Mount&Blade II: Bannerlord [Screenshots]

[Tibe]

It's called making trade-offs (cutting down on graphics, dynamic physics, etc...).

Its a good trade-off imo. Graphics is really a small price to pay for better gameplay.

[Nessaj]

I'd rather have the option of downgrading my graphics rather than being forced bad graphics just for the sake of everyone being able to run it at full FPS.

ArmA3 does it rather well, on ultra and everything at max the game looks stunning and realistic, but if you don't have the machine for that it also gives you the option of downgrading the graphics tremendously, netting you full FPS.

[Molly]

I'd rather have the option of downgrading my graphics rather than being forced bad graphics just for the sake of everyone being able to run it at full FPS.

ArmA3 does it rather well, on ultra and everything at max the game looks stunning and realistic, but if you don't have the machine for that it also gives you the option of downgrading the graphics tremendously, netting you full FPS.

...not to mention that ARMA 3 is really well coded or so it seems cuz it's even running on older machines very smooth with "high" settings

[Tibe]

I'd rather have the option of downgrading my graphics rather than being forced bad graphics just for the sake of everyone being able to run it at full FPS.

ArmA3 does it rather well, on ultra and everything at max the game looks stunning and realistic, but if you don't have the machine for that it also gives you the option of downgrading the graphics tremendously, netting you full FPS.

Althou I agree with what you said, id still like to point out that ARMA is still a shooterthingy and M&B is melee.  Going melee with directional block requires like 80 FPS or something, while in shootinggames its like 40. But yea, being forced crappier looks does kinda sound sucky. I quess its all in the optimisation. Something Warband did not do well.

[Xant]

No, first person shooters definitely require more FPS than a melee game like M&B. If you're hoping to play a shooter competitively, you'll want at least 100 fps. 40-50 is enough for M&B, possibly lower, haven't tried.

[Tibe]

Nah, ive played Warband in 55 FPS for an extensive period of time and its simply awful. Played shooters with 45FPS and ive done relatively alright. True, I dont remember my FPS in fast games like CoD or something thou, where you run like a monkey on steroids with an assualtrifle.

[Nessaj]

A game with directional melee combat is a very similar experience to a normal shooter, I'd want good FPS in both.

However, in a game like Warband I won't sacrifice everything I can for as much FPS as possible, but in a shooter I would if I'm playing multiplayer, 120 preferably to match screen HZ.

[Tibe]

Fair enough, im beat.

[Xant]

It's beyond the point either way. Arma 3 sucked in alpha/beta stage when it came to optimization, but it's great right now. "High" (with textures on Very High, of course) looks great and runs great. Ultra looks really good. And a crappy machine can run it on low. So that's something games like M&B2 could and should aim for.

[Nessaj]

It's beyond the point either way. Arma 3 sucked in alpha/beta stage when it came to optimization, but it's great right now. "High" (with textures on Very High, of course) looks great and runs great. Ultra looks really good. And a crappy machine can run it on low. So that's something games like M&B2 could and should aim for.

This is true, ArmA 3 was awful to begin with in terms of optimization, horrible fps, laggy, etc. Now, especially with the latest update, it runs really well, I'm getting full fps by downgrading graphics. Very minimal amount of desycing too, a previously serious problem all the way back from ArmA 2.

[Falka]

Nah, ive played Warband in 55 FPS for an extensive period of time and its simply awful.

Heh, Fuma the Duck plays with 30 fps I think

[Gnjus]

id still like to point out that ARMA is still a shooterthingy and M&B is melee. 

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Banok]

Yeah there was good speculation that it would be set further back in history, I was truly hoping/banking on it being full on viking/migration era since all we had seen was that anglo saxon dude.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


its got to be the biggest disapointment of these screenshots that instead of going for something historic they seem to be going for even less historic.

This series was never perfectly historically accurate, and one its chief issues in that regard was the way it mashed together equipment and cultures separated by several centuries. That doesn't change the fact that the setting is obviously undergoing a backward shift in time with this game.

True but the historical gap in m&b was never so huge that a average person would really notice imo. The culture mash was more noticeable, but less important in a game imo.

but surely even people who know nothing about history would find it jarring to have roman looking gear along side clearly late medieval gear shown in these new screenshots. so I don't get what taleworlds are doing at all.

[FleetFox]

Well its a good job there are great modders out there who I am sure we can depend on making more historically accurate versions

[Banok]

Well its a good job there are great modders out there who I am sure we can depend on making more historically accurate versions

true, I think brytenwalda mod is largely responsible for why I was excited about an earlier timeframe.