Kingdom Come: Deliverance - Catch All

Edit - Taken care of already. Mine was but a hopeful plea for a course correction that is no longer necessary. Moving on.

halfwaywrong wrote:
ruhk wrote:

The noblewoman in Talmberg barely has any dialogue and basically only exists as a puzzle solution (though considering how weird your first encounter with her is, I wouldn’t be surprised if she becomes a sex vending machine after she’s served her story purpose like Teresa does).

She does, only with even less romance. You get some things for her and she offers sex as a reward, if you wear her fathers shirt.

TrashiDawa wrote:

Even with the fumbled follow-through after they have sex, is it really unbelievable that two young people who were already attracted to each other hooked up after sharing an extremely traumatic experience?

In the interests of historical accuracy, I'm not sure I would instantly agree considering the poor contraception, poor healthcare if a pregnancy occurs, and the ever-present fear of god :P. Occam's Razor would suggest that it's just another video game trope in a very tropey game. To be fair, I'm sure I read somewhere that Vávra had bigger plans for romance options, but ran out of time. Like I've said previously, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt there, but it's hard with his track record.

ChipRMonk wrote:

I'm pretty sure the game, unrealistic as it likely is, understates the barbarity and squalor of the times. They were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

This is probably pedantry, but the Dark Ages ended a good 400 years or so before the events shown in Kingdom Come. Petrarch, the guy who came up with the term 'Dark Ages', died before Henry would have even been born. Historians rarely use the term at all anymore. One of the reasons for this is the misrepresentation that the term implies to the public.

Perhaps not so pedantic, if the "Dark Ages" were considered to end around 1000 AD. Honestly, I always considered them to hang on at least a little longer, although 1400 would be at the extreme tail end of the period anyway. It's a fair enough point.

ruhk wrote:

The game just handles women in general very poorly. I can only recall five named female characters during my entire play through, three of which get killed within minutes of being introduced. It’s heavily implied that Teresa gets raped, though she seems mostly fine with it. The noblewoman in Talmberg barely has any dialogue and basically only exists as a puzzle solution (though considering how weird your first encounter with her is, I wouldn’t be surprised if she becomes a sex vending machine after she’s served her story purpose like Teresa does).

From my time in the game so far, I can't disagree. If it tries to emphasize the times by showing the bad rap women got, I'm okay with that. I won't be happy to see any game mechanics involving participation in such things, though. Enough to acknowledge how it was and move on with the story. More than that is in pretty bad taste, realism or not.

ChipRMonk wrote:

Perhaps not so pedantic, if the "Dark Ages" were considered to end around 1000 AD. Honestly, I always considered them to hang on at least a little longer, although 1400 would be at the extreme tail end of the period anyway. It's a fair enough point.

Historians don't really use the term Dark Ages anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_A...(historiography)

The rise of archaeology in the 20th century has shed light on the period, offering a more nuanced understanding of its achievements.[13] Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages, and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. Today, on the rare occasions when the term is used by historians, it is intended to be neutral and express the idea that the period often seems 'dark' from the scarcity of historical record, and artistic and cultural output
NathanialG wrote:
ChipRMonk wrote:

Perhaps not so pedantic, if the "Dark Ages" were considered to end around 1000 AD. Honestly, I always considered them to hang on at least a little longer, although 1400 would be at the extreme tail end of the period anyway. It's a fair enough point.

Historians don't really use the term Dark Ages anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_A...(historiography)

The rise of archaeology in the 20th century has shed light on the period, offering a more nuanced understanding of its achievements.[13] Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages, and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized. Today, on the rare occasions when the term is used by historians, it is intended to be neutral and express the idea that the period often seems 'dark' from the scarcity of historical record, and artistic and cultural output

Middle Ages then. Though as a descriptive term, it still fit pretty well across much of the world in that time period: less cultural development and literacy, heavy handed influence of religious movements that became more like governments, castes, feudelism, those kinds of things. I hardly think a 1400-ish time period in the region under discussion would have been considered Renaissance, would it?

Meh, I just consider it the Crusader Kings 2 period.

ChipRMonk wrote:

Middle Ages then. Though as a descriptive term, it still fit pretty well across much of the world in that time period: less cultural development and literacy, heavy handed influence of religious movements that became more like governments, castes, feudelism, those kinds of things.

It's a much more complex story than the negative one that exists in the popular imagination.

I hardly think a 1400-ish time period in the region under discussion would have been considered Renaissance, would it?

Well, what would the pre-mediveal time period in the region look like? I feel like our idea of the classical world is that everything somehow automatically looks like Rome. I don't know a lot about the region, but that's the question to ask: why call something a 'dark' age if it's no less advanced than it was before that supposed 'dark' age?

ChipRMonk wrote:

Though as a descriptive term, it still fit pretty well across much of the world in that time period: less cultural development and literacy, heavy handed influence of religious movements that became more like governments, castes, feudelism, those kinds of things.

It really doesn't fit. Literacy rates were not high in the Roman Empire, and were focused on two primary groups - the ruling class and the trading class. Literacy rates on the fringes of the Empire, like Britain, Gaul, and Bohemia, didn't really change very much except for the reduction that occurred when long-distance trade disappeared. Cultural development did not stop, however. The Merovingian Dynasty, and later the Carolingian Dynasty, ruled much of Western Europe through this period, and there were numerous cultural developments in architecture, art, music, education, and the re-establishment of trade (ironically, one of the more popular trading commodities was European slaves for the Arabic market).

The church was responsible for a lot of things during the Middle Ages, but it preserved a strong thread of scientific inquiry and cultural advancement. The church played a central role in preserving many books and stories, painstakingly making copy after copy by hand. The church also developed musical notation both in Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries, which is why we know quite a bit about music from those periods and virtually nothing about music from the western Roman Empire.

Neither was the rest of the world idle. Hindu-Arabic numerals and calculation were developed around 7th century in India, and migrated west through Persia and the Muslim world, arriving in Europe in the 10th century. The Early Middle Ages also marked the peak of the Mayan Empire, and the Byzantines stole the secret of silk production from the Chinese in the 7th century. The Chinese were using gunpowder at least as early as 1044, though that secret wouldn't make its way to Europe until the 12th century.

In short, the Romans were able administrators, excellent soldiers, and excellent traders, but they weren't much on cultural and scientific development. An argument can be made that their empire needed to collapse in order for Europe and the Mediterranean basin to resume progressing scientifically and culturally.

sometimesdee wrote:

MOD

There are so many issues with this thread, I don't even know where to begin.

Let's see:
- Name calling: check
- Harkening back to the good old days, before the libruls ruined the site: check
- Continued (real or feigned) ignorance instead of learning about the topic at hand: check

This is coming from people who should know better.

to give benefit of the doubt, here's some info on Gamer Gate (its proponents are called Gators), and SJWs.

Let's move on.

EDIT: checks subforum. *does a double take* If you all insist on discussing GamerGate and racial representation in games in good faith, please take it to Discussion and Debates.

I have an issue with the concept of taking it to another place. It's not a secret that this game was developed by a "problematic" creator. Given this person's stance on issues of diversity and representation in games it would be negligent of us to act like it doesn't exist or try and explain it away as something perhaps it isn't.

Are we by saying take discussion of any problematic nature to someplace else basically trying to silence that discussion? Or basically say.. you can talk about it but talk about it on terms that make people more comfortable. If we take the stand that Athletes should be allowed to protest freely to bring awareness to racial injustice in our society shouldn't we also be trying to make people aware of the problems in gaming?

I'm not sure normalizing discussion around a problematic product makes the most sense in terms of trying to bring change to this hobby for the betterment of all people. Who are we trying to avoid offending? Those people sympathetic or neutral to the goals of GamerGators?? If that's the goal here then perhaps I'm in the wrong place.

TheGameguru wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

MOD

There are so many issues with this thread, I don't even know where to begin.

Let's see:
- Name calling: check
- Harkening back to the good old days, before the libruls ruined the site: check
- Continued (real or feigned) ignorance instead of learning about the topic at hand: check

This is coming from people who should know better.

to give benefit of the doubt, here's some info on Gamer Gate (its proponents are called Gators), and SJWs.

Let's move on.

EDIT: checks subforum. *does a double take* If you all insist on discussing GamerGate and racial representation in games in good faith, please take it to Discussion and Debates.

I have an issue with the concept of taking it to another place. It's not a secret that this game was developed by a "problematic" creator. Given this person's stance on issues of diversity and representation in games it would be negligent of us to act like it doesn't exist or try and explain it away as something perhaps it isn't.

Are we by saying take discussion of any problematic nature to someplace else basically trying to silence that discussion? Or basically say.. you can talk about it but talk about it on terms that make people more comfortable. If we take the stand that Athletes should be allowed to protest freely to bring awareness to racial injustice in our society shouldn't we also be trying to make people aware of the problems in gaming?

I'm not sure normalizing discussion around a problematic product makes the most sense in terms of trying to bring change to this hobby for the betterment of all people. Who are we trying to avoid offending? Those people sympathetic or neutral to the goals of GamerGators?? If that's the goal here then perhaps I'm in the wrong place.

Fairly certain she meant that the political talk needs to goto D&D. No one is trying to silence anything. There are people who have and still are playing the game. Any game discussion has been drowned out by the political.

MOD

TheGameguru wrote:

I have an issue with the concept of taking it to another place. It's not a secret that this game was developed by a "problematic" creator. Given this person's stance on issues of diversity and representation in games it would be negligent of us to act like it doesn't exist or try and explain it away as something perhaps it isn't.

Nobody’s saying that we act like it doesn’t exist. You can simply mention said issues, then throw up a link to the appropriate D&D thread.

If we take the stand that Athletes should be allowed to protest freely to bring awareness to racial injustice in our society shouldn't we also be trying to make people aware of the problems in gaming?

Even athletes don’t protest in the middle of the field. They do so on the sidelines, before kickoff.

As Leonard Nimoy said in Civ IV, “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

We’ve determined that it’s best to have a cursory mention of political issues in threads like these, with in-depth discussion elsewhere. It may not be the perfect solution, but it’s the best we can come up with for now.

Any other concerns or criticism of moderation can be discussed in PM.

I almost picked a physical copy up whilst grocery shopping yesterday. Gave it a miss whilst I'm in the midst of a few other titles.

It's the combat and the non high fantasy theme of the world continuing to keep it in my thoughts. How frequent does combat come along? I think I read somewhere that it can be few and far between. Still, that could work if it's as meaty as it seems.

I was watching a stream where the player said that you could simply run away from a lot of the random combat encounters once your guy levels up (stamina?) enough. Also armor upgrades mitigate a LOT of NPC damage if you don't want to be fighting a lot (combat being quite punitive early-game).

RnRClown wrote:

I almost picked a physical copy up whilst grocery shopping yesterday. Gave it a miss whilst I'm in the midst of a few other titles.

It's the combat and the non high fantasy theme of the world continuing to keep it in my thoughts. How frequent does combat come along? I think I read somewhere that it can be few and far between. Still, that could work if it's as meaty as it seems.

It's really up to you mostly how often you are going to fight. You could go and do nothing but fighting sidequests (clear a bandit camp kinda stuff) and you could also go and do other quests that allow you to finish them in a non-violent way.

In the end though, I feel that combat is really de-emphasized in this game. There are no goblin caves to clear or haunted mansions to investigate. This whole "realistic" thing was really working for me in the beginning but as I progress along and get distracted by the sidequests, it feels a bit boring. Maybe it's the kind of gamer I am or maybe it's the game's fault but seeing bandits as your most common enemy gets old fast. Give me some liches!

That said, I stopped playing after about 20 hours or so as I am waiting for the patch. Seeing as the patch was supposed to be released on PC last week and hasn't been released yet, it seems you've made a good decision to wait a bit longer before buying a physical copy.

Hedinn wrote:

This whole "realistic" thing was really working for me in the beginning but as I progress along and get distracted by the sidequests, it feels a bit boring. Maybe it's the kind of gamer I am or maybe it's the game's fault but seeing bandits as your most common enemy gets old fast. Give me some liches!

That's a good point. I considered the no magic aspect, but yeah, if you don't have fantasy as well, and you stick to realistic combat, you've narrowed the scope of combat variety considerably.

Godzilla Blitz wrote:
RnRClown wrote:

This whole "realistic" thing was really working for me in the beginning but as I progress along and get distracted by the sidequests, it feels a bit boring. Maybe it's the kind of gamer I am or maybe it's the game's fault but seeing bandits as your most common enemy gets old fast. Give me some liches!

That's a good point. I considered the no magic aspect, but yeah, if you don't have fantasy as well, and you stick to realistic combat, you've narrowed the scope of combat variety considerably.

How often does your character die of gangrene in a pre-antibiotic era?

Good point concerning variety in the long term. Maybe the narrower scope of no high fantasy will reduce the playability, through sheer lack of enemy types or weapon difference.

Does this game work best with M&K or a controller? I played Witcher 3 with a controller and it felt like a very good fit - would this experience translate to KCD fairly well?

Edit: I now notice that the game has a save and exit feature. That's a big barrier out of the way.

1.3 patch is out for PC, sadly those of us on console are still waiting but hopefully should be soon.

https://www.pcgamer.com/amp/kingdom-...

Edit: I guess it’s only available on PC but should hit both consoles soon.

kergguz wrote:

Does this game work best with M&K or a controller? I played Witcher 3 with a controller and it felt like a very good fit - would this experience translate to KCD fairly well?

Edit: I now notice that the game has a save and exit feature. That's a big barrier out of the way.

I used M&K and had no problems, but i rarely use a controller.

ranalin wrote:
kergguz wrote:

Does this game work best with M&K or a controller? I played Witcher 3 with a controller and it felt like a very good fit - would this experience translate to KCD fairly well?

Edit: I now notice that the game has a save and exit feature. That's a big barrier out of the way.

I used M&K and had no problems, but i rarely use a controller.

I also used M&K, mostly because I suck at aiming bow and arrow with a controller (in any game, not KCD specific). I heard that controller works really well with this game, except that, pre-patch, lockpicking minigame was MUCH harder with a controller. Not sure if the latest 1.3 patch fixed it.

Save and exit was never a barrier on a PC, there was a saving mod from day 1. In fact, 1.3 patch broke that mod, not sure if the mod has been fixed since.

A friend tried to pick this up from Tesco only to find it was sold out, at all Tesco stores within travelling distance. It must be selling well enough. (He's not interested in the more expensive digital release.)

1.3 is out on consoles. I’ve started a new game and so far really like the changes to lockpicking. I have been slowly working my through the prologue, picking every lock I can while grabbing everything that isn’t nailed down.

After reading what's in the latest update, I'm rather glad that I already finished the game. It seems like they made the mid-to-late game more difficult which is where I want to feel like a god on the battlefield.

I'm starting to see this game show up on sale/discount, and it's getting close to a "maybe" price point for me.

But I'm wondering, have people pretty much moved on from this? The conversation sure died off quickly.

For those who have played the game and now can look back on it with the perspective of time, would you recommend it?

Godzilla Blitz wrote:

I'm starting to see this game show up on sale/discount, and it's getting close to a "maybe" price point for me.

Same reasoning on my end. I'm trying to save up for a big purchase or two. So, unfortunately, I'm not supporting as best I could by waiting out a price drop.

It's single player only, so it doesn't matter when you get in.

Regarding would I recommend...that's a thorny question. From a pure gaming experience perspective, sure, I had a lot of fun with it. I really enjoyed clubbing dudes in the head with a mace.

However, if you are sensitive to social issues, you may want to pass. The game is very focused on the white male. Romantic sub-plots are, at best, side quests with no follow-through. At worst they are treated like juvenile conquests that give you a boost. Plus the lead designer is a Gamer-Gater.

Godzilla Blitz wrote:

I'm starting to see this game show up on sale/discount, and it's getting close to a "maybe" price point for me.

But I'm wondering, have people pretty much moved on from this? The conversation sure died off quickly.

For those who have played the game and now can look back on it with the perspective of time, would you recommend it?

I am guessing a lot of people (and I am one of them) enjoyed the game for some time, decided to wait for a patch or two and got distracted by something else. Story of my life.

I really enjoyed the game while I was playing it, it's seriously cool (if unpolished) but, right now, I will play God of War for quite awhile.

Hedinn wrote:
Godzilla Blitz wrote:

I'm starting to see this game show up on sale/discount, and it's getting close to a "maybe" price point for me.

But I'm wondering, have people pretty much moved on from this? The conversation sure died off quickly.

For those who have played the game and now can look back on it with the perspective of time, would you recommend it?

I am guessing a lot of people (and I am one of them) enjoyed the game for some time, decided to wait for a patch or two and got distracted by something else. Story of my life.

I really enjoyed the game while I was playing it, it's seriously cool (if unpolished) but, right now, I will play God of War for quite awhile. :)

That’s pretty much what happened to me. I had a great game going, but ended up having enough problems and bugs that I stopped to wait on the next patch. Plus it doesn’t help the game runs like crap on my normal Xbox One, kind of debating trading it in and going for the PC version. Only thing stopping me as I’m not sure that my old I7 with a GTS 1050 would be able to handle it.