Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

King Arthur - The Role-playing Wargame Review

YourConscience

Scholar
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
537
Location
In your head, obviously
<strong>[ Review ]</strong>

Neocore's <strong><a href="http://www.kingarthurthewargame.com/main.html" target="_blank">King Arthur - The Role-playing Wargame</a></strong> was poked and prodded by our own YourConscience to find out if it's worth your time and money. Read on to find out his conclusions...<br/><br/><strong>Read: </strong><a href="http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php?id=61">King Arthur - The Role-playing Wargame Review</a>
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,404
Location
Djibouti
If there's one thing I completely disagree with in your review, it's the point about the adventures.

Most choices are just for looks, they don't lead to alternating paths.

I noticed that there were actually no choices 'for looks' - even if the outcome is only getting a +1 to a certain morality, it's hardly a fake choice.

Since the player has to play according to some chosen morality combination (for example to be a righteous believer of the Old Faith), it is also usually very clear which of the real choices to favor.

Definitely not. Three examples: first, Sir Lancelot and Sir Mordred. If you're playing as a tyrant, Mordred is the obvious choice... but he also happens to be the worst hero in the game, even worse than Caradoc, which is a damn achievement. Not only does he have penalties to loyalty and population growth in all fiefdoms, he also gets minus loyalty points if he doesn't own 3 provinces, so it's a lose/lose situation. His only benefit is +military in owned fiefdoms. Now compare him to Lancelot who gives you +loyalty to all knights and provinces. When I played a tyrant and got Mordred, I reloaded and took Lancelot instead, because even though he was goody two shoes, he was a lot superior.

Second, alliance with Saxons and Welsh. To gain an alliance with the Saxons, you only need to confront Caradoc in a text adventure, which can be done either by battle or through a combat skill check. To ally with the Welsh, you need to fight one of the hardest (for its time) battles in the game against a warlock on steroids.

There are also conflicts of interests in some others, which leads to third: Tristan and Iseult. If you're working for Gawain, as let's say tyrant/old faith, you can take Iseult to Gawain and gain +tyrant points, Gawain as a hero and the Green Knight as an enemy, or you can leave her at the Green Knight's citadel, to get +old faith, the Green Knight as a hero and Gawain as an enemy.

The biggest let-down is the shortness and simplicity of these quests.

Again, Gawain and The Green Knight/Tristan and Iseult. I also thought the Seeds of War quest was pretty neat, with very bipolar outcomes and a few turns along the way.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
the review has no news item on the main page

if it stays like that, it might slip under the radar completely
 

saenz

Scholar
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
166
That was a great review of a promising but flawed game.

I liked the idea of the text adventures, but honestly they were too shallow and easy. Whereas Space Rangers 2 had the ridiculously indepth prison adventure, King Arthur had nothing beyond a basic "choose your own adventure" book. With the notable exception of Sir Baronet's maze, all the the choices were as transparent as a Bethesda dialogue tree.
 

YourConscience

Scholar
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
537
Location
In your head, obviously
Heh, the Sir Baronet's maze fell so much out of the shallow- and shortness of the other quests, that initially I couldn't even believe it. Just wandered randomly through the maze until I realized that this time I really need to switch on my brains again in order to make it. Yeah, compared to Space Rangers 2 quests they really loose out. Not only the prison quest (which I enjoyed so much I deliberately got into prison once), but also the political campaign quest, or the winter ski resort quests. Or what about the smuggling quest where you have to load the right amount of stinking things onto the right guys or was it mules? Funny as hell, and one has to use brainz (or internetz).

@Darth Roxor: Well, there *are* meaningful choices, sure, but many a time I releaded a quest just to see the other 'possibilities' only to discover that they lead to the same quest line or just skip some additional flavor. The examples you give more or less highlight the problem: They are pretty much the only examples. Compared to the rather large number of quests, they don't have much (statistical) weight. Tristan and Iseult somehow wasn't connected well. At some point suddenly there was something about them, I just went to the location and a few text lines later voila, I had a new hero.

I only hope that the developer makes enough money out of this to not go broke, because I have the feeling that their next attempt will be more polished - and then it has potential for a classic.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
YourConscience said:
I only hope that the developer makes enough money out of this to not go broke, because I have the feeling that their next attempt will be more polished
YourConscience said:
potential for a classic.

I could give more examples where things only got worse after the first time. And as long as the developer does not show willingness to learn lessons, it's naive if you hold your breath for future releases.

I think KA goes down neither as a big success nor a big failure. An as yet unknown developer produced a respectable strategy game, but at the same time failed in making anything out of the ordinary. Some gamers are just so starved that they read more into it than is appropriate.

As it is, I identified at least 2 major mistakes made by King Arthurs developers, namely:

1.) deliberately cutting support for modifications, the ultimative effrontery to the serious gamer

2.) taking gameplay & balance much too lightly, and letting the programmers take care of it along the way (instead of experienced testers), with the result that the gameplay is partly botch

No, it would take a much better designed, more replayable game to become a classic. I got several years out of Shogun Total War, but I can't see this keeping me interested for more than a few days.

Not bad KA, but way to go!
 

humorguy

Novice
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
38
Sorry folks, but I loved Space Rangers AND I love King Arthur!

I want to be cruel and say did anyone read the manual, because that shows how deep the game is, but I won't.

The worse thing you can say about KA is that maybe there is a certain naivety in it, but equally that has given us a one off PC ONLY game designed for PC gamers. It is deep, the text adventures are not the cake but the icing on it and the tactical battles the cream between the sponge layers!

All told it's a delicious cake, and unlike many here, I don;t look at games as though they are a car engine, I look at games like good books, and this is a classic, whether anyone knows it or not - just like with Space Rangers 2.....
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
I'd say the review was very accurate. Although, like Darth Roxor, I disagree with you on the text-games thing (each choice has a consequence, albeit "only" stat-related). I found the Text-adventures to be one of the best, if not the best, part of the game. I didn't play Space Rangers though.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom