Warhorse Studios has showcased a playable build of Kingdom Come: Deliverance. According to the team, this is the same build the company was showing to publishers last year. This video is one hour long, so sit back and enjoy the show!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Traveling between locations looks so boring, I know they were going for realism but maybe that aspect is a little too real. They should do something like Red Dead Redemption where you encounter side quests during your travels.
The rest of the game looks pretty good for its early state. The lighting in the second build they showed reminds me of ArmA 3 (coincidentally another Czech game).
I feel like this game is going to be compared to Skyrim, no matter what. Which is a very lofty expectation. Unfortunately for the developer, no matter how much they try to let people know it is a completely different type of game, that comparison may bite them in the ass.
skyrim was incredibly overrated anyways and shallow as they come.
Shallow, perhaps. Overrated, no.
Shallow , yes. Overrated, Yes.
Of course it is, except it’s going to shit all over Skyrim because it’s not held back by last gen consoles and an old engine with DX9.
And how will it shit all over Skyrim when these two are completely different games? From a technical standpoint, yes it will be superior. And that’s all that can be said right now.
They’re not completely different games, both are single player RPGs, they both have first person combat, they’re both open world, they both have skill development, they both have crafting.
You might as well have said they’re both video games while you were at it. And if I were to tow your line, I could have claimed this game ripped off Skyrim and other previous games just because it’s open world and has crafting like you said. But that aside, on more logical terms, I meant to say that they appeal to different audiences. One is a high fantasy epic and another one is more grounded low fantasy depicting medieval realism. Different strokes for different folks. I don’t see how both these games with different appeal have to be mutually exclusive as far as enjoyment is concerned.
WTF are you talking about? They both share the same gameplay elements, they’re both the same genre, it’s not like one is a driving game and one is an RPG.
Anyone interested in Skyrim will most likely be interested in this game because they share a lot in common, even the UI compass looks similar.
You’re missing the point. Yes they’re both RPGs. But someone interested in Skyrim might not necessarily be interested in this like you claim. RPG is a vast genre, and isn’t merely defined by open world and crafting like you mistakenly believe.Someone who plays RPGs to indulge in fantasy and escapism will not be at home with this game. Skyrim is comparable to something like D&D, while this is comparable to something like Mount&Blade. Which is why I chose the literary terms “high” and “low” fantasy. My main point of contention was you saying it’s downright superior to Skyrim. And while I respect your opinion, I can say it isn’t. Why? Like I said, different strokes and all that. And for the record, I enjoy both high and low fantasy if the story is good enough.
It will be technical superior for the reasons I said. I can see 13 year olds not liking it though, no Dragon’s, no big beasts to slay, nothing to kill every 10 minutes.
And yet again you generalize when such generalization is non-existent. I don’t see what dragons, beasts and other fantasy tropes have anything to do with how old you are. If a kid wanted to swing around a sword, ride horses and just kill stuff, he could do it in both these games without getting into the nitty-gritties of fantasy culture and the nuances both these games adhere to. But that’s beside my point. As far as technical superiority goes, well duh. This game is coming out only, oh I dunno, maybe 4 years later than Skyrim?
Got nothing to do with that, Skyrim was built for last gen consoles in mind, Cryengine 3 is technical superior anyway. Gothic 3 had a massive open world with no loading screens back in 2006 because it was made for the PC only.
Skyrim was built for last-gen consoles because current-gen didn’t exist back then. And your Gothic 3 example doesn’t really work. GTA III for example was initially a console game and it had no in-game loading screens either. And this was back in 2001. Another game that I can think of is Shenmue from 1999. While it did feature in-game loading screens between areas as far as I know, the game was technically way ahead of most PC games back then in terms of variety as well as graphics. So it’s not so much a PC-console thing as much as the development capacity and creative directions the developers choose to take.
So what, you’re saying 512mb of RAM isn’t limiting to game designers now? LoL
2-4GB of RAM was quite common on PCs back in 2006.
512MB RAM on what, current PC/consoles? Please elaborate.
PS3/Xbox360. You do know that game devs have already said that consoles have limited memory, hence design limitations of games and cut backs. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about, properly to the point where you think optical media is still relevant for a good gaming experience.
“You do know that game devs have already said that consoles have limited memory, hence design limitations of games and cut backs.”
Yes I do. When you’re releasing a multiplatform game, you are forced to cater to the lowest common denominator. And that’s another reason why I said your Gothic 3 example doesn’t work… because it was a PC-exclusive. Neither Skyrim nor Deliverance are PC-exclusives. So bringing Gothic 3 into the discussion is pointless.
Actually, no they’re not. Games should be designed from top down like Crysis 3 was, which wasn’t limited by API legacy or porting. Gothic 3 was an example of an open world game without design limitations. Just look at MMOs on the PC, only reason why some are coming to the new consoles is because now they can handle them.
“Actually, no they’re not.”
— Err, what are not?
“Games should be designed from top down like Crysis 3 was, which wasn’t limited by API legacy or porting.”
— And you know this how? As in what factors are you considering when you use terms like “API legacy” and “porting”? Before I can grasp what your argument is, I need to be clear about what you’re referring to.
“Gothic 3 was an example of an open world game without design limitations.”
— I’m pretty sure Gothic had a LOT of limitations. Just that you had no metric to compare it against since it was released on only one platform.
“only reason why some are coming to the new consoles is because now they can handle them.”
— Unfortunately no, it has more to do with networking capabilities and expensive first-party patch certifications than raw power. And considering the majority of MMOs don’t look particularly “good” by PC standards, I’d like to understand where you’re coming from with such an idea.
You keep refuting what I’m saying. Just keep being in denial.
I’m not being in denial. I don’t see your need to get so defensive all of a sudden. I’d like you to explain to me what you previously typed out should you be willing to continue this discussion. Surely you can do that much without fear of rebuttal if you truly want to make a point, is it not?
You answered my questions with opinion not fact. If you’re just going to disagree with me then we’ll be here all day.
BTW, This game will not even be available for the last gen consoles, it’s pretty much why it looks so good with no cut backs or last gen porting. Same for The Witcher 2, prime example of how to do a game, then port it down to the Xbox at lower fidelity, not like Skyrim where they gave us a “HD texture pack as a DLC and low quality assets.
“You answered my questions with opinion not fact.”
— Which answers in particular? I’m disagreeing with valid reasons which you seem to skirt conveniently. I don’t see the reason I need to agree to everything you say unconditionally and unquestioningly. If you can get your point across to me without feeling so threatened, maybe I’ll be more inclined to agree with you.
“it’s pretty much why it looks so good”
— But then the current consoles have just been released. When Skyrim was released back in 2011, the last gen was almost at an end. Would you still think Deliverance would look just as good if it released in 2020 instead of in 2015 if it had the same graphics?
“The Witcher 2, prime example of how to do a game, then port it down to
the Xbox at lower fidelity, not like Skyrim where they gave us a “HD
texture pack as a DLC and low quality assets.”
— The Xbox 360 version of Witcher 2 came out almost a year after
the PC version, which is why I myself still consider it a PC-exclusive in a lot of ways. Skyrim released on three platforms simultaneously. And remember what I said about multiplat games and the lowest common denominator? Thus your analogies are misinformed to say the least.
Again, you lack factual information. CDPR are a small studio, Bethesda are bigger, TW2 wasn’t released on the PS3 because of resources.
Where did I mention PS3? I wish you’d at least read what I wrote. I said the Xbox 360 version was delayed by a year, and not released simultaneously. In other words I was referring to the fact that Witcher 2 was originally a PC game instead of a multiplatform game like Skyrim.
Furthermore, CD Projekt RED might be a small studio, but they have enough resources as is evident from the quality of their games. Their parent company is the largest game publisher and distributor in Poland so they’re pretty well-off.
You make no sense, you’re just making stuff up off the top of your head to further your argument.
This is where our conversation ends due to your delusion and made up arguments based on nothing but your opinion.
Which part am I making up? Point it out to me and I’d be glad to clear any apprehensions you have with proper verifiable sources.
EDIT: I see you made a sneaky ninja edit to your comment and added the line about the conversation ending. Very well, I’ll let it slide; it’s not like you were going anywhere with this anyway, other than screaming “opinion!” all the time.
You admitted Deliverance was technically superior to Skyrim then claimed it was because the game is coming out “4 years later”
Cryengine 3 has been out since 2009, in that time they have spend time licensing it so don’t come with that bullshit line about it’s 4 years after Skyrim. If Bethesda used CE3 they probably would have got Skyrim out in half the time but they marketed the 11.11.11 thing.
“You admitted Deliverance was technically superior to Skyrim then claimed it was because the game is coming out “4 years later”
— No. Let me repeat. I claimed Deliverance was technically superior to Skyrim BECAUSE it is coming out 4 years later. One sentence. And I didn’t just “admit” it, I was the one who said the thing to begin with!
“Cryengine 3 has been out since 2009”
— Are you delirious? CryEngine 3 in 2009?? CryEngine 3 was released in 2011 with the release of Crysis 2. Are you seriously just fucking with me now?
“CryEngine 3 was released on October 14, 2009”
There is my facts, what about yours?
It was announced and “released to developers” in 2009. The first widely-deployed implementation of CryEngine 3 was released to the general public in 2011 along with the release of Crysis 2. The CryEngine 3 SDK was released in 2011 as well. In other words, until and unless you were a developer with an engine license back in 2009, you’d have no way of knowing what CryEngine 3 was like and what it was capable of back then. And did you forget Crysis 2 initially came with no DX11 support, inspite of being such a godawesomesauce PC poster boy? I mean for fuck’s sake, the beta even had “press start to begin” on the menu. You’re welcome to check facts on my behalf.
Yes, Crysis 2 was a POS on release, Maldo help fit that though, it’s pretty awesome now.
So there you go… if Bethesda had indeed used CE3, it’d probably look much better, but it’d run at half the framerate on 2011 hardware, even on DX9. And that’s something I’m glad they chose to forgo.
CE3 runs better on newer hardware, better threaded and optimised. I get about the same frame-rate in The Witcher 2 with loads more detail and characters on the screen than Skyrim.
Just because something runs well on old hardware doesn’t mean it run good and new(Dx9 holds back newer hardware, TW2 would have been even better with DX11 if done right), Skyrim had about 4 CPU and general optimisation patches and didn’t even support large address aware on launch.
” I get about the same frame-rate in The Witcher 2 with loads more detail and characters on the screen than Skyrim.”
— What’s your spec on what settings do you play on? Let me offer you mine. I have an old dual core and a 650 Ti Boost. Skyrim runs at 60 fps and Witcher 2 runs at 30, both on ultra. And from the benchmarks I’ve seen they’re about the same as mine. So it’d be almost impossible for you to run both those games at the same framerate unless you have some sort of exceptional configuration.
“Just because something runs well on old hardware doesn’t mean it run good”
— I’m having trouble understanding what that means. “Running well” and “running good” mean essentially the same thing. Please clarify.
“didn’t even support large address aware on launch.”
— As in? What do you mean by “large address aware” exactly? You’re free to be as technical as you want in order to explain it.
do you even ubersample
No, it would be impossible for my configuration to maintain 30 fps at 1080p with ubersampling enabled on The Witcher 2, assuming that’s what you mean.
hmmm:
Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.
…
I have no money at the moment…so take my console with its games…just take it. 😉
I’M SORRY. I was very excited for this game, but now, not so much. The voice acting is among some of the worst I’ve ever heard and the dialogue is average at best. I hope these things improve, with better builds, because these are the types of things to keep people invested in the characters. I couldn’t take anymore, when the guy was saying about his dead horses, “What kind of monster would do such a thing” etc etc…. Just terrible. Frustrates me to think about it.
I hope they change the combat system. To only have stamina as a meter and deadly looking attacks doing no damage whatsoever is a ridiculous concept. It’s crazy they thought that was a good idea.
god mode for presenting purpose and over 6 months old build with 2 years of development to go
Right, that does make sense. They still said there was only going to be a stamina meter. I guess I should just assume that every one of those deadly looking hits would be a fight ending move.
I still would really like to see how combat is actually supposed to look between an enemy that takes regular damage and a player that isn’t in god mode.
In the video update about combat they kinda show/explain. If I remember correctly they say it’s kinda two or three well placed hits and you are pretty much dead.
he says 2 years ahead of us
this game is coming on 2016/17 :O
This year is one and by the end of 2015 would be the second.
I hope they improve the visual quality of trees. They look terribly static, repetitive and low quality that it totally breaks immersion for me. Grass looks mostly okay, and I liked how it moved when a villager walked through it, altho it still doesn’t look realistic enough.
Everything else looks great to me. He made it very clear that most dialog and story elements are all placeholders, so we’ll have to wait to see how it’ll come out. Shame there is not going to be a Sean Bean stretch goal after all. Damn.