Liudeius: Unfortunately the series sale ended too quickly, but maybe it will come again, so which of these games should I buy, and which should I play first?
Are any of the versions terrible or more feature complete than the others?
The promo is still running isn't it?
http://www.gog.com/promo/big_fall_mount_blade_bundle_121114 You should give
Mount and Blade a try first - it won't cost you a penny.
If you don't like the first game - your certainly not going to like any of the others.
Personally I thought it was great when I bought the WIP early version back in 2006.
The controls might take a bit of practice but you'll be a tournament champ in no time.
There's no hand-holding and your basically free to do as you please.
There's no limit in the types of characters your able to make i.e. a bounty hunter with a mace, knight with a joust/sword + shield or my favorite mounted archer - are all equally enjoyable.
You character is rather weak at the start but once the XP and money comes in - you can purchase better gear.
Warband is essentially a direct replacement for
Mount and Blade - it's also the base for DLC content.
If you ever liked watching [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_(TV_series)]Sharpe[/url] or enjoyed playing Napoleon Total War - the Napoleon
multiplayer based DLC might interest you.
No idea about the Viking DLC - it hasn't even been released yet!
There's no real reason to purchase
Mount and Blade if you get
Warband - but then that's why they're giving it away for free! ;)
Fire and Sword is set in Europe (rather than a fictional world; as in the first two games) and introduces gunpowder into the usual mix.
It doesn't seem to get as positive a reception due to some missing features - but with the heavy 75% discount it works out more expensive to not buy it!