I still think Kingdom Come Deliverance 1 is a better game

[Valandil]

So after playing through KCD 2, getting pretty much everything he could want, seeing every inch of the maps and taking on all the quests, getting every skill to max, I'm going back to play KCD 1

It was...alright, but I just don't feel like I want to play any of it again and it looks like no-matter HOW I decide to do it the endings are about the same, little snippets of dialogue here and there to acknowledge what I'd decided to do just aren't enough to make a new run unique.
In the end I think the gameplay in KCD 1 was better, the attention they put into the places and the people especially Henry made them more interesting, I had more control over what my idea of Henry should be and the overall feel of the game was more mature, but maybe they meant for KCD 2 to be a lot lighter, it felt almost meant for a much younger audience.

So yeah great game just not one I think I want to play again, might get back to it if they start adding full DLCs (not just a barber ), I'm curious what everyone else thinks?

[nosh]

Escrito originalmente por Valandil:

KCD I is better

I agree! It literally is.

[mors_orcusjb]

Escrito originalmente por Valandil:

So after playing through KCD 2, getting pretty much everything he could want, seeing every inch of the maps and taking on all the quests, getting every skill to max, I'm going back to play KCD 1

It was...alright, but I just don't feel like I want to play any of it again and it looks like no-matter HOW I decide to do it the endings are about the same, little snippets of dialogue here and there to acknowledge what I'd decided to do just aren't enough to make a new run unique.
In the end I think the gameplay in KCD 1 was better, the attention they put into the places and the people especially Henry made them more interesting, I had more control over what my idea of Henry should be and the overall feel of the game was more mature, but maybe they meant for KCD 2 to be a lot lighter, it felt almost meant for a much younger audience.

So yeah great game just not one I think I want to play again, might get back to it if they start adding full DLCs (not just a barber ), I'm curious what everyone else thinks?

It is. If it had as many quests and the same size world it honestly wouldnt even be close. They took the great bones and really only added tedium and stupidity. I like the change to master strikes, more armor and weapons and horses.....but thats about it. The story is significantly worse. The story missions are nowhere near as interesting and have less of an effect than the first games story. And the sheer amount of how many times they take away your ♥♥♥♥ and have you get captured in this game is pure idiocy. The gameplay devs should have got promoted. The narrative team, quest designers, and the one picking the rewards you get should all be fired.

[wjpower2003]

Escrito originalmente por mors_orcusjb:

And the sheer amount of how many times they take away your ♥♥♥♥ and have you get captured in this game is pure idiocy.

I heard somebody refer to that whole "Oh no.... we got captured again and all our possessions got confiscated" thing as a lazily over-used writing trope. Truer words were never spoken.

[Valandil]

Escrito originalmente por Actalo:

I don't even understand how anyone could look at both games objectively and comes away believing the first one is better. KCD2 is KCD, but improved in so many ways.

- NPC schedules are better, more varied, and more realistic.
- Random encounters are so much better, and allow much more choice.
- Mini-games improved: alchemy is better, more intuitive, and we got Blacksmithing!
- Story is better: The parallels to Istvan, Henry, Eric, Markvart, the characters are so much more fleshed out and realistically layered in their motivations.
- The choices Henry in KCD2 makes are way more impactful than KCD,
- Combat, though streamlined, and in my opinion 'dumbed down', is objectively smoother, with unique combos and animations for each weapon type - and crossbows and guns and polearms!

I could spend a lot more time explaining how much better KCD2 is than KCD, but I think this whole thread is disingenuous. You don't like the game for unspoken reasons. I don't like certain narrative choices and will eventually mod them out, if no one else does - but KCD2 is still better.

It's not a disingenuous discussion, we all have opinions and thoughts on all together good game we all clearly liked enough to want to talk about

We get that you like it, no need to call anyone out for disagreeing with you, this is a discussion not a debate

[Valandil]

Escrito originalmente por Psycho_Soyer:

Escrito originalmente por Thanatos:

outside of many of the tweaks and better graphics generally i agree. i find myself skipping alot of dialog in this where in the first i tended not to cut them off and actually listen to the voice actors. Horses are kinda ♥♥♥♥ in both though which is insane for a company that calls themselves warhorse. Mount and blade has better horse combat.

Red Dead Redemption 2 over-all others when it comes to horses and its not even close.
We were spoiled by RDR2 when it comes to wild life. Can it get any better?

Although I haven't played Red Dead Redemption I do think KCD 1 did a better job of the wild life too, it was really unresponsive in KCD 2 like it was meant to just be a bit of background to be killed if you needed a part or something to eat. I went through all the sub quests and hunting, finding good places to find certain animals wasn't really a problem, more a chore?

[WooKie]

Escrito originalmente por Actalo:

I don't even understand how anyone could look at both games objectively and comes away believing the first one is better. KCD2 is KCD, but improved in so many ways.

- NPC schedules are better, more varied, and more realistic.
- Random encounters are so much better, and allow much more choice.
- Mini-games improved: alchemy is better, more intuitive, and we got Blacksmithing!
- Story is better: The parallels to Istvan, Henry, Eric, Markvart, the characters are so much more fleshed out and realistically layered in their motivations.
- The choices Henry in KCD2 makes are way more impactful than KCD,
- Combat, though streamlined, and in my opinion 'dumbed down', is objectively smoother, with unique combos and animations for each weapon type - and crossbows and guns and polearms!

I could spend a lot more time explaining how much better KCD2 is than KCD, but I think this whole thread is disingenuous. You don't like the game for unspoken reasons. I don't like certain narrative choices and will eventually mod them out, if no one else does - but KCD2 is still better.

NPCs used to wash, get food, etc. in 1, there's really not that much difference, and they bug out waaaay more in 2
The maps are just bigger there's nothing more in them and a third of them are cloud
The story is just more tedious and nowhere near as engaging as 1
The mini games are simplistic, they weren't hard enough to warrant that.
Blacksmithing is a joke, it's so under done to what it could have been and breaks the minute amount balance immediately.
On the choices, a lot of them are after a bunch of very spoon fed "here comes the aeroplane" boring dialogue. Then there's stuff like the Istvan torture scene, it's a rail cart that punishes you for not selling everyone out immediately there's literally no reason to keep quiet.
The combat is dumbed down there's less animations as there are less attack angles and only 2 weapon types have master strikes, in 1 they all had combos and master strikes. And yeah there were polearms in 1 too.

But I didn't care they showed people could cross continents, or that some people were gay. There's a reason we know punishments were severe, and people regularly walked on pilgrimage to Jerusalem it's why the templars existed. Hell they probably even bumped into 1 or 2 musas, people got about. A king was even tended to by Islamic physicians on crusade FFS.
For clarity I don't see this a racism or homophobia or care much if it is. I just see it as a lack of insight and logic with a lot of ignorance.

So frankly NO. This thread is not disingenuous, the complaints are well founded and you're also flat out wrong on some points.
I played 1 back to back and never googled anything. I got 40 hours in to 2, wanted a refund, googled everything because 90% of missions is just go here look at/fetch this and have no real desire to play a hardcore run, which is what made me fall in love with 1.

My nickname for this game is "Knacker Courier Delivery service" and I stand by it.
1 felt like they said "you know what would be cool" 2 was "you know what would slow them down"

[Jefe Kefe]

Sounds like a whole lot of nostalgia to me

[Zeazy]

Escrito originalmente por Valandil:

HOW I decide to do it the endings are about the same, little snippets of dialogue here and there to acknowledge what I'd decided to do just aren't enough to make a new run unique.

I'm Sorry but i think if you say this, you never really truly played the game.

MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD:
Just from my first Playthrough some decisions you can make, that have massive impact in the world:
Tell Van Bergen about Senines Betrayl. If you tell Van bergen about the Yougn Senines Betrayel the whole Castle gets burned down, and all the NPC's u never see again.

You can Snitch on Krayzel the Miller, and work together with the Balish, and all the Millers get the strick.

You can betray the jewish Thief guild, and work together with the Balish and all of them get killed
Or you can betray the jewish thief guild, and work together with another Thief, and they all get killed + becamse a classic thief guild without any positive motives like the jewish one.

If you save Samuel in the end or not, changes how the Siege ends and if you have any silver left. You either save ur (almost) Brother and lose all the Silver.
Or u let ur (almost) Brother die and keep the Silver, that u fought for so long.

If you don't help Pawlena and save her, Bozena kills herself and Pawlena gets hang.

There is also a lot of choices with the Romani and if u help them or not, which will result in a lot of death.

Or if you help the jews or let them die....

The game is full of decisions with impact in the world, honestly.



Besides that point, im replaying KCD1 right now, and ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ti's so much worse. There is so many small annoying things, that make the game just worse.
The story is for both games, kinda mid and not special? But yeah.

[smoketrees]

Writing in the sequel is worse so all of the small technical improvements in the sequel are less valuable imo. Immersion was king and they threw it out to be like a flashy Netflix show.

For a lot of people combat is massively improved but for me it's just as problematic. Now we aren't perfect countering to win each combat post midgame, we're just hitting the opponent twice.

[Zeazy]

Escrito originalmente por Valandil:

Escrito originalmente por Psycho_Soyer:

Red Dead Redemption 2 over-all others when it comes to horses and its not even close.
We were spoiled by RDR2 when it comes to wild life. Can it get any better?

Although I haven't played Red Dead Redemption I do think KCD 1 did a better job of the wild life too, it was really unresponsive in KCD 2 like it was meant to just be a bit of background to be killed if you needed a part or something to eat. I went through all the sub quests and hunting, finding good places to find certain animals wasn't really a problem, more a chore?

Bruh you can't even tame wild horses in KCD1.

[WastedTrojan]

Escrito originalmente por smoketrees:

Writing in the sequel is worse so all of the small technical improvements in the sequel are less valuable imo. Immersion was king and they threw it out to be like a flashy Netflix show.

For a lot of people combat is massively improved but for me it's just as problematic. Now we aren't perfect countering to win each combat post midgame, we're just hitting the opponent twice.

Definitely agree with the writing and immersion. I've never been as immersed in a game as I was in KCD1. I liked the first half of KCD2, then it went off the rails, by the end it had become so ridiculous I couldn't take it seriously. KCD1 had me absolutely gripped throughout most of the experience.

It seems that combat switched from a defensive focus to an offensive focus. In KCD1, it was better to just wait for an attack and then master strike and face stab, in KCD2 it's like Lancelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, just run up and swing the sword once and twice and the enemy is dead.

[Dr. Lecter]

KCD2 feels a lot more like a "modern" game to me... too many POIs/side quests choking the landscape. It's better than most games, but it's more Witcher 3 than KCD1.

[Index]

No development time wasted towards gay butt sex either, did this game drop without a single bug?

[Bordric]

1 is much better. 2 is just bad story telling and world seems empty. I would get KCD2 a low 7 and KCD1 9ish probably 9/10.

They should have created a new protagonist like a farmboy or something and made Henry a minor lord in the story.

Not to mention the endless bugs in KCD2. Just stupid bugs that some even left over from 1.

[theo]

KCD2 is 10/10, but KCD1 is 12/10