Kingdom Come: Deliverance Announced: A Historically Accurate Medieval RPG

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Kingdom Come: Deliverance Announced: A Historically Accurate Medieval RPG

Kingdom Come: Deliverance won't bother with magical lands of elves and dwarves - there's plenty of captivating drama in legitimate European history.

When Kingdom Come: Deliverance arrives on next-gen consoles in 2015, you won't find any wizards, goblins, or magic swords. What you will find is a medieval action-RPG with a nonlinear story, historically accurate details, and "revolutionary" first-person melee combat. This is all coming from the recently founded Warhorse Studios, founded by Mafia series creator and writer Dan Vávra.

Kingdom Come: Deliverance drops players into a bloody struggle for the throne in the late Middle Ages. This quest will span the Holy Roman Empire, incorporating period-authentic characters, themes, and warfare. That last part is getting a lot of attention - combat will be realistic for the setting, but still action-packed. Players will participate in large-scale battles, horseback combat, open-field sieges, and personal one-on-one fights on their quest. All this is framed by a sandbox world with "believable, real-world context and scope."

Make no mistake, that's a tall order. Many games have gone for the low-fantasy medieval setting, but even those titles tend to drop the "historical accuracy" component in favor of exaggerated action. Presumably there's a way to achieve the best of both worlds, but every pledge of authenticity takes gameplay one step closer to the rather unheroic reality.

Warhorse Studios is placing Kingdom Come: Deliverance at a 2015 release date for next-gen consoles and PC. More information is coming soon - specifically, January 20 - so if accurate Middle Ages warfare is your cup of tea, keep an eye out.

Permalink

Boob-window peasant doesn't seem historically accurate, or rather, not likely.

Nor does the dashing rouge in that same picture either.

Nah, I'm being silly, hopefully this works out, I want me a good RPG that isn't something made by Bioware, Bethesda or CDProjekt.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I've wanted to see a single player medieval game ever since chivalry came out and hopefully this lives up to that.

Well I guess that's nice for the hardcore ren-fair types. But if it's really historically accurate you probably have at least a 50-50 chance of dying from any wound from infection even if it's not in a vital spot. which I guess would make the game difficult if that's your thing.

Also from what I've read of midevil combat, it wasn't pretty. Unless you were a commander or some such you didn't get the cool sweeping shots of hundreds of people. Maybe just a few people around you in the press of bodies. The noise and mud making it difficult to tell friend from foe. Attacking everyone around you in hopes of making it out alive. most likely to be killed by something you didn't see coming.

Damn, after I make a character there's a 90% chance I die before reaching adult age?

j/k, I hope it works out. Though, isn't this a similar concept to Mount and Blade (I haven't played that game, but it seemed like it was marketed as a realistic medieval combat simulator)?

Eric the Orange:

Also from what I've read of midevil combat, it wasn't pretty. Unless you were a commander or some such you didn't get the cool sweeping shots of hundreds of people. Maybe just a few people around you in the press of bodies. The noise and mud making it difficult to tell friend from foe. Attacking everyone around you in hopes of making it out alive. most likely to be killed by something you didn't see coming.

Though, if your character is rich you can get some full plate and be a tank on the battlefield and laugh as the peasants' pitchforks bounce harmlessly off of you :P

Akichi Daikashima:
Boob-window peasant doesn't seem historically accurate, or rather, not likely.

Nor does the dashing rouge in that same picture either.

Nah, I'm being silly, hopefully this works out, I want me a good RPG that isn't something made by Bioware, Bethesda or CDProjekt.

Haha I was thinking the same thing. Not something I'd typically care about but if the developer wants to put emphasize on the words "Historically Accurate" then they're opening themselves up to all sorts of tongue in cheek jabs, and they're leaving their guard wide open with the peasant boobs screenshot!

if Take place Holy Roman Empire (to day mordern day germany cxh republic Norther iitlay depend pretty close to rome) and France Beligume Hollowland,) the Holy roman empire was medical super power or ocntectry fo states depending on time period. If even playing Knight Minor Caf, (count then there still quite a bit of land there.

I'm a huge fan of history so a idea like this is very intriguing, I don't expect the game to be completely historically accurate but I do hope that it doesn't go too far in the other direction.

If it is Historically Accurate. Eight times out of ten you should die on starting the game, with the words "You died from the plague. Please restart."

Joking aside, It could be very interesting, but to really simulate it you are going to need a powerful computer, Armies back then really didn't rely on one person doing all the work, huge lines of soldiers crashing into each other, being peppered with arrows, catapult/trebuchet rocks raining down as you approach a citadel, an entire column of your brothers in arms, just being taken out by Ballista bolts.

Hoping to whatever god your liege has decided to believe in, that you aren't the first line, as you march on an enemy city/fortress, or standing on the walls of a city as a huge army sets up camps and builds giant machines of war that had no business even holding together.

But. Realistically, I am expecting you to be some kind of hero. That can carve huge swaths of the enemies army to ribbons.

While we are here, Does anyone think that a game that just tosses you into the game as a random swordsman, and when you die you become another soldier in the army. Would be a decent game?

I think my problem with this is that historical realism always sounds good, but then you run into a problem.
Stylized violence may be gory, satisfying, and fun, but real violence for this period was.. well it'd make most people curl up into a ball and wet themselves.
Rape, pillage, limbs being hacked off and people dying of the plague were everyday occurrences, make no mistake, as much as Fox News whines about violence in games, it's never come close to capturing what the reality of violence is. That violence is typically fast, miserable, and no fun for anyone, besides being very hard to watch.
So I'm coming down on the side that says that this will end up being an insurmountable obstacle for these devs.

RandV80:

Akichi Daikashima:
Boob-window peasant doesn't seem historically accurate, or rather, not likely.

Nor does the dashing rouge in that same picture either.

Nah, I'm being silly, hopefully this works out, I want me a good RPG that isn't something made by Bioware, Bethesda or CDProjekt.

Haha I was thinking the same thing. Not something I'd typically care about but if the developer wants to put emphasize on the words "Historically Accurate" then they're opening themselves up to all sorts of tongue in cheek jabs, and they're leaving their guard wide open with the peasant boobs screenshot!

>.>

<.<

As open as her top!

Zing!

In all seriousness, I wish luck to the devs!

Hmm... Sounds interesting. I'm a big history buff, so I'd love to hear more about the historical setting this takes place in. What inspired it and the events that it will take place around.

I'd love to see it for Wii U, but I wouldn't pass on a PC version either. Either way, if it continues to pique my interest, I'll definitely think of getting picking it up when it comes out.

Kingdom "Come" + Deliverance + "historically accurate" medieval setting = F.A.T.A.L. video game

You can't unthink it

Lagslayer:
Kingdom "Come" + Deliverance + "historically accurate" medieval setting = F.A.T.A.L. video game

You can't unthink it

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Why did you remind me that FATAL is a thing that exists. I was quite happy having it nicely repressed.

That said, I am always interesting in a historical medieval game. Playing my way through the Brytenwalda mod for Mount and Blade Warband and am rather enjoying how relatively weak you are compared to the native game. Hell, the only way I found to survive and level up properly was to hire into a Pictish lords army and work my way up the ranks, mostly by letting other fools lead the charge and acting as long ranged support.

Also the boob window was actually a thing guys, though flaunting it like she does I have to assume she is either trying to seduce the guy or is a prostitute of some sort. Since most women wore something that looks more like this:

I really hope this is as good as I hope it is. I have to control my excitement in case it sucks or gets canceled.

So it's probably just Mount and Blade, but with better graphics at the cost of having smaller fights?

Sounds like it could be interesting but ultimately it will come down to how the swordplay feels. One thing's for sure, it has a HELL of a tough competitor in the upcoming Bannerlord.

Cecilo:
If it is Historically Accurate. Eight times out of ten you should die on starting the game, with the words "You died from the plague. Please restart."

Joking aside, It could be very interesting, but to really simulate it you are going to need a powerful computer, Armies back then really didn't rely on one person doing all the work, huge lines of soldiers crashing into each other, being peppered with arrows, catapult/trebuchet rocks raining down as you approach a citadel, an entire column of your brothers in arms, just being taken out by Ballista bolts.

Hoping to whatever god your liege has decided to believe in, that you aren't the first line, as you march on an enemy city/fortress, or standing on the walls of a city as a huge army sets up camps and builds giant machines of war that had no business even holding together.

But. Realistically, I am expecting you to be some kind of hero. That can carve huge swaths of the enemies army to ribbons.

While we are here, Does anyone think that a game that just tosses you into the game as a random swordsman, and when you die you become another soldier in the army. Would be a decent game?

Actually yes. I had a very long talk to a friend about a concept I had where armies of players would be put in formations and fight battles in historical settings. the example I was going on would be a Roman Vs. Carthage slug fest where you get put in first person in a shield formation or a Calvary formation and fight it out, dieing would have you put in a reinforcement group that would be re-spawned at intervals. the end game winner would be decided on death tolls and what armies held what ground at the end of the match. and I'm talking about hour long matches. whit historical armies and place and landscapes.

dystopiaINC:

Cecilo:
If it is Historically Accurate. Eight times out of ten you should die on starting the game, with the words "You died from the plague. Please restart."

Joking aside, It could be very interesting, but to really simulate it you are going to need a powerful computer, Armies back then really didn't rely on one person doing all the work, huge lines of soldiers crashing into each other, being peppered with arrows, catapult/trebuchet rocks raining down as you approach a citadel, an entire column of your brothers in arms, just being taken out by Ballista bolts.

Hoping to whatever god your liege has decided to believe in, that you aren't the first line, as you march on an enemy city/fortress, or standing on the walls of a city as a huge army sets up camps and builds giant machines of war that had no business even holding together.

But. Realistically, I am expecting you to be some kind of hero. That can carve huge swaths of the enemies army to ribbons.

While we are here, Does anyone think that a game that just tosses you into the game as a random swordsman, and when you die you become another soldier in the army. Would be a decent game?

Actually yes. I had a very long talk to a friend about a concept I had where armies of players would be put in formations and fight battles in historical settings. the example I was going on would be a Roman Vs. Carthage slug fest where you get put in first person in a shield formation or a Calvary formation and fight it out, dieing would have you put in a reinforcement group that would be re-spawned at intervals. the end game winner would be decided on death tolls and what armies held what ground at the end of the match. and I'm talking about hour long matches. whit historical armies and place and landscapes.

The only problem I see with that, is it is.. restrictive. It only allows for a set scenario. If an enemy army did things correctly you could be cornered, No reinforcements, Surrounded on all sides with no one coming. I do like your idea, maybe if we could merge them a bit..

I hate first-person melee combat. What's wrong with third person when you're doing something that blatantly needs peripheral vision and depth of field?

Other than that I expect historically accurate means 'uses real factions/people' and not that everyone sits for six months in front of a castle before realising they don't have enough supplies and going away again. So our other worries are probably safe

I've been itching for a game like this ever since I finished the Game of Thrones RPG. Looking forward to seeing what becomes of this.

dyre:
Damn, after I make a character there's a 90% chance I die before reaching adult age?

hahaha, no.

you already die at infant stage.

anyways, i am happy that we get to explore other time periods in video games.
but at the same time i am sad because its going to be the same old cinematic inacurrate bullshit like Ryse: so of rome and others.
image

dyre:
Damn, after I make a character there's a 90% chance I die before reaching adult age?

j/k, I hope it works out. Though, isn't this a similar concept to Mount and Blade (I haven't played that game, but it seemed like it was marketed as a realistic medieval combat simulator)?

Eric the Orange:

Also from what I've read of midevil combat, it wasn't pretty. Unless you were a commander or some such you didn't get the cool sweeping shots of hundreds of people. Maybe just a few people around you in the press of bodies. The noise and mud making it difficult to tell friend from foe. Attacking everyone around you in hopes of making it out alive. most likely to be killed by something you didn't see coming.

Though, if your character is rich you can get some full plate and be a tank on the battlefield and laugh as the peasants' pitchforks bounce harmlessly off of you :P

until they realise and start taking hammers and maces to your armour stunning you and then beating you to death inside your own armour

"Revolutionary First-person combat," huh?

The problem with first person combat is the lack of peripheral vision, as well as it being harder to tell from where you're being hit. Third person combat is drawn back enough that you don't need peripheral vision, and if you get hit, you'll know how and from which direction.

So, unless they're developing this for the Oculus Rift AND they've made some sort of suit that provides tactile feedback...

Okay, I'm looking into this far too much, but I'd be a lot more excited about the combat if that had said "third person".

Excited about the setting and potential for interesting plots though? YES.

Eric the Orange:
Well I guess that's nice for the hardcore ren-fair types. But if it's really historically accurate you probably have at least a 50-50 chance of dying from any wound from infection even if it's not in a vital spot. which I guess would make the game difficult if that's your thing.

Also from what I've read of midevil combat, it wasn't pretty. Unless you were a commander or some such you didn't get the cool sweeping shots of hundreds of people. Maybe just a few people around you in the press of bodies. The noise and mud making it difficult to tell friend from foe. Attacking everyone around you in hopes of making it out alive. most likely to be killed by something you didn't see coming.

Incorrect view on everyone having a weak immune system. Have you ever been scraped or slightly injured yourself and managed to not die from infection? That humans are so vulnerable and die from tiny little cuts without a hospital to save us is a myth. Filthy times and a lot of sickness to be sure, but that means those that do survive into adulthood can handle some germs and minor injuries.

Or, Bad luck Brian is cleaning his greaves, and he cuts his hand on the metal. Then dies.

Nice visual on the body press though.

While I do agree melee combat works better in third person first person is pretty much necessary if they want it to be as accurate as possible. Third person peripheral vision is just one more unrealistic addition.

Yeah, but first person has so little peripheral vision. Yahtzee has gone on about this I believe.

Close third person actually gives us a closer to accurate visual spectrum.

How do I throw my groats and farthings at this?

Ergh. Reading what they had to endure just to get backing is disheartening. link
I mean, what kind of bullshit is this? "One investment banker from London told us in no uncertain terms that PC and consoles are dead, and if we're not making a free-to-play MMO for iPad, we've got no chance." Next time we vilify someone for stupid decisions and attitudes it really should be publishers and investors targeted instead of developers.

I think that this is a great initiative and I wish them the best of luck.

Darn, this is exactly like the game i always dreamed of making, except i was going to set it during the Swabian revolts years later.

"Your character has caught the plague. Game over.".

"Historically accurate" is easier said than done, since it'd exclude things like miracle healings (potions, ultra quick recovery ect.), constant equipment upgrades and standing upright after getting hit with a sword or taking an arrow/bolt.

It does work for games like Medieval II, but I doubt it can work in an RPG.

Senare:

I mean, what kind of bullshit is this? "One investment banker from London told us in no uncertain terms that PC and consoles are dead, and if we're not making a free-to-play MMO for iPad, we've got no chance."

Michael Pachter has a relative in England? I never knew!

This game isn't my cup of tea, but I know there's plenty of gamers out there who'd go ga-ga over this level of historical fidelity.

A really historically accurate game.

Alright men, we have trained for months just for THIS battle.

*An arrow pierces your chest.*

Oh @#$%.

*Your wound got infected and you died of the Plague.*

Tradjus:
I think my problem with this is that historical realism always sounds good, but then you run into a problem.
Stylized violence may be gory, satisfying, and fun, but real violence for this period was.. well it'd make most people curl up into a ball and wet themselves.
Rape, pillage, limbs being hacked off and people dying of the plague were everyday occurrences, make no mistake, as much as Fox News whines about violence in games, it's never come close to capturing what the reality of violence is. That violence is typically fast, miserable, and no fun for anyone, besides being very hard to watch.
So I'm coming down on the side that says that this will end up being an insurmountable obstacle for these devs.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on with this fixation on the plague. In a period spanning a good thousand years, there have been only a handful of plague epidemics. Admittedly, those had a habit of wiping out up to a third of Europe's population, but it's hardly statistically relevant combined to simple things as TB, flu, and infection.

Elf Defiler Korgan:

Eric the Orange:
Well I guess that's nice for the hardcore ren-fair types. But if it's really historically accurate you probably have at least a 50-50 chance of dying from any wound from infection even if it's not in a vital spot. which I guess would make the game difficult if that's your thing.

Also from what I've read of midevil combat, it wasn't pretty. Unless you were a commander or some such you didn't get the cool sweeping shots of hundreds of people. Maybe just a few people around you in the press of bodies. The noise and mud making it difficult to tell friend from foe. Attacking everyone around you in hopes of making it out alive. most likely to be killed by something you didn't see coming.

Incorrect view on everyone having a weak immune system. Have you ever been scraped or slightly injured yourself and managed to not die from infection? That humans are so vulnerable and die from tiny little cuts without a hospital to save us is a myth. Filthy times and a lot of sickness to be sure, but that means those that do survive into adulthood can handle some germs and minor injuries.

Or, Bad luck Brian is cleaning his greaves, and he cuts his hand on the metal. Then dies.

Nice visual on the body press though.

well I guess I was thinking not so much cuts an scrapes but rather like a good sized lice across the leg. The 1-2 centimeters deep. Some thing to day that would require stitches and a few weeks keeping off the leg would probably mean leg Removal by Gangrene back then.

Eric the Orange:

well I guess I was thinking not so much cuts an scrapes but rather like a good sized lice across the leg. The 1-2 centimeters deep. Some thing to day that would require stitches and a few weeks keeping off the leg would probably mean leg Removal by Gangrene back then.

Actually, medieval medicine was far more advanced than we often give it credit for, Sure, there were the swindlers and religious quacks, but those most often cash in on diseases and epidemics.
Europe did know a good amount about surgery, especially after the crusades when we saw how the arabics practiced their medicine (which was far more advanced than the european standards).

Medieval europe was no stranger to combat wounds and how to treat them, highly concentrated alcohol and even urine were aduquate at disinfection (war is a dirty business) , and stitches have been around since...ever.

If you want a wound that merits amputation, you're gonna have to go a bit deeper than 2 cm, think more like...to the bone.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here