They sure do love to paint with the broadest of strokes. Better to just act on uninformed reflex than even think about it for just a second; that brain power is better used on deciding what color to dye their pubes next month after all.
“We’re not an echo chamber! We’re not an echo chamber!” Shrieks “sweet nicole” as he bans anyone who disagrees with the retardERA hive mind while pulling his hair out and scratching his scalp bloody.>Giantbomb
>Learning something from past mistakes
Oh and the REEEEEEEera thread about KC selling One million is a mine of autism by its own: seeing the mods trying to keep the "wrongthinkers" at bay it's both depressing and fun
View attachment 389892
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Source: https://twitter.com/sewervane/status/967099723797610496
Vavra is probably laughin his ass off all this sperging
The problem with grand narrative ideologies is they over simplify to the point any idiot can solve all the worlds problems, in their own mind.
To the SJW, everything wrong with the world is the result of evil white men oppressing everyone and everything for centuries, culminating in the age of exploration colonial expansion, and modern capitalism.
Why is Africa a shit hole? White people colonized it.
Why do women have trouble earning respect and achieving great career outcomes? White men keep them down.
Why do black men die violently more often then white men? White racism.
Why does inequality exist? Privileged white people.
While I might agree with the rest of your post I think the idea of Brianna Wu running for congress is laughable simply because, even if the general SJW rhetoric wasn't based on a bunch of bullshit the general public doesn't care about, the whole of them are way too anti-social to ever get into any position of meaningful power. Do you really think the good people of Boston are going to vote in a guy who throws iPads at people when something doesn't go his way?These SJW's are insufferable twats now, but if you actually break down what they are saying, and then imagine these same people being given the levers of State power? The thought is absolutely horrific. Yet they are trying to seize those levers. We laugh at Brianna Wu running for Congress. Brianna Wu running for congress is not funny. It is terrifying. And if you are not terrified of Wu, or people like him gaining control of State institutions, passing laws, and enforcing them, then you are not paying attention.
This Reddit thread was used by a few others that were salty towards the game. If this is really one of the ways to attack the whole historical accuracy angle, it's a rather autistic attempt.View attachment 390733 View attachment 390734 View attachment 390735
okay, so i've seen some people mention this reddit thread on twitter. here's the link for your own discretion
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7yvidc/picking_apart_the_armour_of_kingdom_come/
http://archive.md/Ttq1W
for those that don't wanna go there
Hello ladies and gents.
So Kingdom Come: Deliverance came out, and with it came out screenshots that allow me to pick apart some of the plate armour present in the game. I don't own the game myself, because I'm poor filth, but I have friends who have it and I've seen one of them play a bit. And I was not amused. Alas, I was concerned when I saw what I saw.
I think it's best for me to pick apart the armours one-by-one. What's interesting is that, fairly often, Kingdom Come gets the general shape right. On the surface everything looks great. But the problems really start when any significant level of scrutiny is given to the armour. I have a feeling that they based a lot of the armours off full-contact reenactors, for a couple of reasons.
So this image comes first. Right off the bat, the breastplate is based on a real survival example from Churburg. This breastplate is most likely from the late 14th century, and had the plackart added to it in the early 15th century to update it. Interestingly, because of this, the real example is much thicker and heavier than even some reproductions of it. The breastplate appears to be Italian, so quite a distance from Bohemia, which would be far more influenced by Germanic armour traditions, anyway, but the time period more or less fits (the plackart is estimated to have been added around 1410, so a bit later than the game), and it's a very interesting breastplate, so I'll allow it. Besides, exports happened. The bigger problem is the lack of shape on the breastplate. You'll note that the extant bulges out sideways a lot more. This is a very common problem with reproductions in general. The globose shape of late 14th and early 15th century breastplates was very pronounced. It'd smooth out slightly later on, though that too depended on the style and region.
It would appear that around this time period the arm harness in Germany would be different to this. Firstly, in this period the gauntlets, for the most part, continued to be of the hourglass sort. This means a very short, very flared-out wrists that weren't articulated. I think there might have been a few experimental period examples for this elsewhere in Europe, and indeed there's an effigy from 1407 showing articulated gauntlets. I have a feeling, however, that the artist either completed the effigy decades after the death of the person depicted, or had no idea what armour looks like. Or both. Anyway these gauntlets might actually be accurate, though not common at the time.
More importantly, however, the breastplate isn't covered by any cloth. While 'white armour' (which at the time meant armour not covered by any cloth) was popular elsewhere in Europe, it seemed that Germanic family of armours at the time often put cloth over their plate armours. Examples here, here, and here. While you might consider it slightly pedantic, I believe that regional variations in armour and style are very important, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to mix and match armours from all over Europe just because we feel like it.
Also this breastplate seems very ubiquitous in this game. That's a very big problem, because the real example is an old breastplate that has been repurposed, and so is more than likely to be a one-of-a-kind. That's not to say similar breastplates didn't exist, though they certainly seem rare.
Also just a note about use of effigies: they're generally a decently reliable source of information. Tobias Capwell quite famously loves effigies, and if one of the de-facto experts on European plate armour finds them fairly reliable, I don't see why we shouldn't.
The leg harness is a little bulky, but since I'm not very well-versed in how leg armour was formed (there were tonnes of small variations here and there with leg armour that I can't begin to comprehend), I won't say much more.
Now we get onto the helmet. And oh boy the helmets in this game annoy me. You might think that there are too many breadths in the visor, but there are historical examples, such as this beauty housed in the Polish Army Museum in Warsaw, so this isn't necessarily badhistory. They were fairly uncommon, but existed. What IS wrong is more or less everything else.
The bascinet (aka the helmet bit) itself is very round. Late bascinets had a ridge running along the top of them, and often it even ended at a fairly sharp point. The possible exception, and one that an earlier effigy I showed presented, is when the bascinet was used as the secondary helmet for a great helm, which despite being a way of wearing armour dating back all the way to early 14th century, seems to have persisted even at Agincourt, and even moreso in Germany and Eastern Europe.
(NOTE: At a different angle, the shape doesn't seem to be too bad, though still doesn't seem great for the time period. The bascinet also has a klappvisor hinges, which would have been removed if the helmet had been converted to side pivoting. However, that seems to imply that this is an old bascinet which was repurposed, so the shape argument doesn't work. So the closeup fixes a problem, while creating another. I'm keeping my argument because I think it might be of interest to people).
The eyeslits are just terrible. My God they're wide. You could fit the Titanic through those bloody things, let alone a sword. Refer to the visor I showed earlier to see what real eyeslits would look like. Thin, difficult to fit a dagger through. The visor was there primarily to protect the wearer, that's why it pivoted so easily - the wearer was protected when he needed to, and when he needed to see he could raise his visor. That's why a lot of deaths occurred from wounds to the face in that time period.
What this also doesn't show is that, from what I've seen, the (chain)mail aventail is problematic. There are two different kinds of mail armour we'll discuss: the mail coif and the mail aventail. A coif is a hood made out of mail. An aventail only goes up to attach to the bascinet, and doesn't cover the top of the head that's protected by the helmet anyway. The whole point of the bascinet is that the mail is attached to it, instead of forcing the wearer to wear a coif underneath. From what I've seen very often the mail is not integrated into a bascinet. Furthermore the mail doesn't protect the chin. Look here. The mail in the time period ALWAYS covered the chin, then tapered down over the neck. This is very important in armour.
Lastly, we have this monstrosity. I have absolutely never seen a helmet with oculars like this. And why on good God's earth would I? The oculars in this instance provide a flat surface with many holes. The point of a pollaxe would have a lot of flat space to bite in and penetrate, and at that point it's game over sunshine.
And it unfortunately goes on. Most armours have very unfortunate, and seemingly easily fixed problems. There seems to be an obsession for keeping BOTH the klappvisor hinges and the side-pivoting hinges on bascinets, which was very rare. Repurposed bascinets would have the klappvisor hinges removed and have the holes riveted over. I have a sneaking suspicion that there was relatively little research on the arms and armour of the Bohemian region from the early 15th century, and instead a lot of the armour was based on reenactors. This is confirmed by a LOT of things that reenactors often get wrong. The mail not covering the chin, for example, is very common in reenactment. 'Sporterizing' gear and thereby making it more dangerous to the wearer through methods like making the oculars wider than they need to be is another. Breastplates being poorly shaped is another. There are a few reasons that reenactors do this. Firstly, and obviously I shall never hold this against anyone, the budget. Plate armour is expensive, and if you want to get into a hobby, you should have every right to. Secondly, many reenactors, especially the full-contact guys such as Battle of the Nations, seem to believe that they know better than people that did this for a living, and as a result often get the wrong impression of how an armour should really work on the wearer. Lastly, there is the rule of cool, which is the bane of many a historian.
This isn't to say that ALL reenactors are bad. Hell, pretty much all reenactors I've met are really nice people who are genuinely fascinated in the time period as I am. The problems really start when their word is taken as gospel, and no further research is done, and that unfortunately is how the vast majority of people will get their history. So the myth that all Medieval swords were blunt clubs persists and is reinforced by BoN and others, without the given caveat that these sports have very little actual historical basis. This seems to be what happened here: relatively little research into real period examples has been done, and as a result the historical accuracy of armour in this game suffers. This is an even greater shame because museums LOVE to jump on every opportunity they can to help out people who want to present history. I recently went to the Polish Army Museum, and the curators there were fascinating to talk to and said that they very often get budding armourers (as I wish to be once I can actually afford the startup costs) asking questions and getting to handle the extant examples. I know that Tobias Capwell at the Wallace Collection also loves a good chat, and any museum, really, will be happy to share their findings with people who want to learn.
I'll get the game eventually, and I'll look past these problems, because it still looks beautiful and is set in a very interesting time period. But the problems are there, and they're very unfortunate.
I don't want to sperg on too much and derail the thread, but this historian genius can be debunked by two statements:View attachment 390733 View attachment 390734 View attachment 390735
okay, so i've seen some people mention this reddit thread on twitter. here's the link for your own discretion
https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7yvidc/picking_apart_the_armour_of_kingdom_come/
http://archive.md/Ttq1W
for those that don't wanna go there
Hello ladies and gents.
So Kingdom Come: Deliverance came out, and with it came out screenshots that allow me to pick apart some of the plate armour present in the game. I don't own the game myself, because I'm poor filth, but I have friends who have it and I've seen one of them play a bit. And I was not amused. Alas, I was concerned when I saw what I saw.
I think it's best for me to pick apart the armours one-by-one. What's interesting is that, fairly often, Kingdom Come gets the general shape right. On the surface everything looks great. But the problems really start when any significant level of scrutiny is given to the armour. I have a feeling that they based a lot of the armours off full-contact reenactors, for a couple of reasons.
So this image comes first. Right off the bat, the breastplate is based on a real survival example from Churburg. This breastplate is most likely from the late 14th century, and had the plackart added to it in the early 15th century to update it. Interestingly, because of this, the real example is much thicker and heavier than even some reproductions of it. The breastplate appears to be Italian, so quite a distance from Bohemia, which would be far more influenced by Germanic armour traditions, anyway, but the time period more or less fits (the plackart is estimated to have been added around 1410, so a bit later than the game), and it's a very interesting breastplate, so I'll allow it. Besides, exports happened. The bigger problem is the lack of shape on the breastplate. You'll note that the extant bulges out sideways a lot more. This is a very common problem with reproductions in general. The globose shape of late 14th and early 15th century breastplates was very pronounced. It'd smooth out slightly later on, though that too depended on the style and region.
It would appear that around this time period the arm harness in Germany would be different to this. Firstly, in this period the gauntlets, for the most part, continued to be of the hourglass sort. This means a very short, very flared-out wrists that weren't articulated. I think there might have been a few experimental period examples for this elsewhere in Europe, and indeed there's an effigy from 1407 showing articulated gauntlets. I have a feeling, however, that the artist either completed the effigy decades after the death of the person depicted, or had no idea what armour looks like. Or both. Anyway these gauntlets might actually be accurate, though not common at the time.
More importantly, however, the breastplate isn't covered by any cloth. While 'white armour' (which at the time meant armour not covered by any cloth) was popular elsewhere in Europe, it seemed that Germanic family of armours at the time often put cloth over their plate armours. Examples here, here, and here. While you might consider it slightly pedantic, I believe that regional variations in armour and style are very important, and we shouldn't allow ourselves to mix and match armours from all over Europe just because we feel like it.
Also this breastplate seems very ubiquitous in this game. That's a very big problem, because the real example is an old breastplate that has been repurposed, and so is more than likely to be a one-of-a-kind. That's not to say similar breastplates didn't exist, though they certainly seem rare.
Also just a note about use of effigies: they're generally a decently reliable source of information. Tobias Capwell quite famously loves effigies, and if one of the de-facto experts on European plate armour finds them fairly reliable, I don't see why we shouldn't.
The leg harness is a little bulky, but since I'm not very well-versed in how leg armour was formed (there were tonnes of small variations here and there with leg armour that I can't begin to comprehend), I won't say much more.
Now we get onto the helmet. And oh boy the helmets in this game annoy me. You might think that there are too many breadths in the visor, but there are historical examples, such as this beauty housed in the Polish Army Museum in Warsaw, so this isn't necessarily badhistory. They were fairly uncommon, but existed. What IS wrong is more or less everything else.
The bascinet (aka the helmet bit) itself is very round. Late bascinets had a ridge running along the top of them, and often it even ended at a fairly sharp point. The possible exception, and one that an earlier effigy I showed presented, is when the bascinet was used as the secondary helmet for a great helm, which despite being a way of wearing armour dating back all the way to early 14th century, seems to have persisted even at Agincourt, and even moreso in Germany and Eastern Europe.
(NOTE: At a different angle, the shape doesn't seem to be too bad, though still doesn't seem great for the time period. The bascinet also has a klappvisor hinges, which would have been removed if the helmet had been converted to side pivoting. However, that seems to imply that this is an old bascinet which was repurposed, so the shape argument doesn't work. So the closeup fixes a problem, while creating another. I'm keeping my argument because I think it might be of interest to people).
The eyeslits are just terrible. My God they're wide. You could fit the Titanic through those bloody things, let alone a sword. Refer to the visor I showed earlier to see what real eyeslits would look like. Thin, difficult to fit a dagger through. The visor was there primarily to protect the wearer, that's why it pivoted so easily - the wearer was protected when he needed to, and when he needed to see he could raise his visor. That's why a lot of deaths occurred from wounds to the face in that time period.
What this also doesn't show is that, from what I've seen, the (chain)mail aventail is problematic. There are two different kinds of mail armour we'll discuss: the mail coif and the mail aventail. A coif is a hood made out of mail. An aventail only goes up to attach to the bascinet, and doesn't cover the top of the head that's protected by the helmet anyway. The whole point of the bascinet is that the mail is attached to it, instead of forcing the wearer to wear a coif underneath. From what I've seen very often the mail is not integrated into a bascinet. Furthermore the mail doesn't protect the chin. Look here. The mail in the time period ALWAYS covered the chin, then tapered down over the neck. This is very important in armour.
Lastly, we have this monstrosity. I have absolutely never seen a helmet with oculars like this. And why on good God's earth would I? The oculars in this instance provide a flat surface with many holes. The point of a pollaxe would have a lot of flat space to bite in and penetrate, and at that point it's game over sunshine.
And it unfortunately goes on. Most armours have very unfortunate, and seemingly easily fixed problems. There seems to be an obsession for keeping BOTH the klappvisor hinges and the side-pivoting hinges on bascinets, which was very rare. Repurposed bascinets would have the klappvisor hinges removed and have the holes riveted over. I have a sneaking suspicion that there was relatively little research on the arms and armour of the Bohemian region from the early 15th century, and instead a lot of the armour was based on reenactors. This is confirmed by a LOT of things that reenactors often get wrong. The mail not covering the chin, for example, is very common in reenactment. 'Sporterizing' gear and thereby making it more dangerous to the wearer through methods like making the oculars wider than they need to be is another. Breastplates being poorly shaped is another. There are a few reasons that reenactors do this. Firstly, and obviously I shall never hold this against anyone, the budget. Plate armour is expensive, and if you want to get into a hobby, you should have every right to. Secondly, many reenactors, especially the full-contact guys such as Battle of the Nations, seem to believe that they know better than people that did this for a living, and as a result often get the wrong impression of how an armour should really work on the wearer. Lastly, there is the rule of cool, which is the bane of many a historian.
This isn't to say that ALL reenactors are bad. Hell, pretty much all reenactors I've met are really nice people who are genuinely fascinated in the time period as I am. The problems really start when their word is taken as gospel, and no further research is done, and that unfortunately is how the vast majority of people will get their history. So the myth that all Medieval swords were blunt clubs persists and is reinforced by BoN and others, without the given caveat that these sports have very little actual historical basis. This seems to be what happened here: relatively little research into real period examples has been done, and as a result the historical accuracy of armour in this game suffers. This is an even greater shame because museums LOVE to jump on every opportunity they can to help out people who want to present history. I recently went to the Polish Army Museum, and the curators there were fascinating to talk to and said that they very often get budding armourers (as I wish to be once I can actually afford the startup costs) asking questions and getting to handle the extant examples. I know that Tobias Capwell at the Wallace Collection also loves a good chat, and any museum, really, will be happy to share their findings with people who want to learn.
I'll get the game eventually, and I'll look past these problems, because it still looks beautiful and is set in a very interesting time period. But the problems are there, and they're very unfortunate.
While I might agree with the rest of your post I think the idea of Brianna Wu running for congress is laughable simply because, even if the general SJW rhetoric wasn't based on a bunch of bullshit the general public doesn't care about, the whole of them are way too anti-social to ever get into any position of meaningful power. Do you really think the good people of Boston are going to vote in a guy who throws iPads at people when something doesn't go his way?
Reasonable Ghazi Poster said:I have a degree of sympathy for guys like this. Just a degree mind you, not a whole pile of the stuff. You have a developer in Eastern Europe, a part of the world whose culture has been repressed until relatively recently by the Soviets and the Nazis before that, and as soon as they try to make something about their own people, folks jump on them for it.
There was a similar noise about The Witcher 3 when it came out, as if Polish people don't know a bit about oppression and genocide and how it can happen regardless of the skin colours of the people involved.
It's a low key form of imperialism really. The desire by Americans to lump all white people into white American or Western culture. Reaching out across the world to claim every white person and every white person's cultural output as part of this glorious monochrome canon. Even white people who they cheerfully ignored during the cold war and have almost nothing in common with them culturally at this point. As if having an Eastern European sounding accent isn't enough to get the shit kicked out of you in many parts of the UK or deported from the US in a hurry. We shouldn't be looking at Eastern European or Russian culture as being one and the same as western culture and held to the same expectations. They don't owe representation to under-represented people because they are under-represented people (except as criminals oddly enough, can't swing a cat without hitting a Russian criminal in a video game).
Now that doesn't mean that I have a lot of time for the developers of this game, because it sounds like what's happened is they got pushed, and rather than defusing the situation they either panicked or got mad about it and leaned into the problems. Now they're probably happily surrounded by goober cheerleaders and if they don't have the common sense to disavow that human garbage, well, that's all we need to know.
I do think though that it is cynical and borderline malicious for journalists to raise a stink about things like this in the first place though. A small Eastern European developer making a game that is by all accounts something of a passion project and journalists chase the easy outrage and hate clicks to be had by provoking the developers like this. I have no idea how creating a controversy out of nothing is supposed to benefit anybody.
Insane Person said:I don't think the issue now is the historical accuracy but the fact that Vavra is a Nazi.
Same Guy As Above said:Guy is a Trump supporter, alt-righter and GamerGate supporter.
Also i'm sorry but there are A LOT of Slavic Nazis. I should know, being Slavic myself and living in a Slavic country.
More Madness said:I changed my mind. I'll humor you for just a moment.
Your ideology is being an apologist for this asshole that is making this "historical and realistic fiction that surely must involve comfortably white people, when the concept of white people was next to nonexistent in the historical time period, and would probably not include Italians or Slavs."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxXYU9yCUAA97PA.jpg
Because of course you are.
Piracy Advocate said:If people really want to play it and don't want to contribute a dime to a shithead then remember that torrenting is a thing.
Pirate the **** out of it.
Yet another "my fantasy fiction needs to be all about white people to be realistic" wankery thing.
GhaziFag said:I said his annoyance is at these criticisms is understandable"
Which is, yes, a free pass for him to pander to the internet's modern fascists, in a cheap marketing gimmick similar to "Hatred" some time back. You say it's understandable, which means you think it is justified.
GethPoster said:I don't know what "Hatred" is, first of all. I also fail to see how you read my posts and jump to these conclusions. I don't think you're discussing this in good faith, so I suppose either explain yourself better or stop pestering me.
GhaziFag said:Some of the marketing stunts used to sell this may seem familiar.
https://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6994921/hatred-the-polygon-interview
You're not arguing in good faith. Whine about authenticity all you like, but you're saying it's "understandable" to pander to the same crowd, with the same gimmicks, as the makers of Hatred.
GethPoster said:You haven't actually drawn any distinct connections between this game (murder simulator?) I have never heard of, produced by a different studio in a different country for different reasons in a different genre (look at all the similarities!) and the game we're actually discussing. You're just gish galloping, throwing out random, inflammatory bullshit (plus the always impressive "no, you!" defense) in the hopes I will bite on it and somehow forget that you haven't actually made a cogent point.
I don't know what your goal is here, or your thought process (if there is one), but perhaps go back to the drawing board on this one, champ
GhaziFag said:Again. I will say it one more time.
My primary issue with the game's developer is that he is currently pandering to the outrage culture that he apparently wants to be his primary audience, the kind of people that (like you) apparently see criticism of a game's "vision" as some kind of outrage that justifies anything and everything, including an active and deliberate marketing pitch to bigots on the internet.
"or your thought process (if there is one)"
Oh please. Could you jerk yourself off any harder there?
Here's the "thought process" of the developer that you're sucking up to and being a cheerleader for.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/835/127/3ec.jpg
GethPoster said:When did I, or anyone in this thread, justify "anything and everything" as a response to criticism of the game? Where is the deliberate marketing pitch to bigots? I have looked at the games promotional material, its all focused on historicity, RPG-with-meaningful-decisions, and "look! HEMA! look! combat system!"
You're drawing these wild, inflammatory conclusions from no evidence. I've said nothing even remotely bigoted, nor have I justified any bigoted behavior. You've provided no evidence for anything you said, you're just gish galloping in an attempt to provoke a response.
Not only is this factually wrong, it's also a completely asinine point....when the concept of white people was next to nonexistent in the historical time period...
"Haha, watch us shoot our own feet as we ignore a game that has sold like hot cakes despite the concerted efforts of multiple large publishing platforms! This in no way highlights how insignificant or irrelevant we truly are, since it's the perfect measurement to see how little impact we have on the market!"giantcuck indeed:
![]()
That, of course, also means there was no concept of black people.Not only is this factually wrong, it's also a completely asinine point.
What are we supposed to assume here exactly?
Since there was "no concept of white people" there were no white people? What the fuck am I reading...
Postmodernism at its finest. "When we can make a concept dissappear by sticking a label to it (such as social construct), it also makes everything with that attribute disappear".