Has KCD2 alienated the original fan base?

[Antiriad]

From an non-scientific guesstimate, I'd say about 40-50% of the original fan base don't like the direction KCD2 has taken.

It clearly is aimed at a younger audience, and the Devs hope that lost sales from the original fan base will be made up by new sales from a different demographic.

[BigJ]

I like the romance personally, but I don't like the divisive nature of the marketing...or how much money went into it over going into the now 240 employees of warhorse or the game itself.

[Forblaze]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von makbthemf:

KCD1 is better in the quest polivariativity, has a better story in general, harder combat mechanics, e.t.c. By most chances, we have played different KCD1 XD

Of all of the complaints about this game, combat is the one I understand the least. The combat in the first game sucked and you had very few ways to interact with it.

Combos were useless since they just let the enemy master strike you or were interrupted by dodges, Feint was actively harmful because it **increased** the chance of the enemy doing a master strike or dodge, and attack direction was completely meaningless. Spamming master strike and clinch was the only way to bypass the RNG. Any other strategy was ultimately just out-statting the enemy.

The changes to combat seem to me to be a massive improvement because they let you actually act offensively without being punished for it.

[Forblaze]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von makbthemf:

3) Much more of historical inaccuracy in quests tham in KCD1 - Jan of Semine is challenging the commoner to a friendly fight, which was impossible in XV century,

In the first game, a commoner beats a nobleman's ass in a fistfight and gets away with it scot-free.

[Lumpy Space]

77h in atm. Completely disagree. Completed the first one and loved it, love the 2nd one too. I had a bunch of bugs in the later game, but Gameplay, graphics and most of all Storie is just like the first game, but better.
It is a very good game and a ton of fun.

[makbthemf]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Forblaze:

Of all of the complaints about this game, combat is the one I understand the least. The combat in the first game sucked and you had very few ways to interact with it.

Combos were useless since they just let the enemy master strike you or were interrupted by dodges, Feint was actively harmful because it **increased** the chance of the enemy doing a master strike or dodge, and attack direction was completely meaningless. Spamming master strike and clinch was the only way to bypass the RNG. Any other strategy was ultimately just out-statting the enemy.

The changes to combat seem to me to be a massive improvement because they let you actually act offensively without being punished for it.

The combat in KCD2 sucks as well. Combos are still useless - just swing 2-3 times with warhammer using a false direction attack or perfect block, and every opponent would lie down. Some opponents require 4 warhammer swings. Yup, the system is better, but oversimplification of combat is not a good thing.

[makbthemf]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Forblaze:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von makbthemf:

3) Much more of historical inaccuracy in quests tham in KCD1 - Jan of Semine is challenging the commoner to a friendly fight, which was impossible in XV century,

In the first game, a commoner beats a nobleman's ass in a fistfight and gets away with it scot-free.

Ars-and-balls would be hanged if Jindřich didn't intercede for him. If you're talking about Jindro himself - Hanush knew who he is at the moment he kicked Jan's ass. So it was not a smart idea to hang a bastard of his friend.

[FroG]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von makbthemf:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von derSanitoeter:

So - please explain to everyone here, how and where KCD II went in the wrong direction.

All the metrics are against you - even the user ratings and overall critics.

1) Less variability in quests. Actually it's hard to find a quest where there are 2 outcomes, and impossible - where there are more than 2.
2) All that cheap drama in the first third of the story (Trotsky castle map) is more suitable for some PlayStation interactive movies, like Uncharted or The Last of Us, not the Kingdome Come franchise game.
3) Tonns of historical inaccuracy in quests - Jan of Semine is challenging the commoner to a friendly fight, which was impossible in XV century, The Romani baron is sending suitors to marry his daughter to serf (Romani people are fanatics of freedom). E.t.c.
4) As Henrik Ibsen said - the majority always are mistaken. So basically all metrics are on the other side of the argumentation. The game was made for casual gamers, and they enjoy it more. And we've lost the great RPG

1) I find it hard to measure the truth to your first point but i feel like it was either not the case or not relevant to me.
2) I feel like that's your personal opinion and is not really a relevant argument why other people should like/not like this game. Tho you are in your right to feel that way offcourse.
3) I personally never fact checked neither this game not the previous one, making something accurate does not make it good. Offcourse this can be relevant to you an many other but in of itself sais very little of the games quality.
4) "random writer once said ..." - I can also pull out Aristotle talking about the wisdom of the crowd and I personally have heard both aristotle and the concept of the wisdom of the crowd more often then I have heard someone mention Henrik Ibsten. I feel liek that 4th argument just falls flat on it's own belly.

You will find it hard to make people agree with your opinions of you describe them as fact nor will many people find it even pleasant to try and engage with those opinions.

If you were to say: "I personally found the historicall acuraccy and impactfullness of the choices in the quests in kcd 1 far more entertaining and relevant then in the new game."
You would probably find a lot more people that agree with you a lot faster.

[Forblaze]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von makbthemf:

The combat in KCD2 sucks as well. Combos are still useless - just swing 2-3 times with warhammer using a false direction attack and perfect block, and every opponent would lie down. Some opponents require 4 warhammer swings. Yup, the system is better, but oversimplification of combat is not a good thing.

What was simplified? Making attack direction matter and making combos and feints relevant is adding much more complexity. It's a pure improvement over the first game.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von makbthemf:

Ars-and-balls would be hanged if Jindřich didn't intercede for him. If you're talking about Jindro himself - Hanush knew who he is at the moment he kicked Jan's ass. So it was not a smart idea to hang a bastard of your friend.

So a fight between a commoner and a noble was possible between henry and hans because of the noble's personal discretion but was impossible between henry and semine? Semine couldn't just be using the very same discretion you're affording to Hanush?

[Udju]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Aegmar:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von v0!d158:

i will help you ...

we dont want any gay ♥♥♥♥ in our games ... we are tired with this gay ♥♥♥♥ in our games ... enough is enough

then just don't follow up on the "gay romance" option, as do i. But i don't throw a tantrum because its there. Really, what is your problem `?

Have you been kidnapped and forced to watch gay porn for 24 hours ? Seriously, i don't get it. Some ppl are gay, have been at all times. Im not, but why do some ppl feel so threatened by the existence of homosexuals ? Are you that insecure ?

if you would have played the first part, then you would know that both Henry and Hans were clearly not gay in KCD1. it's the imposed change that repells most of the fans of KCD1

[Tricky]

Wtf are you even talking about? For a younger audience??

I completed KCD 1 for the 2nd time just days before 2 came out and it's damn near the same just upgraded. People just got upset about the gay romance option. But imo if someone is getting upset about how KCD2 did that option (the best way not forced not shoved in your face) their opinion doesn't matter at all.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

I'm no fan (because the word itself means fanatic) but KCD1 is my favorite game of the genre, a genre I call trekking simulators. The skill progression is as I like, you grow in skill through experience not magic point allocation. You build you character and it feels great. Bethesda has forgotten it already with Oblivion and their next titles and never really improved the TES skill system to balance it better. KCD did a great job using this system.

KCD2 improved most of its features while keeping what worked the way it was.
The main drawback is the fact that there's some tabula rasa made on Henry. Too bad they didn't try the Pillars of Eternity way by integrating many of your choices in their second game as well as your entire build. You can understand why in a Fallout game you start with a fresh character, but here it feels absurd.
But they didn't alienated me on my experience of their game. My only issue with it is Vavra, so it has nothing to do with game mechanics or level design.

[leekrs1]

Yes, very much so.
WAY too much politics shoved in your face.

[Sempavor]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Antiriad:

From an non-scientific guesstimate, I'd say about 40-50% of the original fan base don't like the direction KCD2 has taken.

It clearly is aimed at a younger audience, and the Devs hope that lost sales from the original fan base will be made up by new sales from a different demographic.

No.

[Gaydolf Honkler]

Yeah this game feels like a more expanded kingdom come deliverance 1 which is exactly what i had hoped.

[Poncius_Pilatos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DADqvl8TOK8

That...

That moment i said "Not gonna buy this ♥♥♥♥."