Crusaders: Thy Kingdom Come

Worst crusader game ever. Archers refuse to fire when commanded to do so. Melee combat is slow and no way to flank enemies, they just stare at the enemies. Hard to pick a faction, no indication on what their strength or weaknesses are.

This is a rather interesting game. The campaign is based on the First Crusade, and is pretty faithful to how that conflict went. Battles can be difficult, but still fun. The camera is a bit wonky, though. Also, the graphics have aged badly. Decent for what it is, though. Suggest getting on discount.

a bit dated for my liking, maybe 10 years ago i might have gotten into this one but nowadays....nope. having said that it is a good game but i prefer to spend my time on the total war series instead.

[h1][i]“To Jerusalem, we pray It's time to meet you there~ 🎶”[/i] ~Alphaville[/h1] In June 2000, something cool happened – Creative Assembly released Shōgun: Total War. Why was it so important? Well, because Creative Assembly finally made it absolutely clear – one genre is just not enough anymore. Nowadays, games that combine different elements from various genres are rather common. Action games, for example, often include stealth parts, while real-time strategies incorporate a lot of the RPG elements. We take it for granted today, but even despite the fact that there were tons of the experiments before, the mainstream gaming was pretty strict. This here is, say, Sid Meier's Civilization with its grand strategy map, while this here is BUNGiE's Myth. Which is strictly tactics. Now, Shōgun? It combined both. The grand strategy screen allowed us to recruit units, manage the economy and taxes, deploy ninjas, trade, etc. And when the diplomacy failed (it a-a-always does), there was a time for tactical battles. People loved that, and up to this day, the Total War franchise is doing really well. What's funny, though, is that Creative Assembly wasn't the first to make such a game. Say wha-a-a... No, seriously, it is funny, so bear with me for a moment. You know how nowadays people tend to say bad things about movie-based games? Like they always suck and stuff. I guess we all know which “angry” YouTuber to blame for that, but the thing is – some movie-based games were actually quite good. And in our case? One of such games was quite groundbreaking. I'm talking about Braveheart. The game based on Mel Gibson's 1995 epic. Well, originally it wasn't like that and a Scottish team from Glasgow just wanted to make a realistic game about their ancestors, but Eidos jumped on board and brought the expensive license with them, so... yeah. Braveheart. A year before the very first Total War, it did exactly that – combined two things that at this point feel like they were supposed to co-exist. You may have noticed something in common at this point, right? Between Shōgun and Braveheart, I mean. Both were obsessed with history. Braveheart, as I already mentioned, was designed as some sort of tribute to Scotland (it actually used a satellite imagery of Scottish terrain for its campaign maps), while Total War was obsessed with Sengoku jidai Japan and even had Dr. Stephen Turnbull, a British military historian specializing in samurai and Japanese warfare, as a consultant. Now, it's finally time for us to stop talking about the sub-genre's origins and focus on this specific game, Crusaders: Thy Kingdom Come. Released eight years after the first Total War, it's the very first game from Neocoregames. And you know what? On the paper, it's a pretty... obvious thing. Crusaders was made by a then-young Hungarian team from Budapest. It's a historical strategy that follows the First Crusade (1096–1099) and looks suspiciously like what we had in Braveheart / Shōgun. Naturally, it was a wannabe team imitating the big names, right? Wrong. Neocoregames were visionaries. They had that dream about an epic hybrid between a wargame... and an RPG. The problem was – the publisher didn't really want to share their vision, not yet. I mean, it's Paradox we're talking about, right? The guys are all about strategies. Naturally, they wanted a strategy. And when you're young and have no experience? There's no other way but to listen to the big daddy. Here's the thing, though. Neocoregames were smart. While trying to pretend they were working on “yet another one of those” games, they kept working towards their dream. Slowly, sure, but as Lucretius said, "the fall of dropping water wears away the stone". Does Crusaders feel a lot like the Braveheart formula all over again? Yes. Look at the comments and lots of people call it “poor man's Total War”. “Poor man's” because at the point this game came out, Total War already had Medieval II with Empire well on the way. All while Crusaders was... OK, I don't want to say that it looks bad. Exactly the opposite. If anything, I want to praise our guys here. They do deserve that. Not only did they fight for their dream, but they were on a very strict schedule (Paradox only gave them, like, a year to develop their game), yet not only did they manage, they even did it with their own in-house engine called Coretech. Now [i]that's[/i] what I call dedication. If you don't go too hard on them for not being able to compete with Creative Assembly, I'd say their game looks good. What I liked the most, for example, is how the weather effects work. Like, when there's, say, a fog or sandstorm that makes it hard for your units to see (with corresponding penalties being in play), it'll also be hard for you personally. Pretty cool stuff. The most important thing for us, though, is that this game was pretty much King Arthur's prototype. That means that you'll have that certain hero you won't be able to afford to lose. And naturally, that hero can be leveled up. And so can be your units. Again, Paradox made it clear that they didn't want an RPG, so all the touches are pretty subtle, but still, leveling up is a thing, you'll be able to find and equip relics, and there's a non-linear approach (you'll be able to manually choose which side-quests to do, while very often it'll be either one [i]or[/i] another). Actually, that's what the “non-combat” part is all about. Like, there's no grand strategy map at all. You just manage your troops and their stuff, level up heroes, equip them, and choose optional quests for better relationships with certain factions (rep unlocks new units and relics). In other words, don't expect miracles. Crusaders is more like a proof of concept. Now, I made it all sound good, right? Well, in a way, it is. But it comes from me and I'm more than used to clunky European stuff. And let me tell you, this here [i]is[/i] clunky. It's not like I can't see where all that comes from (again, the game took only one year to finish), but... let's just say that when it's about one of those NPCs you must protect who act like they're too tired of life and just want to end their suffering? The fact that the devs did their very best won't be much of a comfort. This game? It's just... it doesn't feel like it was meant to be enjoyed. I can't call it broken, and with enough patience, you'll be able to overcome even the highest difficulty and even enjoy the process. Like I said, though, it involves patience. Crusaders is one of those games in which losing a fully leveled up unit is a life-changing tragedy. While the missions are just way too random. You never know what will happen next and who will spawn where or do what. That means you [i]will[/i] lose people. Ah, and there's that ambush mechanic. Neat on paper, torture in reality. You proceed as usual, then [i]boom![/i] Enemies are everywhere, the trees are speaking Arabic and you're dead. So yeah, despite all the praise I want to give here, I don't think I can recommend this game to anyone. Even at the release, it was more like a proof of concept. A way to sell King Arthur idea to Paradox. And nowadays, when we have juggernauts like Total War: Warhammer? There's just no reason to get back to this game. Not a single one. Sure, it won't take long to beat this game (there is only one 15-mission-long campaign and no story), but you know how it is. The game just can't provide anything special to make it worth it. Aside from, maybe, a multiplayer, but since it's peer-to-peer only, relies on RakNet middleware, and comes with the same exact clunkiness the main game has... you know how it is. You'll need to find some fellow necromancers first (it's also fun to mention that the Steam version keeps trying to install Xfire every time you launch it. Every. Bloody. Time.) At the end of the day, Crusaders is an interesting project to talk about. But when it's about actually spending your time on it? Like I said, not worth it.

Terrible game, units walk extremely slow, not even fast forward makes a difference. Game crashed 2 times in the first hour of playing and i didnt have a chance to save so all progress lost.

TW for poor people. Which does not mean its not fun. I liked it for what it was.

The pace in battles is painfully slow, and gamespeed can only be increased to 2x. I feel like they did this on purpose to draw out the game. Had amazing potential especially for the time, sad result.

Nice game :)

ist schon sehr enttäuschend.......

Love it