Compare Kingdom Come: Deliverance II vs Avowed

Reviewers consistently praised the reactive crime, reputation, NPC, and quest systems that made the world feel alive and responsive.

World interactivity was one of the most common criticisms, with many reviewers finding NPCs, theft, objects, and systems too static.

Reviewers admired the freedom to solve problems, exploit systems, and role-play, though the sandbox sometimes clashed with scripted story demands.

Sandbox freedom was limited compared with full open-world RPGs, though some reviewers still appreciated freedom in story choices or builds.

One reviewer felt early traversal was unnecessarily taxing, especially before stronger equipment and better mobility options eased the burden.

Movement feel and parkour were strongly praised for making exploration fluid, vertical, and enjoyable.

Henry and Hans received strong praise for their evolving relationship and character arcs, with Henry’s trauma and growth adding stakes.

Character development split reviewers: some found companions distinct and engaging, while others thought characters were bland or hard to care about.

Tutorial quality was mixed, with one reviewer calling it decent while others criticized dense text screens and poor explanations.

The tutorial was praised for teaching systems naturally and creating meaningful choices early.

Reviewers repeatedly emphasized how unusual and specific the game feels compared with modern RPGs.

Originality was limited; reviewers often described Avowed as familiar comfort-food fantasy rather than a bold genre evolution.

Cutscene direction and mocap were praised for selling relationships and emotional scenes convincingly.

Animation feedback was mixed, with stiff NPCs and less impressive presentation keeping the game from feeling fully modern.

The revised perk and upgrade system was praised for offering meaningful upside-focused choices rather than weak side-grades.

Upgrade systems were sharply divisive, with some liking gear longevity and many others criticizing tiers, scarcity, or number-go-up design.

Stealth was useful and sometimes satisfying, yet reviewers also called it finicky, weak, or frustrating in specific forced sections.

Stealth was criticized as underdeveloped or nearly useless, with little support for stealth-focused play.

Value was praised because the game is both strong and very long, with some reviewers reporting enormous playtime.

Value for money was mixed: reviewers praised Game Pass or lower pricing but questioned the original premium price for the scope.

One reviewer warned that excessive profanity and potentially offensive material make the game unsuitable for some audiences.

One reviewer specifically framed Avowed as more appropriate for older teens and adults because of its complex themes and mature material.

Maps were praised for medieval flair and exquisite town art, supporting the game’s historical presentation.

Map and navigation design was mixed, with missing custom markers criticized before later updates added them.

One reviewer praised the scale of improvement as something other studios rarely achieve.

Innovation was usually described as limited; reviewers saw Avowed as confident and enjoyable rather than genre-changing.

Progression was widely praised for turning early friction into rewarding growth through skills, perks, equipment, and player learning.

Progression systems were divisive: some liked flexible builds and added points, while others found midgame growth stagnant or too gear-dependent.

The soundtrack was one of the most consistently praised elements, with several reviewers calling it orchestral, phenomenal, or legendary.

Soundtrack reception was generally positive but often stopped short of calling the music unforgettable.

Camera behavior was a noted issue for one reviewer, especially through finicky first-person viewpoint problems.

Camera-related options were appreciated, especially the ability to adjust head bob and camera shake for comfort.

The open world drew strong praise for its scale, density, historically grounded cities, and lived-in regions across multiple maps.

Open-zone design split reviewers: many liked curated, dense hubs, while others found the world restrictive, lifeless, or not interactive enough.

The dog companion Mutt was praised as useful and worthwhile, especially for tracking and early side-quest benefits.

Companion combat AI was mixed: some found companions self-sufficient or improved by patches, while others called them weak or unnecessary in fights.

Main mission design was mixed: reviewers praised varied scenarios, but one criticized a required sequence for lacking an alternate path.

Mission design drew criticism when quests felt repetitive, fetchy, or like back-and-forth errands, though some standout missions remained.

The cast was praised for memorable personalities, humor, and a strong sense of history.

The companion roster was often seen as small or limited, though some reviewers still liked the four supporting characters.

Ranged play was viewed as improved by some reviewers, especially archery, but another found ranged combat weightless and weak.

Aiming and first-person spell placement drew criticism when ground-targeted abilities were hard to place precisely.

One reviewer found the loop rewarding but volatile, with strong highs offset by repeated frustration and setbacks.

The core loop was divisive: strong combat and exploration were often undermined for some reviewers by gear-tier repetition and open-zone structure.

DualSense haptics and adaptive triggers were praised for reflecting stamina, sword clashes, and sharpening interactions.

Haptic support was platform-dependent: one PS5 review praised DualSense vibration, while another noted missing haptic and trigger use.

Performance was generally praised across PC and console contexts, with reviewers noting strong optimization and technical improvements.

Performance optimization varied sharply across versions, from stable and improved after patches to demanding, stuttery, or poorly optimized on some PCs.

AI and NPC behavior were praised for believable reactions, routines, crime responses, and increased sophistication over the first game.

Enemy AI was considered serviceable but not especially smart; later impressions suggested fights remain engaging without feeling brain-dead.

Immersion was one of the clearest strengths, with reviewers repeatedly describing the world, systems, and presentation as absorbing.

Immersion was helped by dense worldbuilding and atmosphere but hurt for some by static NPCs and limited world reactivity.

The learning curve was repeatedly described as steep, slow, and friction-heavy, rewarding patience but likely turning some players away.

Learning support was helped by reference and lore systems that made Eora’s terminology easier to understand.

The game was not seen as a pure grind, but reviewers still emphasized the effort and repetition needed to gain traction.

Grind level was a common complaint tied to gear upgrades, resource hunting, and spongy combat loops.

Reviewers liked the depth and usefulness of perks, weapon techniques, and skill trees, especially when they enabled meaningful playstyle specialization.

Skill trees were praised for flexibility but criticized by others as simple, shallow, or uneven across archetypes.

Crafting split reviewers: blacksmithing and alchemy could be charming and rewarding, but several found parts clunky, slow, or repetitive.

Crafting was mixed to negative, with several reviewers calling it threadbare, expensive, or too tied to gear-tier progression.

One reviewer reported a consistent frame rate and treated that as part of the game’s stronger technical state.

Frame-rate stability varied: some reviewers saw stable performance, while others reported hitches, drops, screen tearing, or stuttering.

Facial animation feedback was mixed: one reviewer noted lifeless dialogue faces, while another praised key character animations.

Facial animations were criticized in later impressions as not matching next-generation expectations.

Handheld suitability was supported by one reviewer who described the game as scalable enough for handheld play.

Steam Deck suitability was considered playable and verified, but the visual tradeoff was significant.

Reviewers saw the sequel as much more polished than the first game, with rough edges reduced and systems better realized.

Polish improved over time but remained uneven, with reviewers citing jank, lack of gloss, or presentation limits alongside strong craftsmanship.

Replay value looked strong thanks to hardcore mode, major content additions, and reviewers wanting to return for more playthroughs.

Replay value improved with choices and post-launch New Game Plus, though some reviewers felt repeated runs changed too little.

Fast travel opinions were mixed: one reviewer praised dynamic events, while another found it cumbersome and interruption-prone.

Fast travel was viewed as convenient and generous, making it easy to revisit areas without friction.

Menu usability was mixed to negative, with some praise for navigation but others calling the menu system dire or frustrating.

Menu and ability-wheel usability was mixed; some quality-of-life systems helped, but radial wheels and limited hotkeys disrupted combat for others.

The adaptive HUD was praised for hiding unnecessary elements and improving immersion when information was not relevant.

HUD clarity improved through options to reduce clutter, adjust opacity, and toggle display elements.

Quest design was one of the strongest points, with reviewers praising memorable side stories, branching approaches, and strong writing, despite a few disappointing payoffs.

Quest design ranged from excellent side stories and meaningful follow-ups to fetchy, inconsistent, or repetitive tasks.

Writing was described as excellent, engaging, humorous, and consistently strong across main and side content.

Writing quality was widely praised for lore, companion dialogue, and sharp prose, but a minority found it wordy, pretentious, or mid.

Reviewers described the story as memorable and emotionally powerful, including scenes that brought strong lasting reactions.

Emotional impact came mostly from moral choices, consequences, and companion moments, though some endings or fallout felt muted to critics.

Reviewers repeatedly framed the systems-heavy design as a major strength, praising how mechanics connect to role-playing, dialogue, world simulation, and player expression.

Gameplay mechanics were generally praised as streamlined and flexible, but a few reviewers felt RPG systems lacked depth or reactivity.

Pacing opinions varied: some praised the sustained momentum, while others complained about indulgent cutscenes or late-game pacing issues.

Pacing was mixed, with slow starts, downtime, filler quests, and late-game repetition weighing against an otherwise easy-to-follow story.

Weapon balance was mixed: one reviewer liked weapon choice, while another found some ranged options hard to use effectively.

Weapon balance and variety were mostly praised for experimentation and flexible loadouts, but some reviewers felt magic outclassed melee or guns.

Dialogue was mostly praised for impact, humor, and organic choices, though one reviewer found some repeated dialogue drawn out.

Dialogue quality ranged from standout and well acted to overly wordy, forced, or limited in the options it offered.

Several reviewers found the game highly entertaining, addictive, and rewarding once its demanding systems clicked.

Fun factor leaned positive overall, especially for combat and exploration, though some reviewers found the experience merely solid or underwhelming.

Crash stability was praised by multiple reviewers who reported no crashes, no soft locks, or no hard crashes.

Crash stability varied by platform and version: some reviewers reported no crashes, while another had severe startup crashes before fixes.

Narrative quality was a major strength, with reviewers praising the historical saga, main quest, character arcs, and cinematic ambition.

Narrative quality was usually a strength thanks to mystery, choices, and world stakes, but some reviewers found the main plot predictable or underwhelming.

Voice acting was broadly praised, especially the main cast, though some reviewers noted repeated or uneven minor NPC voices.

Voice acting was mostly praised as strong or outstanding, though one reviewer found performances unable to save weaker writing.

UI feedback was positive when reviewers discussed improved, adaptable, or visually polished interface presentation.

UI options such as text sizing and subtitles were appreciated as useful interface support.

Reviewers praised the breadth of activities, quests, and post-launch additions, with many describing a large and varied set of things to do.

Reviewers liked the dense zones and amount of side content, although some felt the scope was restrained rather than sprawling.

Graphics were broadly praised for impressive landscapes, cutscenes, lighting, and major visual improvements over the first game.

Graphics quality was divisive but often positive, with praise for stunning vistas and vivid visuals alongside criticism of poor or compromised visuals on some platforms.

World-building was repeatedly praised as immersive, historically grounded, and central to the game’s appeal.

World-building was one of Avowed’s clearest strengths, especially its politics, cultures, history, and Eora continuity.

One reviewer praised the way locations were recontextualized into memorable set-pieces that rewarded planning and awareness.

Level design was praised for verticality, density, handcrafted routes, and spaces that felt larger than their footprint.

Environmental detail was praised for dense, specific objects, puddles, tools, farms, residences, and believable spaces.

Environmental detail was strongly praised through dense secrets, vistas, caves, and handcrafted spaces, even by some otherwise mixed reviewers.

The sequel was credited with giving supporting women and other groups somewhat more agency than before.

Side characters and companions were highly divisive: some found them memorable and heartfelt, while others thought they were shallow or uninspired.

The save system was one of the most divisive topics, praised by one reviewer but criticized by many as stingy or punishing.

Save reliability was a concern for at least one reviewer who needed more careful saving because of bugs.

Controls were described as noticeably smoother than the first game, especially in camera feel, aiming, and sword fighting responsiveness.

Controls and combat feel were commonly praised for responsiveness, impact, and keybind flexibility, with a few targeting frustrations.

The early economy was described as restrictive, especially when selling damaged or stolen goods with limited vendor money.

Resource balance divided reviewers: some liked the meaningful economy, while others felt crafting materials and upgrade resources were too scarce.

The PS5 Pro version was praised as a graphical treat, with platform-specific technical strengths noted.

Platform-specific support was praised for PS5 performance modes, Sony-platform feel, and PC features such as DLSS.

Visual set pieces and in-engine scenes were praised for creating striking emotional moments.

Visual effects, especially magic, were repeatedly praised for impact, color, and satisfying feedback.

Exploration was praised for beautiful spaces, meaningful discoveries, and a strong adventuring feel, though harsh systems made some travel demanding.

Exploration was one of the strongest consensus positives, with dense maps, secrets, vertical paths, and constant rewards keeping reviewers engaged.

Atmosphere was praised alongside world-building, especially in cities, music, and historically grounded locations.

The Living Lands’ vivid tone, music, and dreamlike spaces were repeatedly praised for creating a distinctive atmosphere.

Bugs were present but usually minor; reviewers ranged from calling glitches common to saying issues rarely disrupted play.

Bug reports varied widely: some reviewers found almost none, while others hit quest bugs, map-edge bugs, or issues that required reloads.

Onboarding divided reviewers: returning and new-player recaps helped, but some found the opening overloaded or blunt.

Onboarding was praised when it taught by doing, though lore-heavy openings could feel steep for newcomers.

Combat drew broad attention for its realism, skill focus, and improvements, though several reviewers still found it harsh, clunky, or frustrating early on.

Combat was one of the most consistently praised elements, especially magic, responsiveness, and build variety, despite repetition and gear-gating complaints.

The visual style of menus, maps, and medieval presentation received praise for matching the game’s historical tone.

Most reviewers praised the bold, colorful, alien fantasy art direction, though a few disliked the cartoony look or felt presentation was uneven.

Loot was criticized for early encumbrance pressure and the difficulty of carrying everything a player might want.

Loot opinions were mixed: unique items and progression could be satisfying, but many chests and rewards felt predictable or unexciting.

Reviewers generally agreed the sequel stays true to the original while improving its systems, scope, and accessibility.

Returning Eora fans often felt Avowed was faithful to the Pillars of Eternity world, while still accessible to newcomers.

The historical codex and contextual detail were praised for offering extensive background on people, events, and society.

Lore depth was consistently praised, especially the in-game books, history, politics, and reference systems that made Eora feel rich.

Difficulty was often called demanding and unforgiving; reviewers generally treated this as part of the appeal, though not always an easy one.

Difficulty balance was one of the most debated areas, with some finding it fair and flexible and others criticizing gear checks, sponginess, or uneven scaling.

Sound design was praised for supporting immersion and helping players identify attacks or stealth-relevant cues.

Sound design was praised for impactful effects, combat feedback, and strong weapon audio.

Post-launch support was described positively through free updates, fixes, and eagerly awaited features.

Post-launch support was viewed positively, with free updates improving stability, customization, build options, and quality-of-life features.

Reviewers noted useful accessibility and comfort controls such as camera, subtitle, difficulty, and arachnophobia-related options, though colorblind support was called out as missing.

Boss design was criticized as disappointing, with bosses feeling like tougher versions of regular enemies rather than unique encounters.

Character creation was generally praised as solid or deep, with later updates adding more races and appearance options.

Checkpointing was criticized for causing lost progress when autosaves appeared only at limited quest points.

Build and class flexibility was praised because Avowed lets players mix archetypes freely, though balance sometimes favored magic or specific styles.

The post-launch expansions were credited with adding a large amount of extra content to the package.

Endgame content was criticized because the original experience did not allow continued post-story play and lacked New Game Plus at launch.

Enemy variety was a recurring concern; many reviewers felt the same bears, spiders, skeletons, and humanoids appeared too often.

Family friendliness was limited by repeated profanity, sexual content, and depictions of women that one reviewer found objectifying.

A horror-leaning quest was criticized for being too short for its dread to fully develop.

Load times were criticized by one reviewer as long enough to worsen stealth retries and experimentation.

Mission variety was strongly praised, especially for quests that went beyond simple errands or bandit-clearing objectives.

Platforming precision was a pleasant surprise, with simple mantling and vertical puzzles adding a welcome exploration layer.

One reviewer strongly disliked Hans as a long-term companion presence, creating strain on their desire to continue.

Puzzles were generally light but appreciated when they used environmental elements, timing, and exploration paths.