Impression of the full version of the game. (King's Bounty 2)

raspisnoy1
As for me, you haven't played the first part - a game released by New World Computing (American by the way) in 1990.

Such an assumption that they took the Age of Wonders and Disciples battle system from different games combined into one, but soon a competitor to this game, Disciples: Liberation, is coming out, but there, too, unfortunately, the responses are not so hot ... we have not forgotten how to make games ...

DarthKenny
Exactly. I was personally looking forward to a 3D remake of the VanKeningham originals. Well, we got what we got

I played for almost 10 hours on the PROSHK - the graphics are not very even, not 2021, it seemed that the streamers on the PC were better. The plot is more or less, there are holes, but I was afraid of the worst. Special thanks for a bunch of references and easter eggs. The gameplay is terrible, the translation into a third-person view is clearly not sawed, endless shuffling through opaque bushes in search of another cache quickly gets boring. The battles are varied and unpredictable, which is annoying of course. but adds interest. Surprisingly, the game turned out to be difficult (I play for Katarina the magician), they constantly carry out detachments, I have to run to update / buy, it also adds excitement. They wrote about the zoo - I agree one hundred percent, there is not enough variability of units. As an old fan I am ready to grab it, maybe it is a fresh breath of that universe, but the game is raw. One hope: the developers have enough money, conscience and strength to finish this alpha version.

Immediately you can see there are retrogrades who did not play "Ascent to the Throne" there, according to mechanics, it is not like a current of a horse! Foolish people are limited to one or two games, all you need to know about those who leave reviews.

X_ray_83
What are you talking about? Like that people are stupid because they were waiting for the king's bounty (and I justly ask you to notice they were waiting, since the game is called that way), but got the ascent to the throne?

Sergjiei
I mean that everything in life changes and evolves! You can't sculpt the same thing for 30 years so it doesn't work.
"ascent to the throne?"
The idea is correct to take it as a basis, it's a pity that this is not their idea)))

X_ray_83
Well, yes, I do not refuse that I am a retrograde, when a product is called, for example, "Table", and they sell you a "Water tap", and it is rusty and for spare parts, and everyone is pointing a finger at this pile of rubbish and yelling, "What a charming table , uchi-ways ". This is what we are talking about. As for evolution ... so here it is, on the contrary, complete degradation, which is obvious.
How many episodes and franchises have been so fucked up with this kind of "evolution"? Something I have not seen a single game in 20+ playing years that would have survived with this approach. I do not understand developers who break golden eggs with a sledgehammer, hoping to get a diamond one, having before them the experience of the entire world game industry, which suggests otherwise.

X_ray_83
Uh-huh, the wheel has evolved so badly. That is, when I buy a wheel, I want to buy a wheel, not a bumper. And where is evolution then?
papanduro Uh-huh.

dobro4insky
For me, this is, if not a masterpiece, then at least a very solid strong game with an excellent combat system and a working economy. And the icing on the cake is a pretty good strong storyline that sags slightly in the sense that the main character sometimes acts aloof. He seems to be a problem solver, but he doesn't seem to care. Although it may also be because I started playing for Countess Katarina - and she looks at everything from high. By the way, each of the three heroes has its own set of lines and therefore the same plot moments can be felt differently, depending on whom you play. I like this game a lot more than the old parts. Especially thanks to combat - it has evolved very seriously here, stepped forward steeply. And I also really like the fact that the game does not hold the player for a fool - it offers to think of many things on his own. That is, casuals will not automatically like this game. In short, King's Bounty II is an uncut diamond, which, if you scold for anything, then only for the graphics - in 2021 the graph could be better. But the rest of the game I really like.

Interesting fact. Most of the negative reviews on the incentive are made after 30 minutes, well, a maximum of 1 hour with a penny of gameplay. That is, people did not go through the training location and did not see the main game and draw conclusions. They haven't seen anything in the game, but they know absolutely everything about it. Of course, such reviews do not inspire confidence in me.

If in the incentive filter you can view reviews only from those who actually played the game. Well, that is, spent at least 3-5 hours in the game, then the rating rises from 47% to 76-78%. Do you understand? The game is scolded only by those who have not played. Who saw only the first location. And whoever spent 3-5 hours in it evaluates the game more adequately, mostly positively, because they really saw the game outside of training. It is necessary to understand who you are watching the reviews in the incentive. In fact, it's sad that non-playing people are able to drop the rating of a game by as much as forty percent.

Janekste wrote:
For me this is, if not a masterpiece, then at least a very solid strong game with an excellent combat system and a working economy.
Dude, you said earlier that the game is a masterpiece.
Janekste wrote:
And for me it's a masterpiece 10 out of 10. Why? I explain.
What changed?

papanduro
Something I have not seen a single game in 20+ years of play that would have survived with a similar approach.
Fallout was 2d became 3d and shooter, alive and well has not died. And there are many such examples. All of you know do not be pity, just "eyes colitis" from the truth.
That is, following your "logic" Fallout 3-4 is a failure, especially New Vegas, because the developers
"broke the golden eggs, hoping to get a diamond one")))
Now think about where Fallout would have been with the 1998 combat system in 2021 ??? In the same place where Baldurs Gates 3 "endless beta" and editing of the game for the sake of "fans"!

X_ray_83
Immediately you can see there are retrogrades who have not played "Ascension to the Throne" there, mechanically, it is not like a current of a horse!
and the disadvantages of the mechanics of one game flow into another.
from the point of view of perception, the ascent to the throne is a game with abstraction of a certain big world on which Mr. but the world itself is abstract and reduced for perception, therefore it contains large unworked objects inside, which are points of intera on the map. and model yy which is a marker of a position indicator on the map. and all sorts of enemies and resources. But when you look directly at the game, it is literally felt across the ultra-compact casual-like game world, a dude runs, who runs into enemies and, like a battlefield, an army appears from his pants, and the game is transformed into tactics with units.
but in fact it is cheap and simple and the game does not turn into mount and blood or fallen lord.
in kings bounty, the problem is about the same. only the world is less abstract. you feel immersed in it and its dimensions and proportions are already such that you perceive it as a real space of the level of the 2000s, you explore, look for niggles, chat with NPCs and feel naked and lonely because you have war dogs, spearmen, circus bears in your pocket. and then you run into the enemy and the tactical battle begins. and therefore the player cannot perceive not the combat world as a kind of objective reality of 3d action games, but this is a kind of convention. as an idea on paper, it looks good and logical, but in practice it creates the same dissonance for which, as I understand it, the criticism of the game. in addition to the fact that they did not wash it down like in the cb game in 2008, where, by the way, in general, the mechanics are the same but even more abstract. the player is glued to his character,

I like it that way about realistic design. someone may not like a matter of taste. and based on streamers and the first few hours, a normal game for tactical lovers. the whole plot and game narrative is a reason for tactical balls and not for profundity like some kind of bitter 18.
so it's probably a normal game for someone who knows what he wants from the game. a real continuation of the legend. pitch-pitch

MunchkiN 616 wrote:
with the abstraction of a certain big world
Only by and large, probably almost any game is an abstraction, the question is different, in its embodiment, and this game did not work out.

Sergjiei wrote:
Only by and large, probably almost any game is an abstraction, the question is different, in its embodiment
there are games that are metrically swallowed and perceived. for example skyrim. although he depicts cities with a thousand population there, players do not know about eo and perceive it 1in1. and if they make a city-pancake a couple of kilometers in diameter, 30,000 npc with beds, they will not smoke it. give us back our cozy smoke.
and almost all 3D action games are like that. strategies such as mount and blade 2 have a tactical world map. little men run along it and there are cities or other games with a strategic map - they imply that there is some compression for easy perception and it does not look like a creep, which is actually a large and extensive topic for thought.

Janekste
Hmm. it turns out to say that you did not like the game, you need not only buy it, but also go through, preferably in its entirety.

MunchkiN 616
Mount and Blade is another Corsairs do not confuse with turn-based strategy! The most that is close is Japanese games, they work according to this scheme, but definitely not M&B.

Not a bad game of B (or even G) class - so any nitpicking to graphics and animation I think is inappropriate. There are a lot of bad or unfinished design solutions (slow run, unnecessary horse, compass instead of a normal mini-map) and a strange console interface (especially in battles). Compared to the first games (from Katauri), it's worse. If taken as an unexpected sequel to Ascending the Throne, great.

MunchkiN 616 wrote:
there are games that are metrically swallowed and perceived. for example skyrim. although he depicts cities with a thousand inhabitants there
Why did you write this rant? Did I say somewhere that abstraction is bad? It is clear that no adequate person will make cities in games of a real scale, or, for example, in films, but they can show the general plan that the city is huge, but only interesting places or events will be shown. And now I will briefly say why this game did not manage to believe in it, unlike the old parts from katuri. The point is in the location of the camera, with isometric, an illusion arises as if you are looking, for example, through a satellite or from a great height, that is, only large details are visible (such as buildings, the main character), and when a battle occurs, a kind of zoom effect occurs. , and the viewer sees creatures, the world in more detail. In KB2, the camera is immediately much closer to the game character, but the question is, where is your army? I mean, the player becomes kind of "

Sergjiei
I do not know my personal problem or the problem in general with the 3D graphics of the game is not perceived as a satellite map until some proportions at which it starts to be perceived like that. for example for heroes 5 and kb this is true. for Mount and Blade 2 and the Skyrim fast travel map, this is no longer the case. Regarding the first 3D kings bounty, this technique does not work because of the interiors of the dungeons and the general layout of the units, all this is more likely to be associated with Warcraft 3. It does not work or does not work very well in ascending the throne.
in cb2, the bet is specifically that the hero is directly controlled by the character and explores the world being immersed in it from the third person and completes quests like ordinary 3d RPGs. for some, this game crossed the line of purely strategic and from this I do not like it, because I remembered Mount and Blade, which works in a similar way - you walk around the castles and cities of your years and communicate with nsp, but otherwise it is a crooked action with a strategic focus. Kings Bounty is not an action game but a tactic. I would like to compare its mechanics with something similar to some kind of body of the Zestria.
The problem of the pocket army in the case of the kings bounty is aggravated because it tries to present the world as a whole in which the player is located, but it starts to a lesser extent with the kings bounty, to some extent with the ascent to the throne, etc. it is a pure dependence on the perception and geometry of the world.
you can fantasize that if there is such a game with a seamless scalable world in height and stylistic layout, saving tactical battles for deploying a camp before the battle and the battle itself and points of interest where he cannot logically enter with an army but can only with limited personal units (nominal) it is the problem will go away. but it’s not that kind of game and technically difficult to implement.
from this, such games generally have the impression of trying to sit on 2 chairs, but for this you need to be thicker this is their main problem from the point of view of game design.