Survey on which is better, KCD1 or KCD2?

[Antiriad]

Put KCD1 or KCD2 as your answer.

Rules: You must have played both to answer.

[duncanjmcintyre]

Originally posted by Drakkar:

Ok Nobody so...if i play kcd 1 and kc2 and i say for me KC 1 is way more fun ...i be not a real fan..wellll..ok if you say so seems you know whats going on just you^^:lunar2019laughingpig:

KCD1 is an incredible game, that's for sure.

[|VIP-S| Agr]

I loved both games and have no major complaints about either one.
Don't get me wrong, I have lots of tiny quibbles, but nothing big.

[Yoloswaggins]

recently started playing kcd 1 again and i cant believe the people saying kcd 2 combat is better, the first one feels more realistic and alot more dangerous than the second one, and thats even without disabling masterstrikes

[GladiatorB200]

KCD 1
doesn't have Henry get r *ped and apologize to the r* pist for it
its baffling how screwed over every relationship is in KCD 2 and how they butchered the bonds of han and henry too, no brotherly bond allowed

[Jeza]

While KCD 1 had less budget and was more clunky in some gameplay mechanics I loves it much more overall.
With the size of the new maps you rarely have the need to come back to a specific location, in the previous game you would go back again and again for merchants or beds, that and the fact that the people started greeting you by name made it feel much more alive and got you more attached to the different villages.
The fact that there was only one map, smaller and with many more quests (except for Kuttenberg ) made it so that you would have even more occasions to go to every village and learn to know people there, become interested in their lives and attached to them.
This rarely happens in KCD 2

Also the constant way KCD 2 has to remove your gear or create debuffs to make you feel weak/struggling feels contrived and becomes boring after the first time, in KCD 1 the struggle felt more natural, you were a nobody lazy blacksmith apprentice who had to grow up and learn. And once you learned something the game let you use it.
In 2 the game is taking away what you struggled to achieve time and and time again for no reason other than trying to recreate that feeling but it feels off and gets annoying.

I also don't like the very start of the prologue as Godwin, well I don't like to play as him but that's besides the point.
What I dislike is that we start the game knowing in what situation we will end up. It's like a huge spoiler.
It's already something that's jarring, the big split between 100% freedom in side quests and 100% railroading in main quest and this was also an issue of 1, maybe even more so because in 2 the situation might be unavoidable but there are usually more ways to deal with it.
But at least in a first playthrough you get to be surprised by it and can play feeling as if there are many possible outcomes. in 2 you start knowing that it'll end at some point with Hans and Godwin defending a siege and apparently waiting for us to bring outside help. It's not the fact that it'll happen no matter what that bothers me, it's the fact that we know from the start.

[.47.Sensei G·L]

Originally posted by Surfaced:

Originally posted by .47.Sensei G·L:

We agree on most things but do you mind if i ask what you found wrong about Markvart? The only major thing i can fault the game with was him not questioning seeing henry before while at Sigismund's council; and yet in their last conversation Markvart basically explains how he remembers him and his parents and all the people he's killed.
If you refer to his "humanization", i thought it was more of a perspective on the other side of the coin, and it felt appropriate for an important villain of the story; the music and the dialogue was fitting enough, and reading the various letters scattered around his room was a clever detail. I still ended him rightly tho, as it was fitting for Henry's character.

I about lost my ♥♥♥♥ when the 2 carton a day smoker shot him with the crossbow. I knew from there that there would be no honorable revenge. I simply point to the main quest in one "Vengeance", the objective of which reads "Find Markvart von Auliz and avenge your parents". There is no vengeance to be had. No matter how i frame it with any path that leads to his death, its not vengeance. Henry failed and dry devil robbed him of it. Now if I could then turn and immediately kill him for it, then maybe i'd except it. Personally, I think they may as well not have written his character in with how he goes out. The quest never read "finish off markvart or don't".

I see your point, and you've swayed my opinion quite a bit. I wanted to have a word with Markvart before killing him and so i justified the devs' decision to wound him, because i didn't want Assassin's Creed levels of time freeze with your mortally wounded victim just to have a chat. The devs should have come up with something better honestly, because a Erik-style duel with Markvart would have been unrealistic too. I agree that it's a shame i can't send any of the devil's pack to hell, especially dry devil :^)

[AndreD]

I played first game and hated it. This game is a lot more enjoyable. On many levels.

[lilBugger]

KCD1

[Deutscher]

Originally posted by §_blima22_§:

KCD1 because it was actually historically accurate, non-woke, and the writing and pacing wasn’t completely ♥♥♥♥ like it is with this game.

Don't try to fool us. You’ve barely played KCD1 and you haven’t played KCD2.

[Shiru]

Originally posted by Deutscher:

Originally posted by §_blima22_§:

KCD1 because it was actually historically accurate, non-woke, and the writing and pacing wasn’t completely ♥♥♥♥ like it is with this game.

Don't try to fool us. You’ve barely played KCD1 and you haven’t played KCD2.

I swear on the Black Pearl I've got ~190 hrs in KCD1, and ~60 in kcd2 :D

[DylanCut]

I really enjoyed both however the story kept me more entertained in 2 where as the quests kept me a bit more entertained in 1. I feel the gameplay and sightseeing has been vastly improved in 2 and if they can open up more urban explorable areas such as the big churches and then I would say 2 will win by a landslide.

Final answer would be KCD2 by a small margin till they work out some quest bug kinks and open up new urban areas and allow for ownership of a house. Then KCD2 will win by a landslide.

[Che RTX]

I have 200 hours on KCD1 and up to 100 on KCD2

KCD2 is basically a DLC for KCD1 (and that's not a bad thing) I don't feel a difference in the two games as the story just continues and the game mechanics voice actors and graphics are exactly the same.

Both games are 10/10 for me.

Jesus Christ be praised!

[^1Alucard]

i'm in the second map and explored about half of it, and i have to say KCD1 is much better because it has much better passing between combat and non combat... i am very bored in second map because there are very few enemies in the game world.

i have explored the map for 6 hours and almost did not find anything to fight anywhere ... in 6 hours i was attacked by 4 bandits ... and they came in ones and 2 , that's it... i explored 6-7 big forests and did not find anything in any of them when it come to enemies... 0 bandit camps, 0 poachers .... i am so bored i think i will stop playing the game soon.... love the world and the story and the combat when it actually happens, but with so little combat in this game i'm loosing interest in the entire game.

[kalashnjkov21]

Henry looks more like a peasant in KCD1 and looks like Tom MCKay more.

[Grocs]

Currently the answer I'm going to give is a bit biased, because technically KCD 2 hasn't had all the DLC released yet, so it truly isn't in its final form.

Here goes anyway. Having finished KCD 2 (around 120 hours) and playing KCD 1 with all DLC I personally think the story is better in KCD 1, as well as the pacing. KCD 2's pacing just seemed off a bit, and there were long story progression type missions I felt were just a bit too long. The whole point of a RPG is to play your way, and with the KCD 2 story I felt that was taken away from me a bit more than the original game.

In terms of game mechanics, I like KCD 2 marginally better, as there are a lot of improvements. The only downside is that you are less reliant on the combos for combat. I note with Update 1.2 you get a damage bonus for completing combos, which is nice - but I'll probably rarely still use them. The fluidity of the combat is definitely better in KCD 2, so I have to give the game mechanics to the latest game.

In terms of the world, I love the big areas of KCD 2 (Kuttenburg is amazing) so happy to give the overall map design to KCD 2 as well. I know technically it probably wasn't possible, but having one giant map would have been amazing, over 2 the map areas we are presented with.

At this stage (not having played the KCD 2 DLC) I prefer the original KCD a bit more over the sequel, but I am hoping the upcoming DLC changes my mind.