Curious about how many users here backed the Kickstarter because of their previous experience with the Mount & Blade series? For me, the game looked like M&B on crack and I was preeeetty much instantly sold. I am so hyped for this game.
17 Likes
Yeah! M&B is so fun, Itâs like M&B is a shitty multiplayer version of Kindom Come. Donât get me wrong, I love Mount and Blade.
4 Likes
M&B on crack. Awesome. That could be a new tagline. D&noD and M&B on crackâŠ
3 Likes
I play to M&B, and I love that game.
However I didnât backed because I like M&B but because the project sounds awesome and I love RPG game.
If a game is revolutionizing RPG game I have to support it and to play it !
5 Likes
I think this game and M & B are vastly different. This is an RPG focusing on story and M & B is basically a medieval battle simulator where you craft your own story. I donât really see the cross over between the two. That being said, Mount and Blade was an excellent game and this game looks to be good too if it follows through on its promises.
4 Likes
I have to say I was already sick for years about all the generic fantasy medival settings in every second game. I was waiting for a realistic (as much as possible of course) medieval RPG without any fantasy/magic-elements. I wanted the real medieval feeling!
When M&B came out I was so happy that someone finally did what I was asking for. It was amazing and I love it and I still play it regularly with tons of different mods.
BUT of course because of M&Bâs rather low graphics and story, there was always something missing. M&B could generate the feeling of medieval times (especially in the battles) but the atmosphere was always quite simple⊠expedient but simple.
And now KC: D is exactly doing what was missing and that is beyond any of my expactions!
10 Likes
Iâm not calling them carbon copies, but I also canât believe you canât draw even the slightest similarities. They are both very, very alike. KC obviously just does it on a whole different level.
Both are set in REALISTIC medieval time periods.
Both were (are) hailed for their first person melee combat, something that Mount & Blade helped pioneer some would argue.
Both pushed first person horseback combat as a key feature.
Both were open ended RPGs.
I could probably go on listing the similarities. Mount & Blade very much was an RPG with a story, not just a âsimulator.â Itâs just that the game didnât hold your hand, like, at ALL. So the story was lost on most who didnât really interact with any other lords or anything. It was meant to be SUCH an open-ended game that you could play it however you wanted, and you very much could.
KC obviously is more story driven, but the similarities are still glaring.
5 Likes
I mean, I guess if youâre calling the fact that they both have combat and are in a medieval setting enough that theyâre similar to call this M&B on crack then thatâs fine, but thatâs not how I see it.
I dispute forever the notion that Mount and Blade had a story, it didnât. The only thing that changed from playthrough to playthrough was your characterâs backstory. That isnât to say, and perhaps I misspoke, that M&B is just a simulator. Itâs a great game, but itâs definitely a âmake your own story and do your own thingâ game. This one doesnât strike me that way at all. This game strikes me as more of an open world Mass Effect given their apparent emphasis on storytelling or perhaps a low fantasy version of an Elder Scrolls game.
And just to be clear, M&B was/is a great game and this one looks to be, but other than some minimal similarities, I donât see how theyâre âvery, very similarâ, they seem like theyâre two different focuses entirely that just coincidentally share a few features. Thatâs not a bad thing though.
As M & B came on the market - also an indie project with a very small team - it was terms of potential, a genre buster . The technical possibilities were not the same today , the graphic was plain and the NPCâs static. But the addiction potential was high, especially since the modder scene was very active and has probably maxed out with the Brythenwalda-Mod the possibilities of the engine. M & B has do a lot things correctly and safely also inspired some developers. It just was never developed further with passion . It has rested on the first success and was overtaken . And someday the developer ( really nice guy ) was not personally achieve , has closed to ideas from the outside.
You could play with quests, but, without it more fun. That was hard, but it was " all or nothing " . Now lies the hope - I mean of many M & B- Gamer too - on KCD . Please, please, let the game become what it can be . The tournament may be the start of a different dimension ,
dare ! You are capable of it.
If it needs to start with a story, all right. Better, the Game will write the story âŠ
Als M & B auf den Markt kam - ĂŒbrigens auch ein Indie-Projekt mit ganz kleiner Mannschaft - war es vom Potenzial her ein Genre-Sprenger. Die technischen Möglichkeiten waren bei weitem nicht die heutigen, die Grafik war schlicht und die NPCÂŽs statisch. Das Suchtpotenzial war aber hoch, zumal die Modderszene sehr rĂŒhrig war und mit der Brythenwalda-Mod vermutlich die Möglichkeiten der Engine ausgereizt hat. M & B hat viel richtig gemacht und sicher auch manchen Entwickler inspiriert. Es wurde nur nie
mit Herzblut weiterentwickelt. Man hat sich auf dem ersten Erfolg ausgeruht und wurde ĂŒberholt. Und der Entwickler (netter Kerl eigentlich) war nicht mehr persönlich zu erreichen, hat sich abgeschottet gegen Ideen von AuĂen.
Man konnte mit Quests spielen, ohne hat es mehr SpaĂ gemacht, das war hart, aber es ging âums Ganzeâ. Nun liegt die Hoffnung - ich meine auch vieler M & B-Gamer - auf KCD. Bitte, bitte, laĂt das Spiel das werden, was es werden könnte. Das Turnier kann der Start in eine andere Dimension sein, traut euch ! Ihr seid dazu fĂ€hig.
Wenn es fĂŒr den Anfang eine Geschichte braucht, na gut. Besser, es schreibt GeschichteâŠ
2 Likes
I think I originally found this on the forum of a game being developed from a M&B mod, with a video posted to suggest that the game should aspire to similar graphics, so I guess I found out about it through M&B.
I donât think the games are similar.
M&B is set in a fantasy world, not the real world.
M&B has innovative combat, KC: D has a very dated combat system.
M&B is a multilayered rts as well as an action rpg.
M&B focusses on gameplay, KC: D focusses on graphics and story.
The personality of each dev team is vastly different (relaxed small team working at a university campus on an idea developed by a husband and wife vs anxious large team hoping to make it big by pushing an idea of achievable quality), which is reflected in the games.
2 Likes
As much as I love Mount and Blade, I did not back this game based on my experience with it. The only thing they have in common is medieval combat and RPG elements. That said, if I enjoy Kingdom Come even half as much as I enjoyed Mount and Blade, Iâm going to be fully satisfied.
Your analysis and the comparisons make sense. Especially the last paragraph should describe the situation at the starttime of Kickstarter campaign aptly . However, I think that the basic idea of both developers are already very close to each other . Differences form the approach and the financial objectives ( expectations ) . Where angst is not the worst drive for maximum performance , so my own experience.
Both developers are shaped locally, the a (Ankara / Anatolia) the other ( Prague / Bohemia) and this is also reflected in the design of the game world again . Although Calradia was a Phantsieland but the fractions formed from just about Europe. In mods which was then also further processed.
At the time of development of M & B was not to think of a Cryengine . This advantage can use the developer of KCD , but also M & B would have these tools available today . Warhorse ( KCD ) uses them Taleworld (M & B) is not . The question is : what happens in the next 36 months a) technically b ) with the expectations of the players. Because players can only play what brings a developer on the market. If you want a game , they do buy it, if not, then not . Considering the fusion of film and game unit (example Lord of the Rings ), a story based game will have to tell the real story to be economically successful can . Basis for each story is smooth game play in an authentic environment. I think this goal is KCD aspire to and achieve . Both games have/had the potential âŠ
Deine Analyse und die Vergleiche treffen voll zu. Speziell der letzte Absatz dĂŒrfte die Situation bis zum Zeitpunkt der Kickstarter-Kampagne treffend beschreiben. Allerdings meine ich, dass die Grundidee beider Entwickler schon sehr nah beieinander liegen. Unterschiede bilden die Herangehensweise und die finanzielle Zielsetzung (Erwartungshaltung). Wobei Existenzangst nicht der schlechteste Antrieb fĂŒr Höchstleistungen ist, so meine eigenen Erfahrungen.
Beide Entwickler sind lokal geprÀgt, der eine (Ankara/Anatolien) der andere (Prag/Böhmen) und das spiegelt sich auch in der Gestaltung der Spielwelt wieder. Calradia war zwar ein Phantsieland aber die Fraktionen bildeten schon in etwa Europa ab. In Mods wurde das dann ja auch weiterverarbeitet.
Zum Zeitpunkt der Entwicklung von M & B war an eine Cryengine noch nicht zu denken. Diesen Vorteil können die Entwickler von KCD nutzen, aber auch M & B hĂ€tte heute diese Werkzeuge zur VerfĂŒgung. Warhorse (KCD) nutzt sie, Taleworld (M & B) nicht. Die Frage wird sein: was passiert in den nĂ€chsten 36 Monaten a) technisch b) mit der Erwartungshaltung der Spieler. Denn die Spieler können nur das spielen, was ein Entwickler auf den Markt bringt. Wenn sie ein Spiel wollen, kaufen sie es, wenn nicht, dann eben nicht. BerĂŒcksichtigt man das Zusammenschmelzen von Film und Spiel (bspl. Herr der Ringe), wird ein storybasiertes Spiel die richtige Story erzĂ€hlen mĂŒssen, um wirtschaftlich erfolgreich sein zu können. Basis fĂŒr jede Story ist flĂŒssiges Gameplay in einer authentischen Umgebung. Ich denke, dieses Ziel wird KCD anstreben und erreichen. Das Potential aber haben/hatten beide SpieleâŠ
The only comparisons I see between M&B and this game are that they are medieval. There are a thousand and one other games out there that can include itself in this category that have far more in common with this game than M&B hell you could have said âWar of the Rosesâ or Assassinâs Creed or Anno 1404 or . . . . .
but ⊠you know, that War of the Roses is an attempt by M & B with a story?
As far as I know, was taleworls that time under contract with paradox.
I have to say I donât really get why this is such a big discussion here if the two games are similar or not.
Tell me, does it matter?
Both games are/will be great in what they are doing. I donât think KC tried to be something like a better M&B, I really doubt that. Of course there may have been some inspiration from M&B for the devs in the way of "damn, that game is fun, why not have more realistic non-fantasy medieval games?"
But apart from this I donât think they orientated their work on M&B.
My statement about this topic is: yes, there are similarities, without any doubt. But KC for sure isnât M&B 2.0
Both are independent and great games being good in what they want to do.
Tetris made my day.
Mount & Blade made my life (as a gamer).
And I can see hundreds of active M&B players watching and discussing this project.
We are not waiting for a âbetter M&Bâ, still M&B left an imprint on our minds.
1 Like
Do love the M&B series, it allows you to create your own story and suck hours out of your life. Looking forward to this as its similar in regards to a medieval setting with no magic and a deep story and it also helps, it looks fantastic. But I am still looking forward to M&B 2 for its improvements and siege mode multiplayer.
3 Likes
I wouldnât agree that the two games are all that similiar. Its just the setting by some terms and the combat which is familiar. Kingdom Come is an open-world RPG while M&B is a sandbox RPG.
Weâll be getting an awesome story and immersive gameplay expierence out of Kingdom Come no doubt, something I donât think M&B could ever deliever.
And Mount & Blade is a massive, truly open-ended sandbox where you do exactly what you want restricted by no story with a focus on the gameplay. The sort of game you can pour hours and hours into, while KC:D will be a 30 hour or so thing. Of course thereâll be good replayability to it, but its very different.
I wouldnât agree that the two games are all that similiar. Its just the setting by some terms and the combat which is familiar. Kingdom Come is an open-world RPG while M&B is a sandbox RPG.
Weâll be getting an awesome story and immersive gameplay expierence out of Kingdom Come no doubt, something I donât think M&B could ever deliever.
And Mount & Blade is a massive, truly open-ended sandbox where you do exactly what you want restricted by no story with a focus on the gameplay. The sort of game you can pour hours and hours into, while KC:D will be a 30 hour or so thing. Of course thereâll be good replayability to it, but its very different.
Years of playing cRPG mod of M&B:Warband has made me appreciate medieval games a lot more, and pay attention and be more critical with the combat system of singleplayer games.
I love Skyrim, but the combat is quite poor: performing a sprinting forward power attack leading to keep attacking while sprinting if you donât wait a moment before attacking again, super-fast attacks all of a sudden, terrible hitboxes, weird weapon reach, no speed bonus, no directional combat, etc.
I really hope KCD will have a fun (or at least properly functional) combat, because the rest of the game has already captivated me.