samoilaaa
Member
yes its banned , try to search it on the playstore
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance II has sold 1 million copies
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- Sales-Age
Buggy Loop
Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Interesting.
The game *was* on the Saudi Xbox page a few days ago but searching for it right now, it is not there anymore. I can only find the first game.
Looks like the ban did take effect afterall.
Raven117
Member
People are free to spend their money and time however they wish.
Be it misguided or for whatever silly reason. But yeah, go forth and purchase what you want using whatever value metric you can think of. Godspeed.
Wolves hunt in packs
Banned
No demo i know of, but you could try the first game which will provide a similer experience and the first game goes on sales regularly for about 5 bucks.
I watched a number of Job Del Arroz videos, before the the controversy happened.
He has a number of based takes, but then he didn't just show his unwiped ass. He spread it wide open, once the rumors started.
I already knew he's pro Christianity, but he is anything BUT a saint.
I stopped watching his takes, after realizing he is ABSOLUTELY on a Grifters Crusader, with the veil of Christianity, as armor.
I personally think he is NOT a good person.
On topic:
I hope the game sells even MORE. It's even better than the first game. Can't wait to play more, after work.
Daniel Vavra, be praised!
Zacfoldor
Member
Or is there? This is an actual photo of myself watching the butt sex scene in KCD2:No butt sex in Avowed
Buggy Loop
Member
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
Being a good game triumphs everything in the culture war. It's like Hogwarts legacy: hated by the LGBT while having LGBT characters. Still sold millions.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
They should do one of their official statistics around this. 2,000,000 Hanses have been penetrated!
TerribleAtThisGame
Member
Wimbledon
Member
About said quote on optional gay moment. People keep saying what happened in the first game , and then say the option is coming out of nowhere. What events transpired that led to that moment.
Because if it's a brother in arms type deal ala guts and Griffith from berserk depending on how it's written the situations and moments that led to that event it would make sense for that moment to happen.
Like I don't think that type of situation is that out of the ordinary and we get the option to choose , just like I don't think it would be out of ordinary to decline that.
Remember we're playing Henry's life the events in the first game are his past, what has he experienced, what has he put himself through, who has he aligned himself with.
Has his beliefs been challenged etc.
Like you have to play the 2nd game. Id only call woke shit if it's just out of nowhere bs. But I do feel like a lot of people are reacting not actually playing the game to see Henrys development. To get a better understanding of these moments there up in arms about.
Because if it's a brother in arms type deal ala guts and Griffith from berserk depending on how it's written the situations and moments that led to that event it would make sense for that moment to happen.
Like I don't think that type of situation is that out of the ordinary and we get the option to choose , just like I don't think it would be out of ordinary to decline that.
Remember we're playing Henry's life the events in the first game are his past, what has he experienced, what has he put himself through, who has he aligned himself with.
Has his beliefs been challenged etc.
Like you have to play the 2nd game. Id only call woke shit if it's just out of nowhere bs. But I do feel like a lot of people are reacting not actually playing the game to see Henrys development. To get a better understanding of these moments there up in arms about.
Last edited:
DaciaJC
Gold Member
In the first game, Henry was canonically straight. Warhorse said his character was set in stone.
But now in the sequel, apparently he can pursue a homosexual relationship.
In the first game, Vavra was adamant that inclusion of black people in the game's setting was historically implausible.
But now in the sequel, apparently there is the improbable situation of a black Muslim from West Africa who has found himself in the employ of a Central European Christian king's army, and what's more, he extols his own religion's treatment of women. Vavra says that this character met Sigismund "thanks to his engagement at the court of Sultan Bayezid" but I find that a bit questionable given that Sigismund had called for a crusade which culminated in the battle of Nicopolis against Bayezid only a few years prior in 1396.
Granted, these are pretty minor elements in the grand scheme, nothing remotely as groan-worthy as something like Taash in Veilguard, but I'm more so concerned about why they're present at all. What changed between then and now? Vavra insists that he maintained total creative freedom during KCD2's development, but the above examples seem like pretty significant departures from his outlook when making the first game. Was he tired of the unfair bashing he had received from game "journalists" about the lack of diversity in KCD1 and didn't want a repeat of the same surrounding the sequel? Or did Embracer in fact exert some influence and mandate the inclusion of certain DEI elements under the belief that if they were dressed up nicely enough, the fans wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss? Maybe more information will come to light in time.
In the end, I'm very happy for the studio's success, I loved the first game and want to see other non-fantasy medieval titles succeed as well. But I ended up cancelling my preorder for KCD2 and won't be getting it for the time being. The situation still feels a little suspect for me.
But now in the sequel, apparently he can pursue a homosexual relationship.
In the first game, Vavra was adamant that inclusion of black people in the game's setting was historically implausible.
But now in the sequel, apparently there is the improbable situation of a black Muslim from West Africa who has found himself in the employ of a Central European Christian king's army, and what's more, he extols his own religion's treatment of women. Vavra says that this character met Sigismund "thanks to his engagement at the court of Sultan Bayezid" but I find that a bit questionable given that Sigismund had called for a crusade which culminated in the battle of Nicopolis against Bayezid only a few years prior in 1396.
Granted, these are pretty minor elements in the grand scheme, nothing remotely as groan-worthy as something like Taash in Veilguard, but I'm more so concerned about why they're present at all. What changed between then and now? Vavra insists that he maintained total creative freedom during KCD2's development, but the above examples seem like pretty significant departures from his outlook when making the first game. Was he tired of the unfair bashing he had received from game "journalists" about the lack of diversity in KCD1 and didn't want a repeat of the same surrounding the sequel? Or did Embracer in fact exert some influence and mandate the inclusion of certain DEI elements under the belief that if they were dressed up nicely enough, the fans wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss? Maybe more information will come to light in time.
In the end, I'm very happy for the studio's success, I loved the first game and want to see other non-fantasy medieval titles succeed as well. But I ended up cancelling my preorder for KCD2 and won't be getting it for the time being. The situation still feels a little suspect for me.
Last edited:
GigaBowser
The bear of bad news
i dont play no woke crud combat looks crud to
Denton
Member
Those posts were written 8 years ago by a community manager, Vávra didn't even know about them
that said, it is irrelevant, since people can change their mind about what roleplaying option they provide to players, especially over 8 years
From what I heard the same sex romance is well written, maybe he just wanted to explore this topic through medieval lens? Because no other game exists that does it authentically? Where same sex is forbidden and considered sinful?
Same with the Mali traveller. First game takes place in rural countryside and you deal with small nobility. Second game takes place in wealthiest city in the country and you deal with kings. Why not include one guy from africa, if it can provide interesting game experience (since he is so unusual) and expand Henry's perspective of the world?
Now, I agree that superficially, decisions to include these seem "suspect" considering Vávra's decade old statements. But if you think about it, what actually matters is execution. Does it make the game more interesting, is it well written? If so, there is no problem, and including it makes sense.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
In the first game, Henry was canonically straight. Warhorse said his character was set in stone.
But now in the sequel, apparently he can pursue a homosexual relationship.
In the first game, Vavra was adamant that inclusion of black people in the game's setting was historically implausible.
But now in the sequel, apparently there is the improbable situation of a black Muslim from West Africa who has found himself in the employ of a Central European Christian king's army, and what's more, he extols his own religion's treatment of women. Vavra says that this character met Sigismund "thanks to his engagement at the court of Sultan Bayezid" but I find that a bit questionable given that Sigismund had called for a crusade which culminated in the battle of Nicopolis against Bayezid only a few years prior in 1396.
Granted, these are pretty minor elements in the grand scheme, nothing remotely as groan-worthy as something like Taash in Veilguard, but I'm more so concerned about why they're present at all. What changed between then and now? Vavra insists that he maintained total creative freedom during KCD2's development, but the above examples seem like pretty significant departures from his outlook when making the first game. Was he tired of the unfair bashing he had received from game "journalists" about the lack of diversity in KCD1 and didn't want a repeat of the same surrounding the sequel? Or did Embracer in fact exert some influence and mandate the inclusion of certain DEI elements under the belief that if they were dressed up nicely enough, the fans wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss? Maybe more information will come to light in time.
In the end, I'm very happy for the studio's success, I loved the first game and want to see other non-fantasy medieval titles succeed as well. But I ended up cancelling my preorder for KCD2 and won't be getting it for the time being. The situation still feels a little suspect for me.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
The game is NOT banned. It's officially available in the region on both Steam and Epic Games.
xenosys
Member
Given the amount hype it received and where it's been charting on Steam pre-release, 1 million on launch was expected. I'm a little surprised it wasn't more given it has almost a peak of 200k CCUs on Steam and is multi-platform.
The player base must be overwhelmingly PC-based.
The player base must be overwhelmingly PC-based.
Last edited:
xenosys
Member
My man grummz (eww .. never make me say that again) already gave the game away, he's focued onto his next target.
The grift never stops.
Has he delivered on that game he was making yet?