Talk:Mount & Blade

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount & Blade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://forums.taleworlds.net/index.php/topic,39194.0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709081625/http://www.gamersdailynews.com/story-8154-Paradox-Interactive-New-Titles-Announcement.html to http://www.gamersdailynews.com/story-8154-Paradox-Interactive-New-Titles-Announcement.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount & Blade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 07:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to avoid using the GAlist template if I see some apparent flaws that are easy to see.

LEAD

• One big problem with is that the lead doesn't reflect 100% the gameplay of the game. Trading or negotiating, or becoming the ruler of the land isn't highlighted in the gameplay. If this is necessary information, it should be reflected in the gameplay section. If it's not, then it should be removed from the lead and other information should be added in the lead to reflect the gameplay more accurately.

Added.

• Remember that the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. The lead currently provides a small summary of the Gameplay section, Reception section, and Follow-up and sequels section. The one that is missing is the Development section. So please add some significant development detail in the lead.

Added.

GAMEPLAY

• Renown isn't properly explained. Is there any other source that goes into detail that explains renown? is it point-based system? Or is it something else?

I added that it's a point-based system, but I couldn't find a source that goes in-detail, not even the manual. If more is needed, just ask.

• Further, weapons have certain ranges where they are minimally and maximally effective, which gives the different weapon types different playing styles. A spear, for instance, will do minimal damage when used on an enemy very close to the player, where a hammer could cause maximum damage.

This sentence is worded very awkwardly and doesn't provide a good description of what I believe it's trying to say.

Reworded.

PLOT section

*There is barely anything substantial to have a plot section. It just continues to highlight that there is no overarching plot and the player holds. There is mention of a "Constants" but doesn't make it clear in this game. For these types of games, it could be beneficial to just have a "Premise". If there is not enough information to even provide a premise section, then it might be beneficial to just merge the information into gameplay.

I decided to simply eliminate the plot section, as there is already "Mount & Blade is a single-player, action-oriented role-playing game, which takes place in a medieval land named Calradia. The game features a sandbox gameplay style, in which there is no storyline present." in the beginning, so a plot section isn't neccessary.

DEVELOPMENT section

• This section is very lacking in content even though there are sources that provide more information. The first reference used in that section is a video that gives more details on the development of the game and their approach. How the project began, and how their approach to continuing the project. It also explains what role Armağan and İpek had during the development.

There isn't a whole lot I can mention without going into too much detail. but I added everything you said.

• There's also a section that mentions that Paradox Interactive lost the license but it's unclear as to the relevancy. Did they publish the game? And for how long?

Added that they were the publishers.

• The stand-alone expansion should be considered part of the Development of the game as well even if it is post-release and I recommend merging it and not part of Legacy (But more on that later).

Merged them.

• There is a mention of the game being released on Steam in the Development section but doesn't clarify for which region. The Infobox has different release dates for different regions but is not reflected on the actual article, or sourced. That is something that can be added to the Development section of the game. Once that is done, the section could be more appropriately renamed to "Development and release"

I don't know where that came from, but the steam page says that it was released on September 16th, so I'm going to go with that. I can't find anything about varied releases by region. If you can find anything, please tell me.

RECEPTION section

• The Reception section has many flaws. For one I don't think it's accurate or detailed at all. It's almost as if the reception section is trying to hide the flaws of the game. The current reviewers

• Mount & Blade received "mixed or average" reviews according to the review aggregation website Metacritic.
  • ^I"m not sure its worth mentioning that this game is mixed or average according to Metacritic. Personally, I think it's better to mention what the score is and how many reviewers were taken into account. But I won't push for it in the GA review. There are 8 reviewers who provided scores, 6 of which have provided below-average scores. and only 2 of them have provided above-average scores. So the reception should reflect that in the prose better.

I changed it to say 72/100, as well as putting a little blurb about negative reception in the first paragraph of that section.

• The format for the reception section is to provide the overall impression of the reviews of the Critics. Since the reception is leaning toward negative, it's more logical to list the negatives first. Any outliers of positive can be mention near the end of the paragraphs. If the reviewers are sharing a common category such as Combat, Quests, Dialogue, or Other, they may be split off onto their own paragraph if there's enough information.

Done.

• Critics like Eurogamer, GameSpot, IGN and TechAdvisor praised it, describing it as one of the best implementations of medieval combat ever created.
  • ^None of the reviews called it that. Additionally, it might be better to point out any specific praise the reviewers had about the combat and give a more detailed summary of what they were saying. If they do have praise for the combat, what did they like about it specifically? Or what phrasing did they choose?

Added. I don't know where that sentence came from, but I made the combat section more detailed.

• Mount & Blade has received negative criticism for its repetitive quests, dialogues, and locations, as well as poor graphics quality.
  • This is a long list of criticism and uses multiple reviewers. Did all reviewers that were referenced in this sentence all have problems with those aspects or was it a few reviewers having problems with some or all of these? What I'm basically trying to say is that you could clarify by having each reviewer point out their criticisms of the game alongside this comment to make it clearer. I did a search on all reviews to see if they criticized the quests for being repetitive, and not many sources stated that.

The section is now more detailed, also the repetitive quests part is fixed.

FOLLOW-UP AND SEQUELS section (previously Legacy)

This section is out of date. There's no need to mention a Sequel has been announced if they were already released. It should be rewritten to notate their release date, and also significant changes/new features from its predecessor, and if it is relevant, also include chronology. Anything that hasn't been released yet can retain the announcement information.

So, I added a little bit more about the release of Bannerlord (and what it improved), but are you sure that the date when they confirmed the sequel should be removed? It seems like a fairly significant detail.

If it has it's own article, it can be covered in greater detail there. it's not as important as it used to be once the game is released and has its own article.

Eliminated the announced release date.

OVERALL

If you could address these issue, I will look further into it.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 23:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: All the issues you brought up have been fixed. Could you take another look at the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aven13 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aven13: I made some adjustments myself to help move things along for you. There are some things that still need work. I'm actually didn't notice this before, but TechAdvisor and GamePro reviews are actually the same review. It would be better to just remove TechAdvisor and replace it with GamePro, as that is the more recognized source. This will also impact the Gameplay and the Reception section.

Done. I don't know how I missed it.

Another thing to point out is that Game Industry News and 411Mania have not been confirmed to being credible reviewers. For now, I would ask it to be removed. You can discuss their reliability at WT:VG/RS. Once proven reliable, they can be re-added into the article.

Done.

I also added a LEAD and I expanded on the GAMEPLAY section with some minor issues I hope can be addressed.

Lastly, I see you chose to highlight Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord that it was the biggest release of 2020. That doesn't give us any context to what that means. What does "Biggest release" mean? It's best not to include those statements. Again, completely unnecessary to notate in the article that is mainly about the first game in the series.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 10:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Eliminated the last part.

Ok, so I just reviewed it and made minor alterations. At this point, i'll give it a Pass. Personally, i highly recommend archiving all the links as well.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 18:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong map

The map is wrong. 85.229.187.64 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

tru Welso (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)