In terms of battling, there is no comparison. COD: WW2: War is 9-12 players a side. It’s adults (they tend to talk most) and kids. War never locks you onto a specific target. War doesn’t give you a faction killing bonus. War doesn’t give you a near death defense/resurrection perk or enemy fear perk. And, never ever do any of them stop during battle, put their weapon away, and just stand there. This happens quite a bit in KCD. And, that’s not near as farcical as KCD ambush combat
1 Like
You can not compare the 2 games together full stop as call of duty is not simulation plus the genres are totally different. I see where you are coming from but It’s out of context. If you want proper modern war simulation then go and play arma 3 as that game was developed for the military.
1 Like
COD doesn’t have the breadth; never said it did. But, it has a depth of combat (even if paltry compared to other games) that is still way beyond KCD in its current state. WW2 War for example now has 4-5 different flavors and that doesn’t even cover the many other varieties of battling available including customized battles.
If KCD adds full on mod support and if KCD gets good and proper DLC, that assessment may change. But, until then, if depth of combat is what one seeks COD: WW2 is far better than KCD (remembering that that was the comparison).
How I hate the press. I really really hate them. Dishonest, politically correct hypocrites.
They didn’t tread warhorse fairly at all. Just don’t buy from these magazines!
1 Like
Some of the gaming reviews are complimentary. Daniel even mentioned the German gaming group’s reassessment (86?) during his presentation at gaming conference
This COD/KC:D comparison, while entertaining, is about as useful as comparing chess to I Spy and is getting quite off topic.
I have no problem with Daniel’s tweet, single-player games will drop off in player count when people have completed the game and moved on to other things while potentially waiting for DLC. Trying to turn that stat in to some sort of defamatory article is quite ridiculous. I do, however, fall in to the playerbase that wishes to hear more development news from the devs. It’s been radio silence for too long now and any kind of update would be appreciated. Although, if this is due to some sort of surprise in an update (tournaments or similar) then all will be forgiven.
1 Like
Tell it to Chessqueen
Daniel it seems rightly pointed out user percentages aren’t the chicken little scenario some might think. But, beyond that, the absolute numbers aren’t good and it’ll get worse the longer radio silence persists. Unless there’s a game architecture problem or a financial inability to invest in further developing KCD, I don’t see why KCD shouldnt have absolute numbers on par with a game that was released long ago (ie M&B)
Current situation in a way has potential to become a bit of Audi and Hyundai in US market in 80s. If they just stopped making excuses, communicated better and addressed the damn issue, they’d have recovered well in the near term. Instead harm to consumer reputation and the attendant fallout took place and that took many years to undo
50-60 hours is not short, it’s the ideal length for a story driven RPG. Skyrim and The Witcher 3 are just stretched to make the game longer, but this will end in a boring experience. Long as an ocean, but flat as a puddle.
1 Like
…in YOUR opinion. And let me tell you, YOUR opinion isn’t worth more than my 12 year old nephew’s.
It’s simply just YOUR opinion. And you are not anyone of any importance to anyone really , neither in the gaming world or in the world at large. You’re simply one in almost 6 billion people on the planet who’s opinion matters as much as Banghur Pradha in Bangladesh.
Get off your high horse and stop trying to convey your opinions as facts.
They’re not.
Not even close.
W3 for instance is WAY more polished, has better (and more) story behind it, the dialogue scripts work better and are more fleshed out. You have more freedom and the game glitches out way more seldom. Especially in battle. And there are many more ways the game can end. the way through the game, story wise is also way more diversified.
YOU obviously now jack all but you have plenty of opinions…
THIS game ends without even letting you anywhere NEAR the main quest being finished. Drops you more or less mid story. Story wise this game is half finished if not less.
It’s beautiful (If you discount the crap vegetation 2d models) and fun but simply put not quite there yet.
No, but this is just YOUR OPINION. Not even worth to read.
1 Like
That’s YOUR OPINION about W3. You can almost compare the 2 games to media outlets. W3 = Mainstream and KCD = Non Mainstream, the latter having half of the funding to produce a product aswell. That’s MY OPINION 
Well, what do you expect? I already finish the game, sometimes i just replay some saves to keep my fighting skills sharp.
There´s not much else to do, i can´t be the only one in this kinda of situation.
This is probably because he doesn’t realize this forum exists…
1 Like
I do not understand why people compare fantasy games with this game. Its not the same genre.
And to compare CoD with KCD is strange. There is no open world in CoD. etc.
There is no other 1st-person semi-historical medieval game with an open world based on true locations out there. So all this lists are useless.
btw, I give nothing about this Steam numbers. I play KCD, I have fun, thats important to me. Its a single player game so why should I care how many other people play it now, in a year or later?
The really interesting thing to me is: will Warhorse make another game like this? I would welcome it. Hopefully there are people who give the money for a new project and do not care for such “articles”. Only the numbers of sold KCD copies count. But thats another debate.
6 Likes
The Witcher 3 and Kingdom Come are both medieval RPGs, the one with fantasy and the other (almost) realistic. But the open world in both games is medieval with its castles and towns and NPCs. You can really compare both games as they are RPGs. But The Witcher 3 is just too overhyped and Kingdom Come was never meant to be a mainstream game.
1 Like
Nobody should be surprised by the drop off in player numbers. The release build was nothing short of horrible, the game is riddled with bugs to this day, there were huge patches that ended up breaking the main story, the subject matter is kind of niche, a lot of mechanics in the game seem unfinished, the combat is unbalanced as hell, the stealth is unbalanced as hell, the difficulty of the game curves downwards instead of up as you go along…should I go on?
That being said, I hope they salvage what they can through mod support and DLC, because if you squint you can clearly see something brilliant through all the mess. I know a sequel is already planned, but as things stand now they would lose a lot of good will if they released a new game while the first one is still in such a state.
And please stop comparing it to The Witcher 3, you’re doing it no favours. I love KCD, but it’s no Witcher 3.
1 Like
KDC is better than Witcher 3 and why should the difficulty go upwards as you go along? Your skills become better, your armor and weapons become better as you go along, so it makes sense the difficulty go downwards. This is how every decent RPG is. Hard at the beginning and easier as long you progress. There is thanks god no enemy upscaling.
1 Like
Okay let’s not get into an argument over which game is better because that comes down to taste in the end, although I don’t think there can be any argument on the technical side of things.
And concerning the difficulty curve: no, that’s not how every decent RPG is. A decent RPG will stay challenging through to the end, whereas KCD just drops any attempt at being challenging around the halfway point. And you can do that without enemy level scaling, which I’m also not a fan of. Several games have managed that, but it requires the game world to be built accordingly. The Requiem mod for Skyrim - the base game having that stupid level scaling stuff - completely de-leveled the entire game world, for example. Every type of enemy was exactly as powerful at level 1 as they were ever going to be, but that also meant that below player level 20, if you came across a troll you either ran as fast as you could or you died. It means that the world map opens up organically step by step and is by far the best system in my opinion. The more powerful you become, the more regions of the world you can explore because you can then handle whatever enemies the game throws at you in that particular area.
I admit it is harder to do when you have no fantasy monsters available for more powerful enemies, but it still could have been done. Start out in a region where the main threat are wild animals, looters and ill-equipped bandits, have later regions plagued by robber barons and well-trained Cuman scout parties, etc. Instead, because the combat is so ridiculously unbalanced, you start out with shooting arrows from 2 feet away being the most effective tactic in hand-to-hand combat and once you reach around level 12 in your combat skills nothing will ever be dangerous again.
1 Like
KCD aimed to be realistic, unlike any other conventional RPG we are familiar with. In reality enemies (which are humen here) are all same powerful. It just depends on their fighting skill, armor and weapon. But all are just humen and no “video game bosses”. Henry at the beginning is just a poor son of a smith, he never hold a sword and never weared an armor, so the beginning is difficult, because he has to fight against some strong crusaders or bandits. But slowly Henry become better in his skills and that’s a logical reason why things become easier later.
You’re almost repeating what I wrote there: yes, it depends on their fighting skill, armour and weaponry. Which is why you could have enemies that are better trained and equipped later in the game. Which is what I said they should have done.