

Oddly enough, that's what I think I enjoyed most about Morrowind. As soon as they put in the option to just follow a Quest Marker, the game stopped really being the same series to me. Especially with the sudden switch to Generic Midieval Fantasy #3.

Really? 3 hours walking around the countryside looking for a flower, at the end of which you get no gold or XP whatsoever? Meh, each to their own.

I enjoyed it, too. Mind you, I also still play Daggerfall occasionally.