PDA

View Full Version : How realistic is this game going



IGotNothing111
08-25-2016, 03:05 PM
How realistic are the devs going with this game, are they taking the weapons and armour seriously? And detailing them as they were in that time period, i know the game isn't that realistic as 1 man can go through an entire army, but how realistic are they taking it

coma987
08-25-2016, 03:06 PM
Not much, the only real realistic thing is that there isn't **** like dragons. The story, world and stuff like that are all made up. Some of the fighting techniques are realistic tho, like the murder stroke.

Honorhound01
09-01-2016, 09:49 AM
This is from 2015 but it covers most things that are public info.
https://youtu.be/eToVS3ST4WU

This one is about 1 month old
https://youtu.be/2WhZSoOvQu0

The phrase I'm using to describe it is "Softcore realisim"

Kingdom Come: Deliverance is going for more of the "hardcore" realisim, it's 1st person & PC only though.

Casp3r42
09-01-2016, 10:20 PM
I would describe it as heavily stylized realistic swordplay. It's all grounded in reality but then exaggerated to make things feel powerful/fast/slow/etc.

Willaguy2010
09-02-2016, 02:44 AM
This game, as far as we now, doesn't take place on our world. It isn't set during a specific period of time, and all of the warriors in the game feature armor and weapons from different time periods. The Knights, for example, have a character called the Warden, who appears to be wearing high medieval armor, with mail and gambeson. The Knights also have another character called the Lawbringer, who wears Renaissance period plate armor. As you can see, even if we were to interpret this game as taking in a specific time period in our world, it be rather hard nail down exactly one date.

waraidako
09-04-2016, 09:08 PM
http://i.imgur.com/lIQSp56.gif

MisterWillow
09-05-2016, 01:06 AM
This game, as far as we now, doesn't take place on our world. It isn't set during a specific period of time, and all of the warriors in the game feature armor and weapons from different time periods. The Knights, for example, have a character called the Warden, who appears to be wearing high medieval armor, with mail and gambeson. The Knights also have another character called the Lawbringer, who wears Renaissance period plate armor. As you can see, even if we were to interpret this game as taking in a specific time period in our world, it be rather hard nail down exactly one date.

Never really thought about that, but you're right.

I always use the example of the Knights being roughly 16th century and the Vikings being roughly 10th.

waraidako
09-05-2016, 01:34 AM
The armour doesn't do anything anyway. You constantly see people just running each other through like it's nothing, or cutting someone's head off even when they'd be wearing a maille coif, making that literally impossible. Believe it or not, historical armour actually protected against swords and stuff. All of that kit made it really really difficult to kill people. In fact, during the Crimean War British soldiers had trouble killing Russians because the heavy cavalry swords of certain units couldn't cut or thrust through their woolen greatcoats.

Swords aren't magical. They're just sharp metal sticks. They can't cut through steel, or any other sufficiently dense material.

eXiLe101
09-10-2016, 09:15 PM
You have a skinny *** woman wearing a full plate of armor and wielding a clay-more.. a sword that most men could not wield.. so how realistic do you think it is???

MisterWillow
09-10-2016, 10:31 PM
You have a skinny *** woman wearing a full plate of armor and wielding a clay-more.. a sword that most men could not wield.. so how realistic do you think it is???

1. I know the armour adds a bit of heft, but even considering this, the women underneath wouldn't be skinny; or even if they are, they'd be muscular. It's an unfair judgement either way, though, since they're in armour all the time anyway.

2. As has been pointed out on several threads, most military service members today (including women) carry more weight solely on their torso than a suit of armour weighs once distributed across your entire body.

3. I presume the claymore is also a reference to weight. If so, claymores average only 4-6 lbs. Beyond that, they're pretty easy to use. They're basically a pole-arm that has more blade than handle. Using them with both hands, using the ricasso to half-sword specifically, cuts down on the weight and balance issues. Anyone can do it if they know what they're doing.

iHunny
09-11-2016, 12:23 AM
You have a skinny *** woman wearing a full plate of armor and wielding a clay-more.. a sword that most men could not wield.. so how realistic do you think it is???

Why do you think they are skinny? A woman trained as a knight would have no problem using the armor or the sword, nor would she have a problem fighting using those. Only cos women generaly did not given a chanse of fighting in earlier human history do not meen they are incapable of it. There are plenty of women from various cultures who were great warriors.

Xinjieon
09-13-2016, 08:18 AM
Why do you think they are skinny? A woman trained as a knight would have no problem using the armor or the sword, nor would she have a problem fighting using those. Only cos women generaly did not given a chanse of fighting in earlier human history do not meen they are incapable of it. There are plenty of women from various cultures who were great warriors.
********. There were probably some women trained as Knight, but not that much.
If we trust actual lit, then women fight with light weapons and light armor.

A Woman isnt made for a fight. Biological fact. Women have other skills, which Men dont have.

Honorhound01
09-13-2016, 09:00 AM
********. There were probably some women trained as Knight, but not that much.
If we trust actual lit, then women fight with light weapons and light armor.

A Woman isnt made for a fight. Biological fact. Women have other skills, which Men dont have.

Tell that to the Mongols.

BTW, sexism was a thing throughout history in many cultures and thus women were excluded from combat for those reasons.

Xinjieon
09-13-2016, 09:02 AM
Tell that to the Mongols.

BTW, sexism was a thing throughout history in many cultures and thus women were excluded from combat for those reasons.

Poor you. Nothin more to say. :-(

Honorhound01
09-13-2016, 09:08 AM
Poor you. Nothin more to say. :-(

:confused:

iHunny
09-13-2016, 09:53 AM
:confused:

I add to this with a :confused: :confused:

MisterWillow
09-13-2016, 09:29 PM
A Woman isnt made for a fight. Biological fact. Women have other skills, which Men dont have.

It's a biological fact that humans are very fragile in comparison to most other organisms, and it doesn't take that much strength to actually kill someone if that's your intention; you just have to know where and how to hit someone. That's increased if you're hitting someone with a sharpened piece of metal.


There were probably some women trained as Knight, but not that much.
If we trust actual lit, then women fight with light weapons and light armor.

Part of the reason not that many women were trained as Knights---or in combat generally---is because back then the notion that it was a 'biolocial fact' that 'a woman isn't made for a fight' was the opinion of pretty much everyone, including people running schools teaching fencing.

No one willing to train women = no women being trained = no women knights.