King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame II Reviews

Category: News Archive

Hits: 1394

Written by BuckGB on February 6th, 2012

Tweet

Like its predecessor before it, King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame successfully melds role-play, adventure, diplomatic and combat elements into a cohesive, one of a kind experience. The additions and changes make the game feel almost as fresh as its predecessor and discovering them is almost an adventure by itself.

There is, however, a major exclusion from the game and that, is multiplayer. There are scenarios you can play but it's really just you against the computer. There's no multiplayer at all and this is a game that would very much lend itself to multiplayer. Think about two heroes leading armies on the battlefield, waging war for the honor of their liege. Think of several GDN GOld awardfactions vying for control of all of Britannia (or even just a small section based on how many players there are). If you've seen the tabletop Game of Thrones game from Fantasy Flight Games, you know exactly what I'm talking about and this game lends itself to that sort of multiplayer, yet they completely skipped it. If it's a question of battles, that's easily remedied in more than two player multiplayer, have them all be auto battles, or better yet, give the players a switch to flip in the lobby that determines how battles are decided. Just because two armies are fighting doesn't mean a third or even fourth couldn't enter the fray and tip the odds in the favor of one or the other.

Whether or not King Arthur II is one step forward, two steps back or the other way around is going to depend on what you expect from this sequel. The streamlined campaign may raise many an eyebrow while the text adventure quests will elicit more smiles than frowns, and any fan of this genre of strategy will still spend countless hours both on and off the battlefield. It's not quite the diamond in the rough that many have hoped for, perhaps, but you'll be hard pressed to keep yourself from playing just one more turn.

So, I don't like the heavy reliance on story, or the scripted quests, or the lack of campaign strategy, or the tactical battles, or the AI, or the interface. Which leaves...no reason to play King Arthur II. First off, I was expecting a somewhat non-linear campaign mode (like Total War), but instead just got a fancy cover for a series of scripted quests. The campaign system used in Real Warfare 2 would have worked great here, giving the user some freedom while still providing a structured series of main quests. Thus, there is hardly any (strategy) in the strategy mode, just moving on the map towards the next mission in the story. The non-battle quests are just clicking on responses that probably end up at the same conclusion anyway. Spending gold earned in quests on new units and buildings for minor upgrades isn't stimulating, and the diplomacy is very shallow and limited. However, I did like the forging elements (combining low-level items to make a more powerful weapon), a small beacon of light in what is otherwise a dreary campaign. The unit selection is pretty generic, except for fantasy units like dragons, and the battles almost always just turn into a mess of Medieval warfare with little room for tactics thanks to the asinine victory locations. Those victory locations that grant extra abilities and the undulating terrain only offer minor enhancements to the chaotic combat, and the spells are either trivial or balanced out by the opposition. The AI is poor at formulating a strategy other than (select all and attack), and the unpleasant interface makes combat more difficult: it's too hard to locate units during the campaign, and unit type and morale are hidden from the player during battles. The graphics are outstanding, but this is a small consolation in a game where so many things fall short of expectations. The undeviating campaign and anarchic tactical battles give little reason to travel back to England.

So, how fun is it? Depends on your tastes, really, but I enjoyed it quite a bit so far. I think anyone who enjoyed the first game in the series or those who like the idea of Total War with dragons all in there would find a lot to enjoy. The magical setting works very well and the back story so far is interesting, if not exactly Arthurian. The role playing elements are well done and serve the setting and the combat-bits well. The plot IS a bit linear as this isn't a grand strategy game, but you're granted a bit of freedom in how you approach it and make your way through it. All very well done. I'd definitely recommend it to any strategy game enthusiast and to anyone who wants to see legionaries fighting enormous hell beetles.

Though it is a good sequel to the original King Arthur due to it being better than its predecessor, this game still does not have the star power needed to break into the mainstream market. The experience the game gives isn't all bad and the big problems are slowly being patched out, but it's a shame to have to wait for so many fixes. The visuals are subpar compared to the Total War series, but they are not by any means horrible or ugly. With some fun moments and the storytelling this game does a good job of being entertaining, but those moments just don't happen enough to justify putting a lot of time into it. Though this game is only $40, I cannot recommend it to anyone who is not a diehard fan of the strategy war genre. Though, if you think that you can look past a lot of the bugs in this game, then it will be a great fantasy game for you to enjoy. Don't look to this game for an experience identical with Total War, even with some similarities the differences are a lot more noticeable. This game is exclusive to the PC and can be enjoyed with minimal system requirements.

• Prev
• Next