A Total War Saga: Thrones of Britannia

 PC
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 51 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 51
  2. Mixed: 22 out of 51
  3. Negative: 0 out of 51
  1. Eurogamer
    May 11, 2018
    Total War goes back to the past, but this spin-off invites uneasy comparisons to the superior recent Warhammer games.
  2. Rock, Paper, Shotgun
    Apr 30, 2018
    It’s all focused firmly towards evoking the period though, and here, Creative Assembly’s love for history absolutely bleeds through.
  3. Vice
    May 20, 2018
    It’s best moments are familiar because they are part of that sturdy, underlying Total War formula, but even here they quickly become repetitive. Yet when it attempts to do something new and to be something new, Thrones of Britannia seems to lack any kind of compelling original vision for what a Total War game can be.

Awards & Rankings

73
#73 Most Discussed PC Game of 2018
12
#12 Most Shared PC Game of 2018

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 170 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 60 out of 170
  2. Mixed: 48 out of 170
  3. Negative: 62 out of 170
  1. rustyfeeder
    May 3, 2018
    2
    This is the worst TW game released EVER. Could this be the fall of CA? Or maybe it is time for CA to wake up and start making changes? It isThis is the worst TW game released EVER. Could this be the fall of CA? Or maybe it is time for CA to wake up and start making changes? It is cheap, it is bland, it is just BAD. Trust me, I played every TW game starting from Shogun 1.… Full Review »
  2. juliiouse
    May 3, 2018
    3
    I'm not one to give kneejerk reviews to any products: I feel it's a little insulting given the amount of time a developer puts into a newI'm not one to give kneejerk reviews to any products: I feel it's a little insulting given the amount of time a developer puts into a new release. I normally spend a few weeks formulating an opinion on something before finally publishing my opinion, but Thrones of Britannia has left an extremely sour taste in my mouth, not least because I am an avid Total War fan and booked the day off work to play this. So here we are, seven hours later.

    The central issue here is that the Total War series is one of incremental steps: as the games are released, certain aspects of the campaign and battle mechanics get modified, removed, dummied out etc. The problem with Thrones of Britannia is that it removes many previous features without bringing anything new or interesting to the table to replace them.

    This is especially irritating following my gripe with Warhammer I & II's campaigns being a little shallow: the justification in that case is that the races and factions featured in the game are so diverse and different from each other that many of the usual Total War campaign features wouldn't really work for many of them, and to develop specialised campaign mechanics that have the depth of Atilla for each faction would be a massive ask. Thrones of Britannia does not have this justification. The narrow lack of breadth in the game (focusing solely on the British Isles in the latter half of the 9th Century AD) should have allowed for an immense amount of mechanical depth the likes of which Total War has never seen, but there is none of this here. Many features are either directly copied or dummied out versions of what we saw in Atilla.

    The closest the game gets to true innovation is to feature historically accurate settlements and structures on the map, such as churches, farming communities and towns in the state they were back in the period. The issue with this is that it removes much of the variety the previous games afforded in building settlements. A market town will always be a market town and a church settlement will always be a church settlement. The closest comparison to this game is either Medieval I's Viking Invasion or the base game version of Shogun II Total War-- Viking invasion because it focuses on the same area a few centuries before, and Shogun II because it focuses on a race to the throne on a single island: in both cases, these games took advantage of their narrow scope and allowed for a great deal of depth and strategic planning to settlements. In Viking Invasion, you can opt to not even build a settlement at all and leave the region for farming or defence, and in Shogun II you can manage your food to have bustling economic centres at the heart of your clan's territories and strong troop production centres at the edges. Thrones of Britannia offers none of this, which is especially frustrating when a faction you know is going to attack you decides to and you're forced to concede land to them because that's how the settlements are set up.

    Character development and faction management feels worse: the skills tree has been replaced with a far messier looking retinue system and characters feel significantly less personal for it. For a game about roleplaying your own early medieval British dynasty, I felt extremely disconnected with my faction and it's characters: ignore the usual issue of forgetting who your heirs are, most the time I couldn't even remember my faction name without mousing over a settlement. Even in lategame Shogun II, I could remember the name of my finest generals, the towns they'd defended and the members of my increasingly messed up clan, but there is none of this here. It wouldn't be too strong to say that the characters feel like those pointless figures that show up in Rome II's politics tab.

    Battles are pretty much the same as they were in Atilla. Things feel a little faster paced in places but the game does little to capture the precise point in time that the game is aiming to portray. The shield wall is interesting enough, but given that it can't move, it's basically just a version of the one in Atilla but more restrictive. The AI is also extremely suicidal. It's happy to rush the heaviest part of my line with light cavalry and it has no the consideration for the safety of ranged/artillery units.

    Ultimately, the game is functional other than the odd bug, so how can I justify not just aiming for a middle of the road 5? Because the game abjectly fails to achieve any of it's objectives or justify it's existence in the series. It doesn't utilise the era very well, doesn't feel distinct from Atilla and doesn't feel any deeper than the fantasy games.

    Ultimately, this is a very sad outing for Total War and a pretty terrible showcase for their new "Saga" project, which I a shame because I was interested in narrow focus games.

    My only hope to the game in it's current state is that Steam will waive their usual two hours refund clause for me.    … Full Review »
  3. Madgad
    May 2, 2018
    0
    Nothing special. Tha AI is still poor, diplomacy is useless... Forget about cool mechanic things from WH and be prepared for tons of garbageNothing special. Tha AI is still poor, diplomacy is useless... Forget about cool mechanic things from WH and be prepared for tons of garbage from Attila.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »