How to make KCD actually feel more realistic


links that might be of some interest

(caveat: Kirksty created a number of shadow accounts to give the highest ratings to some of the questions)

There was also a proposal a couple months ago to re-engage backers to take stock, etc. It died on the vine. Haven’t seen anything else to suggest it might be reconstituted… except for the Livestreams Tobi et al have been doing lately (but that’s not backer focused)

Btw, I’m not a backer… just an irrational (if not rabid) fan of KCD and what WH is trying to do


Not if they do it maybe in a way like The Witcher 3 Mod did, Absolute Camera

And if you enable all debug in Crysis or his Sandbox2 Editor,
you can have a full third person camera. Most time everything is okay but the animations were not builded for that. Or the Camera isnt perfect connected to the player model in movement. Like in Mirrors Edge. Everyone said that STALKER dont need a TPV but in the end everyone loved it from Oblivion Lost Remake or Lost Alpha! The thing for me is, i would love to have a TPV during exploration and if you getting a fight it switshes to FPV


@rataj: good point. Yeah, it clearly “could be” done, but the argument that it was “beyond what they were able to do” given the constraints under which they operated is something you cannot really argue with.

Cameras are so important for a game IMO, and so far I don’t know much about their technicalities. I’m going to be using Unreal Engine, so I’m hoping I’ll find I’m able to employ all or most all of my fancy-pants camera aspirations.

One of my favorite IP is Jagged Alliance, and the traditional isometric squad-shooter format is one that is dear to me. Jagged Alliance Back in Action was a fine game which I’ve enjoyed a lot, but without the Sbobovyk Camera mod the game is nearly unplayable. Another example of a big (meaning more than one person) project with external funding which was rushed toward the end of development.


You’re right, a good adjusted cameras is important for a game. I’ve changed the camera in around 40% of all my archieved games but from my own expierence it isnt really a thing of “under which they operated”. If they want it (what they dont want) and cant come to a result for all devs in the team (and result is no tpv), the Absolute Camera solution is the best. And a failure with a camera in a tactical stregy game isnt really a “it is difficult to find the best camera position/angle” fault. It shows only that the project got not much time and the concept wasnt really worked out. Like a dirty fast copy paste work!


Il y a une chose que je ne comprend pas, on demande dans ce poste ce qu’il faudrait pour rendre ce jeux plus réaliste et la on arrête pas de parler régulièrement d’avoir la possibilité d’avoir une vue a la troisième personne.
Personnellement cela n’a aucun sans car cela n’est pas réaliste du tous. quand tu te balade dans la rue ou a d’autre moment de ta vie tu ne te vois a la troisième personne sauf via un système de camera interposer.
un travail sur la vue a la première personne pour augmenter le réalisme je suis d’accord mais jamais une vue a la troisième personne n’augmentera le réalisme d’un jeux, bien des jeux offrant cette double vu nous l’on bien démontré “ofp, arma et bien d’autres”

There is one thing I do not understand, we ask in this post what it would take to make this game more realistic and we stop talking regularly to have the opportunity to have a view in the third person.
Personally it has no without because it is not realistic at all. when you walk in the street or at any other time in your life you do not see yourself in the third person except via a camera interposer system.
a work on sight in the first person to increase the realism I agree but never a view in the third person will increase the realism of a game, many games with this double view we have well demonstrated " ofp, arma and many others "


Totally agree with you that: making this beautiful game world, beautiful graphics, good animations, richly historical architecture, lovingly crafted landscapes and vegetation . . . and then making the user view it ONLY from an unduly narrow FPP is . . . Argh, such a waste.

Painting the Sistine Chapel Ceiling and then forcing everyone to look at it through a peephole is the best analogy I can come up with.


When KCD (WH) can get large battles with warhorses right with ability to toogle TPV/FPV and Samsung (or whoever) can get large curved screens^ right… I’ll be in gaming heaven

^ - eg 49" CHG90 QLED


@Magor80 I’m not sure if you are saying that “restricting the game to first person only view is more realistic” or the opposite of that.
I would say that: restricting the game to first person only view, does not make the game more realistic.
I would also say that: providing some third person view could make the game more IMMERSIVE, which would contribute to the sense of “realism,” even while it offers a visual perspective which is objectively unrealistic.
Human visual field is not easily represented on a flat small screen. Human movement, of all parts of the body, but especially the head, shoulders and eyes, is not readily represented with the standards of user interface and visual output (leaving aside VR technology which is a different matter entirely). A well-moderated third person camera mode is a measure towards addressing these deficiencies in representing the human visual field and human movement. VR is supposed to be another solution, but to date it seems fairly clunky and problematic.


I spoke only visually, now imagine the material needs asked, if you are in third person view and you go back to first person view at every meeting or fight, unless you have a pc of very high range, you can restart your pc every 30 minutes to avoid the monstrous lag that you end up having unless you do the fighting in the third person also but shots there is more realism because through the view to the third person you know where the enemies are and you have more surprises to be attacked from behind as is the case in reality and in the game now unless you have eyes behind the head;).
But a discussion of a first-person or third-person view can not find real resolution because everyone has their own preferences and play habits and a different perception of what surrounds them.

je ne parlais que sur le plan visuel, maintenant imagine aux besoins matériels demandé, si tu est en vue troisième personne et que tu repasse en vue première personne a chaque rencontre ou combat, a moins d’avoir un pc de très haute gamme, tu peux relancer ton pc toute les 30 minutes pour éviter le lag monstrueux que tu finirais par avoir a moins que l’on fasse les combats a la troisième personne également mais du coups il n’y a plus de réalisme car grâce a la vue a la troisième personne tu sais ou sont les ennemis et tu as plus la surprises de te faire attaquer par derrière comme c’est le cas dans la réalité et dans le jeux actuellement a moins d’avoir des yeux derrière la tête :wink: .
Mais une discussion sur une vue a la première ou a la troisième personne ne peux trouver de résolution réelle car chacun a ses préférences et habitudes de jeux et une perception différente de ce qui l’entour.


Very true. It is a matter of personal taste.

But the key thing is: first person perspective is not “more realistic.” For each dimension by which one can objectively suggest that a FPP is a “more accurate” representation of human perception and action, one can point out where the limitations of current technology undermine the accuracy/realism of FPP, and also where the TPP fills in these gaps.

For example: FOV would need to be more in the ballpark of 160 to 180 and with perhaps the peripheral 50 degrees largely unresolved until the camera is shifted to those spots. While this would “technically” be a more accurate aka “realistic” way to represent human perception on a flat screen it would also fail at this task terribly because the user was looking at a screen, not a VR wraparound goggle. The effect of trying to render that many pixels on even the widest wide screens and with that much blur around the edges would like best be called “Nausea Simulator 2019.”

This is just one factor in why the idea that a FPP “is more realistic” is nonsensical, but I don’t want to belabor it.

Suffice to say: there is no empirical or logical basis to argue that an FPP “is more realistic” a perspective in a traditional format action game than any other format. While there is plenty of objective basis to note that a third person perspective IS LESS realistic and an isometric arguably even MORE UNREALISTIC, this technical acknowledgement that “no one sees from a perspective behind themselves or far behind and above themselves as if they were a disembodied spirit . . .” does not however mean that, a FPP or even an Isometric perspective cannot be the “better choice” when it comes to evoking realism in the art of a video game.

It is all representations, and they always involve abstractions, simplifications, over-generalizations, inaccuracies, and downright falsehoods in order to achieve “realism.” The game strives for more realism than most and I have to say it is “successful,” but one should not confuse that with the conclusion that KCD is the “eptiome” of realism or achieves 99.9% realism fidelity. That is literally impossible.

Realism is only good in moderation, though the extent to which “moderate” is depends.

War in the Pacific Admiral’s Edition, arguably one of the “most realistic” simulations ever made. The game represents the entire pacific theater of WWII and includes instances for literally EVERY SINGLE WARSHIP and significant merchant marine vessel . . . every single air unit . . . every single ground unit of battalion size or larger (and many of smaller size too). The way combat works, the way one can literally play the war out day-by-day with a turn system that makes good sense given the scale at which the game plays (basically a morning, and an evening phase for each day). Supply, morale, training, casualties, bombing, dog fights, hell! it even matters what altitude you tell your air groups to patrol at! The P-39 aircobra for example (if memory serves) does quite well at higher altitudes, but sucks below about 20,000 feet?

The level of detail and effort to “achieve realism” in the game is mind-boggling.

Nonetheless, the game is not “realistic” and arguably isn’t very realistic at all. Why?

Because the actual bureacratic, logistical and distributive mechanics that determine “how decisions are made and how grand strategy get transformed into trigger pulls and foot steps in the field” is completely farcical.

The player is in the role of FDR or Hirohito, i.e., the commander in chief of the nation, and there is nothing unrealistic about that. However, if we were to accurately represent, that is to say REALISTICALLY represent the experience of FDR or Hirohito in their administration of their nations grand strategy in the pacific war, what would it actually look like?

Well, you could probably achieve it with the art work and animations for ONE ROOM, lets say the Oval office for FDR. After going home and resting, you’d arrive at the office (First person perspective only, and with those nausea inducing visual parameters I described above). You’d make your way in your wheelchair/walker to your desk and sit down at the crack of dawn with your telephone and letter opener and crack into the war. Most of what the player would deal with would be letters, with the occasional map or photograph, and less frequently a dialogue interaction with one or more NPCs. Every action you’d take would also be in those same forms: either written letters or verbal orders to NPCs. Then you’d go to bed, and you might NEVER know what the actual effect of any given order or directive you gave was. In some cases, things like that were not deciphered from the post-war intell for decades! Hell, people are still to this day debating how/why the Battle of Midway was won by the Yanks.

All this to say: striving too hard for “realism” is a fools errand. It is impossible to achieve, and if one becomes too blinkered by the goal, and in particular if one falls prey to one of the fallacies like “First Person Perspective is ‘more realistic’” one stands to actual produce something that is LESS IMMERSIVE and thus less realistic.

ADDIT: Ah actually my memory of the P-39 was REVERSED! It performs pretty well against other early war fighters at lower altitudes, but its lack of a super-charger made it very ineffective at HIGHER altitudes :thinking:


now we’re getting to the epistemological crux. realism in a game is a bullshit illusion. the best we can hope for is ‘historical playability’.


Frelmedieval I agree with you.
A simple thing that would make the game more realistic, NPCs pick up objects they find, but stupidly keep them in their inventory for nothing, for me either they resell them, or they use it if it brings him one more or less that’s what I would do.
I think it’s possible to make the game more realistic just by changing some routines or functions in the game.
Another example, out of combat, the visor of the helmets would be open what would justify the modification of visual when one passes in combat.

Frelmedieval je suis d’accord avec toi.
Une chose toute simple qui rendrait plus réaliste le jeux, les pnj ramassent les objets qu’ils trouvent, mais les garde bêtement dans leur inventaire pour rien, pour moi soit ils les revendent, soit ils l’utilisent si celui-ci lui apporte un plus du moins c’est ce que je ferais.
Je pense qu’il est possible de rendre le jeux plus réaliste uniquement en changeant quelques routines ou fonctions dans le jeux.
Autre exemple, hors combat, la visière des casques seraient ouvert ce qui justifierait la modification de visuel quand on passe en combat.


I just want to be able to give alms to beggars haha


Just drop a few groschen in front of them and they will pick them up.
There’s one beggar in front of the tavern in Rattay, I dropped a few groschen and after a while he grabbed the bag of money, walked to the tavern and ordered some ale to drink, I was in awe to be honest, funny as hell.