[h1][i]“On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.”[/i]
~King Arthur[/h1]
What's cool about King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame is that it's its makers' dream project. Let's get back to the late 2000s for a moment. The initial craze that started with Braveheart (yes, it was a movie-based game that started it all; deal with it) and was popularized in the legendary Shōgun: Total War was pretty much over. It wasn't like such games stopped appearing—exactly the opposite. What I'm trying to say is that people stopped wanting “more of the same”. They wanted the next big thing. And a young Hungarian team called NeocoreGames? They believed they knew exactly what that thing should be. Yes, the title says it all. They wanted to add an RPG element.
The publisher, on the other hand, was rather skeptical. I mean, we all know about how it can be with the young teams. Lots of them have a childish “And then, and then!..” way of thinking, which, with a lack of experience, can lead to a complete disaster and make a publisher lose money. Here's the thing, though: Neocore were not such people. They were young, sure, but they had their own in-house engine, they already worked on a prototype, and were totally ready to prove themselves. Still, Paradox didn't want an RPG; they wanted a strategy. And with no other way to break the ice, that's exactly what Neocore gave them in Crusaders: Thy Kingdom Come.
See, our guys are smart. While working on Crusaders, they pretty much worked on their dream project, King Arthur, at the same exact time. The Braveheart / Total War-like battles, units that can level up, heroes that can equip the artifacts... all of that did fit the “Total War clone” formula, [i]but[/i] at the same exact time? At the same exact time, it also served as the bricks for the future project. Which, like I said, was already in development at the same exact time. All Neocore really needed was a big “yes” from Paradox, and King Arthur was ready to rush to the finish line. And since Crusaders did manage to convince Paradox... yeah. Later the same year, King Arthur finally came out. The dream came true. Sometimes it happens.
Sure, sure, I romanticized things a bit, but honestly, why not? It's a pretty inspiring story. A story about how a dedicated team can achieve a lot simply by working hard and believing in their goal. To us players, on the other hand, the real question is – how's the game? I mean, the dudes had that grand vision and fought for it. Must be one heck of a game, huh? Well. About that.
Like I said, in its core (no pun intended), King Arthur feels (and looks) a lot like Crusaders: Thy Kingdom Come. Like, [i]a lot[/i]. Tactical battles, for example? Those are almost identical. Which isn't really a bad thing. Sure, Crusaders felt rather clunky, but it was hard not to praise things like weather affecting the units' performance. King Arthur has all that too. Except now there's a proper Risk-like “grand strategy” map, on which we can conquer provinces, collect taxes, do quests (both main and optional ones), etc. Sounds cool, right?
Well, in a way, it is. King Arthur isn't just Crusaders with more elements; it [i]is[/i] a role-playing game. First, let me praise the feature I enjoyed the most – text-based quests. Remember Space Rangers? I can't say the quests in King Arthur are nearly as deep and complicated, while sometimes they're rather frustrating (there's that one text-based quest that wants you to navigate a maze, for example, and I bloody hate it), but they're trying and I just... I love such stuff, OK? Even though such quests can be much better, it's still a really nice touch. There's also quite a lot of choices here. Like, [i]a lot[/i] of them.
Three endings aside (this game lets you choose between Christianity and two branches of the so-called Old Faith, another thing that I absolutely loved), you can be either a good ruler or a tyrant; you can choose which knights to add to your Round Table (you can have up to 12, while the game lets you choose from up to 30 heroes with the unique abilities for both tactical battles and provinces on the grand strategy map); you'll be able to give your knights wives for certain bonuses (cheesy, I know), etc. Sounds absolutely fantastic, right? It is. It sure is. Unfortunately, King Arthur also suffers from the same exact problem many other European games that dream big do. The thing is... this game can be frustrating as F.
There is a tutorial, of course, but... let's just say simply knowing how the things work is not enough to know how things [i]really[/i] work. Does that make sense to you? What I'm trying to say is that it's all about the school of hard knocks here. And it'll take quite a lot of time to learn how exactly the game responds to your actions. How to do certain tricks in battle, what's considered to be better choices on the grand strategy map... But wait, you may argue that what I'm describing is actually... you know. [i]Playing the freakin' game.[/i] Like, that's the way things are [i]supposed to be[/i]. Technically, that's correct. The problem is – it's not a fun thing to do here.
See, there are two kinds of flawed games that can still be enjoyable. First – there are games that make things absolutely clear for you and then make you suffer through rather rough execution. Like, when it's obvious to you that you need to use this specific kind of unit and make them achieve that certain task, you can deal with the tactical mission being a bit clunky and forcing you to reload for a couple of times until you'll finally manage. Now, there's the second kind. The one that has its goals vague, but is also ready to forgive mistakes. Like, “OK, you lost a hero or two, who cares, let's just continue and see what'll happen next!” The problem with King Arthur is that... it's neither. And both. At the same time.
Everything here is vague. The UI, while being heavily based on what we had in Crusaders (meaning that it's both simple [i]and[/i] confusing), simply fails to explain things to you. There aren't enough tooltips and stuff like that. Again and again, you'll need to take a guess and, of course, most of the time you'll be guessing poorly. And the game? The game will punish you for that. Did I mention that lots of things here are timed? Well, they are. Heck, your heroes can even be taken hostage, and if you won't pay the ransom in time? Poof! Dead. Ah, and no hero? No army. That's right; you can't even move your troops without a hero. That's just how this game works. It's rough, it's unpolished, and it hates you.
It's clunky too, of course. Neocore did fix some of Crusaders' problems (for example, tactical battles now come with much better speed settings to make them much more dynamic and save time), but all in all, this here is still a very clunky thing that can't compete with the big guys. Also... yeah, let's say a couple of words about this specific release. Surprisingly, multiplayer is still playable (thanks to it being based on LAN / Direct IP connection), but making this version to work on Windows 10 / 11 can be quite a challenge. It won't work on x64 systems without the so-called 4GB patch (the patch that allows the game to access more than 2GB of RAM), and if you will apply said patch, Steam will prevent you from launching the game because, well, you modified the game file. There's a way to fix that too by using third-party software called Steamless, but you've got the idea. This here is yet another one of those “Nah, we don't care!” releases that the publisher decided not to support. With everything I've said above in mind, it makes this game... let's just say that King Arthur is a history now. A tale. An inspiring one, sure, but... not the one you'll want to live through for real. You know what they say. It's fun to dream about living during the Middle Ages, but actually time-traveling there is not... really... a good idea. Because you know. The smell. And diseases.
