KickStarter Kingdom Come: Deliverance Pre-Release Thread [RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Cadmus]

I don't know - how long can it take for such a frequented building to start looking worn?

 

[Haba]

I don't know - how long can it take for such a frequented building to start looking worn?

Impressive, but would the Church look that old and worn out?

Churches were renovated and altered relatively frequently, plus any building requires maintenance which wasn't as trivial to perform back in the medieval days. Even modern building exteriors, especially in areas with extreme variations in temperatures, tend to get worn down in relatively short period of time. You'll notice that it is only the plaster that is falling off the walls.

Middle ages techniques and materials were not all that advanced. I recall that limewash needed to be reapplied yearly, for example.

 

[Lyric Suite]

For something that was build on such backward techniques, i find it funny how a lot of this stuff is still standing after more than a thousand years.

At an rate, i just googled for Czech Gothic and Romanesque Churches and there appear to be several big ones as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Gothic_architecture

This stuff better be in the game, especially since without those artistic artifacts the human areas in the game are going to look like an endless series of nondescript plain hovels.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Location wise you get this

and maybe this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sázavský_Klášter.jpg

Prague, the Hradčany and St. Vitus cathedral are probably reserved for a sequel, but they are not Ubisoft, so they probably won't spend a year on modeling Notre Dame.

 

[cvv]

For something that was build on such backward techniques, i find it funny how a lot of this stuff is still standing after more than a thousand years.

There are much older structures still standing. Like the Pantheon, afaik the oldest surviving "sophisticated" building (discounting piles of bricks like the pyramids or various burial mounds, impressive in its own right ofc). I suppose chief builders employed by all-powerful pharaohs, kings or bishops couldn't afford to be idiots.

 

[Apexeon]

There are shitloads of HEMA masters just in Eastern Yurop alone, why on Earth would they hire Harrison Ford's personal trainer from California?

Because anyone from Murica is cool. Vote Trump and double down.

 

[Cadmus]

For something that was build on such backward techniques, i find it funny how a lot of this stuff is still standing after more than a thousand years.

At an rate, i just googled for Czech Gothic and Romanesque Churches and there appear to be several big ones as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Gothic_architecture

This stuff better be in the game, especially since without those artistic artifacts the human areas in the game are going to look like an endless series of nondescript plain hovels.

I think the problem is that most of these are located in the bigger cities which would require the devs to make the entire city along with the building. As far as I understand there's gonna be 1 big city only? I think the most you can hope for are some lonesome forts overseeing a small village but I like the way they look here better than the big cathedrals anyway.

 

[Konjad]

You wanna transport completely into the early 15th century? Read Canterbury Tales.

The Canterbury Tales are cool though, I'd play a game based on them.

 

[Prime Junta]

You wanna transport completely into the early 15th century? Read Canterbury Tales.

The Canterbury Tales are cool though, I'd play a game based on them.

Would be right up your alley methinks

Spoiler

This Absalom plumped down upon his knees,
And said: "I am a lord in all degrees;
For after this there may be better still
Darling, my sweetest bird, I wait your will."
The window she unbarred, and that in haste.
620 "Have done," said she, "come on, and do it fast,
Before we're seen by any neighbour's eye."
This Absalom did wipe his mouth all dry;
Dark was the night as pitch, aye dark as coal,
And through the window she put out her hole.
625 And Absalom no better felt nor worse,
But with his mouth he kissed her naked arse
Right greedily, before he knew of this.
Aback he leapt- it seemed somehow amiss,
For well he knew a woman has no beard;
630 He'd felt a thing all rough and longish haired,
And said, "Oh fie, alas! What did I do?"
"Teehee!" she laughed, and clapped the, window to;
And Absalom went forth a sorry pace.
"A beard! A beard!" cried clever Nicholas,
635 "Now by God's corpus, this goes fair and well!"

 

[Got bored and left]

Oh yes, Chaucer is a treat.

 

[Spectacle]

For something that was build on such backward techniques, i find it funny how a lot of this stuff is still standing after more than a thousand

The vast majority of medieval stone buildings have long since fallen down. The medieval artisans were very skilled but their knowledge all came from experience and they did not truly understand what they were building the way modern engineers do. So it is often a matter of luck if a building from that age has stood the test of time or not.

 

[cvv]

For something that was build on such backward techniques, i find it funny how a lot of this stuff is still standing after more than a thousand

The vast majority of medieval stone buildings have long since fallen down. The medieval artisans were very skilled but their knowledge all came from experience and they did not truly understand what they were building the way modern engineers do. So it is often a matter of luck if a building from that age has stood the test of time or not.

Majority of medieval buildings aren't anymore because they were pulled down to make room for new buildings, not because they were somehow flawed. There are a few rare places in Europe where entire streets by some miracle survived fires, raids, bombings or realtors long enough to become legaly protected. They have zero problem staying upright even now. And medieval builders wouldn't understand modern steel and concrete physics but they understood very well what they worked with.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Well, medieval artisans knew how to make their buildings beautiful where as we don't.

Notice how even crumbling medieval artifacts still have a certain charm about them where as anything build in modernity looks like a dystopian nightmare when left unattended for even a short period of time.

 

[Darkzone]

For fucks sake people, watch some MMA, Muay Thai, Boxing or even Judo fights. Train this arts and after a while you will see that from the things that you train you will execute only very few in a tournament and even fewer in a real street fight.

Yeah, except if that was really the case you wouldn't even be able to differentiate between the three. You are also talking shit because any "street" fight between someone trained to fight in any type of martial art ends up with the martial art expert flooring the other person using a formal technique. Youtube is littered with such examples.
Frankly, i think it is a bit of a waste of time to explain why form is superior to human fancy, because the modern mindset always thinks in the cheapest terms possible. It would be like trying to explain why Bach (whose music is highly formal) is superior to any popular music (which is cheap and to the "point" the same way a "street" fight is cheap and to the point). It is impossible to understand that form contains a type of superior wisdom which transcends the understanding of the average scrub who really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. That is the ultimate practical utility of form. That you can get anyone to conform to a standard which transcends what the individual knows or is even capable of grasping. In an age where martial arts were practiced for purely practical reasons by a large number of people and combat didn't revolve around a select number of genetic freaks battling each other for the entertainment of millions martial arts were all the more important.

In opposite to anyone who posted here i'm training martial arts (Kung-Fu, Kickboxing / Muay Thai and Kendo) since i'm 16 years old and i'm certainly the only one here who has been involved in many street fights. I have been attacked with baseball bats, knives and with bottles, but at the end i was the one who was standing on top. And i state to you that there is no superior wisdom in techniques and in the end precision, speed, experience and timing prevails against the inflexible routine of techniques and that has taught me the nearly technique less Kickboxing / Muay Thai and Kendo. While the technical Kung-Fu training has been entirely useless on all accounts.
And if you had trained real martial arts and had real fighting experience then you would know this. Techniques have a probability of functionality and the more experienced fighter you have, the less it is probable, that you can execute a technique and the longer a technique is, the less it is probable. And that is also a problem for the techniques, because you have always treat a opponent as a very strong one, else you can experience a real bad surprise. In times where only the best survived this was more crucial than in a fight where it is only about a belt, title or money.
To learn techniques is important, because they are the concrete forms of applied tactics in a fight, but not more.
So before i go to Kendo training today and tomorrow to brazilian jiu jitsu, i will state that if you want to learn something about martial arts you should practice them and test them in a tournament. But only a philosophical approach will not teach you the essence of fighting.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Maybe you are just shit at Kung Fu ever thought of that? Hurr Durr

I practiced Tae Kwon Do for the better part of my teens until my early 20s, when i sort of became estranged from it once i started working since i was never really into fighting much. I'm a philosopher, not a warrior. Whether this disqualifies me from commenting on this subject or not, i think there's something to be said about reducing everything to such a simple equation as being able to one up some low thug in an street brawl (btw, why are you having street brawls?).

At any rate, to the ancients, the "practical" use of form was that of imparting the practitioner of a given art with a wisdom and genius that often exceeded the actual capacities of the would be individual artist, who may or may not have been particularly gifted at all (in essence, making scrubs comfort to a standard against which their own creative abilities fell short, thus capitalizing on the human "average" rather than hinging entirely on the sporadic occurrence of exceptionally gifted individuals, hence, the "practical" aspect of this system, for individuals of great gift are rare and those societies needed artists whether good ones were available or not). Ever since the Renaissance, we take for granted that art is all about the genius of the individual, and we are not used to the idea of genius being inherent in the "form" of the art itself, the individual artist being subservient to the art rather than the other way around.

Now, it seems to me that a lot of ancient martial arts followed a similar principle, at least to a degree. Rather than expecting anyone to perform at the level of a champion out of their own natural strengths and abilities, people sought to elevate the "average" to a certain reasonable standard of excellence, since in those days people needed warriors whether they were champions or not. Now, whatever it is that the fighter did in actual combat, the question is whether the practice of those techniques produced the expected results. And given that the litmus test for the practical use of those arts was as ultimate as it gets (actual life or death), one can assume they were in fact fairly useful, or nobody would have bothered. And so we come to the question, is it really all about the physical conditioning? Would a man in a state of equal physical fitness be able to stand up to a martial artist in a toe to toe fight? If that's the case, why do we have even martial art? Why not just teach general physical fitness?

Lastly, there is the transcend or "spiritual" aspect of martial arts, but i don't really feel going into that now. Rather, i think one thing we should be talking about is whether this type of formalism is better in terms of gameplay even though it might not be entirely 100% accurate. In the vast majority of melee first person games all you do is walk forward to mindlessly hit your enemy and walk backward to avoid their attacks, which is pathetically simplistic. I would personally take anything over that kind of shit, realism or not.

 

[Cadmus]

Kingdom Come: Deliver us from Autism

 

[Prime Junta]

In my previous lifetime I was a Landsknecht

 

[Haba]

There are a few rare places in Europe where entire streets by some miracle survived fires, raids, bombings or realtors long enough to become legaly protected. They have zero problem staying upright even now.

The 1100+ years old brick temples at Mỹ Sơn are still standing (at least the ones kwanzanians didn't bomb), whilst the modern restoration attempts made just 20-30 years ago are already crumbling. The original walls are in bizarrely good shape (interior ones at least).

But even that is most probably a case of good luck rather than special skill. Nobody has been reproduce their techniques.

 

[Drax]

It's because the bricks are folded ten thousand times by a monk what lives in the mountains.
Duh.

 

[Lyric Suite]

It is probably because the materials aren't actually cheap as shit. A lot stuff back then was made out of things that are now considered to be a luxury. A block of natural stone isn't going to go anywhere but a concrete construction will erode within decades.

 

[Alienman]

Dung last a long time.

Just kidding.

 

[Serious_Business]

the transcend or "spiritual" aspect of martial arts

Tell me more about this

burp

 

[Darkzone]

Maybe you are just shit at Kung Fu ever thought of that? Hurr Durr
I practiced Tae Kwon Do for the better part of my teens until my early 20s, when i sort of became estranged from it once i started working since i was never really into fighting much. I'm a philosopher, not a warrior. Whether this disqualifies me from commenting on this subject or not, i think there's something to be said about reducing everything to such a simple equation as being able to one up some low thug in an street brawl (btw, why are you having street brawls?).

I have a moto: I will not start the fight, but i will end it. And most of the advanced martial art practitioners seem to have a similar approach. So you rarely see true martial artist fight against each other, but there are many cases where a normal street brawler attacks a cunning matrtial arts fighter.
Why especially this happens to me? Don't know and neither my friends, and it seems that i'm a magnet for such things, but i would guess that my unbending character is responsible for this, despite my low aggressivity.

At any rate, to the ancients, the "practical" use of form was that of imparting the practitioner of a given art with a wisdom and genius that often exceeded the actual capacities of the would be individual artist, who may or may not have been particularly gifted at all (in essence, making scrubs comfort to a standard against which their own creative abilities fell short, thus capitalizing on the human "average" rather than hinging entirely on the sporadic occurrence of exceptionally gifted individuals, hence, the "practical" aspect of this system, for individuals of great gift are rare and those societies needed artists whether good ones were available or not). Ever since the Renaissance, we take for granted that art is all about the genius of the individual, and we are not used to the idea of genius being inherent in the "form" of the art itself, the individual artist being subservient to the art rather than the other way around.

I agree on that. But you have to take in to the account that art, like painting, analysed the used means to perform even better. In painting we have a clear development in the late medieval times to the renaissance of perspective by means of mathematics. Albrecht Dürer has studied geometry and the painting techniques, and taught the basics in "Underweysung der Messung", like the use of the grid and frame instead of a glass pane for more accuracy in depiction of the painted object. We do not have such an evident development in martial arts, despite all the treaties and manuals and there were many frauds and liars in the martial arts like they are in modern times.

Now, it seems to me that a lot of ancient martial arts followed a similar principle, at least to a degree. Rather than expecting anyone to perform at the level of a champion out of their own natural strengths and abilities, people sought to elevate the "average" to a certain reasonable standard of excellence, since in those days people needed warriors whether they were champions or not. Now, whatever it is that the fighter did in actual combat, the question is whether the practice of those techniques produced the expected results. And given that the litmus test for the practical use of those arts was as ultimate as it gets (actual life or death), one can assume they were in fact fairly useful, or nobody would have bothered. And so we come to the question, is it really all about the physical conditioning? Would a man in a state of equal physical fitness be able to stand up to a martial artist in a toe to toe fight? If that's the case, why do we have even martial art? Why not just teach general physical fitness?

To make a true martial artist takes time and is a large investment. An investment that not necessary pays of in wars. In the end the masses on the battlefield dominate the few and sooner or later even the best fighter will lose due to exhaustion and the fact that he has no eyes on this back of the head. The spartans were the only true soldiers on the battlefield, but also lost in the end to normal armed and trained peasants drafted to war by Thebans. If two people with the same physical fitness and one is a martial artist fight with each other, then in most of the cases the martial artist will win.
Why do we have the martial art at all? And why not teach only general physical fitness?
Because the techniques teachs a person what he can do, and not necessary what he must do. Bruce Lee is a one interesting example of somebody who went through techniques to the freedom of a formless fight. I will explain it in a answer that i will write to Meklar. His latest view was that techniques are something to be overcomed, to experience the true essence of fighting.
A person trains normally that what one will execute in that special situation. All who train taekwondo for a longer period of time have fast and good kicks, but they lack the ability of good boxing and the ground fighting.
So if a person trains boxing, then the ability for a fast hit with a fist will grow, but the person cannot expect in a fight to execute a series of certain 5 hits that he has previously learned. And if the person is sparring a lot with different opponents then he will learn to read the body language of the opponents and this way he or she knows when an opponent is perhaps opening his defence. The person learns also the different distances to an opponent and how to deal with this distances. This and more are things that a general fitness cannot teach a person and a good martial art training develops also a good general fitness.
And yes i think that techniques do teach a lot, especially the people without martial art experience.

Lastly, there is the transcend or "spiritual" aspect of martial arts, but i don't really feel going into that now. Rather, i think one thing we should be talking about is whether this type of formalism is better in terms of gameplay even though it might not be entirely 100% accurate. In the vast majority of melee first person games all you do is walk forward to mindlessly hit your enemy and walk backward to avoid their attacks, which is pathetically simplistic. I would personally take anything over that kind of shit, realism or not.

There could be a problem in our both understanding of transcendent. I do not know how do you use it. Is it in the sense of Thomas of Aquin or Kant. I would normal assume that it refers to the Kant understanding of transcendent, but the "spiritual" speaks against this use.
I think that most of the games cannot depict good a fight and are pathetic simplistic, because they are made not by martial artist and not for martial artist and therefore they require the stupid simplicity.

 

[skallagrim]

Hm. That's like me prancing around the internet as TotalBiscuit and then explaining "Oh no, i just totally like biscuits is all."

No. It is the same as naming myself after Achilles, Atilla, Odin, Hitler or another mythical or historical figure and then having some retard complaining that an annoying youtuber are using the same nickname.

 

[cvv]

Hm. That's like me prancing around the internet as TotalBiscuit and then explaining "Oh no, i just totally like biscuits is all."

No. It is the same as naming myself after Achilles, Atilla, Odin, Hitler or another mythical or historical figure and then having some retard complaining that an annoying youtuber are using the same nickname.

Whoa, pretty badass for a lurker.

 

[warpig]

Location: Sweden

You can accuse that youtube phaggot of "cultural apropriation".