King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame

It's really a "diamond". The infinite options within the strategic map, the unique soundtrack brimming with symphonic choirs and the sheer "epicness" that accompanies your every move, all mark a game that will conquer the hearts of fantasy culture fans. [March 2012]

King Arthur makes a worthwhile comeback. Real-time strategy at heart, Arthur crosses genre lines effortlessly. Be it role-playing elements, text-based adventure or Total-War-esque battles, King Arthur delivers on all fronts. The end result is an addictive and surprisingly well-balanced hybrid. [March 2012]

King Arthur II is a good strategy game aiming at the same quality of the Total War series even if a little bit on the easy side. Sadly it suffered a launch full of bugs that made it almost unenjoyable.

King Arthur II is the most credible opponent to the Total War series: thanks to its RPG elements, it's able to create an original gameplay and an interesting dark version of of the legends based on King Arthur. Only some technical flaws prevent this game from touching the excellence.

RPG elements, coherent story with twists, exciting battles spiced up with magic and great visuals make King Arthur II a game that's hard to put aside. [March 2012, p.70]

King Arthur II improves many aspects of the formula that made the first chapter a valuable title. Even if it's still far from RTS like Total War this game is a great and deep dark fantasy tale full of big monsters, powerful fireballs and great heroes.

It's light on the strategy, but an intriguing dark fantasy tale and RPG elements lift King Arthur II above the average. [May 2012, p.76]

A good strategy game which fans of the first game will like, despite not evolving too much the formula of the original. Those who didn't like the first game won't like this sequel either, but it offers a much more polished gameplay, great management and strategy options, and it makes us feels inside the legend.

Quotation forthcoming.

King Arthur 2 surprised me with its approach to the RTS genre by adding such an in-depth story mechanic. Although this may become a bit boring for some players, it certainly adds to the story. I'm not sure if it is for everyone, but fans of the previous game, and of the genre in general, will find this an enjoyable romp, with plenty to keep them occupied for many, many hours.

Compared to masterful strategy like Total War the medieval realtime battles lack detail, challenge and tactical depth. But King Arthur is saved by its atmospheric roleplaying part that reflects the darkness, insecurity and quest for meaning in the post-roman era.

Very personal and with a fantastic fusion of genres between role playing and strategy, King Arthur II is a great title that should improve with optimization.

A nice mix of strategy and RPG starts slowly and suffers from linearity but it has its charm and lasts for hours. [March 2012]

By switching their attention to the story and the overall atmosphere, the developers lost sight of what had made the first King Arthur so fun. Technically, the sequel has everything a good strategy "sandbox" should have: dozens of units, a huge map, and the diplomacy system. The only thing missing is the sandbox itself.

King Arthur II is an honest title, not trying to be what is not, and makes a huge effort to distinguish himself, running the risk of not appeal to fans of classic strategy anda huge slice of the "PC gamers". Still, if you like the genre of pen and paper, it could be a nice surprise.

King Arthur II is less ambitious but more refined than the glorious, sprawling reach of the original. Where that game threw everything into development and didn't seem to care what stuck, King Arthur II has opted to remove (rather than improve) the parts which didn't quite function correctly.

There's something naturally intriguing about King Arthur II – perhaps it's the setting. With so many Tolkien RPGs, historical strategy titles and tiresome modern shooters, a game that genuinely captures a new era and source material is stirring. It's by no means perfect, especially in the technical department, but let the developers work out the kinks and you'll be rewarded with a genuinely decent game.

The gameplay is a great mix of genres, and the world is fresh, exciting, and full of intrigue. The problem is execution. Both King Arthur games have shared the same unique concept, but Neocore Games may not have the manpower or the budget to fully extract the potential of both sides of this complex dual-genre game.

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.

If you liked King Arthur: The Role-playing Wargame for its gameplay and concept, you'll love this sequel. It will give you the same features plus new enhancements. But you will not find many reasons to enjoy this game if your passion was based in the charm produced by the idea of experiencing stories of chivalry, hosted under the banner of King Arthur. King Arthur II is a decent game, but it lies somewhere between the shadow of what it was and what it could have been.

If and when Neocore patches the AI into respectability, even if that's in conjunction with letting it cheat with damage/HP numbers under the hood, I'll be the first one to jump in and dump a hundred hours into King Arthur II. For now, I'll play something that's at least half a step beyond shooting fish in a barrel.

I was so looking forward to the sequel of the surprise hit King Arthur, because the conditions were all present: a predecessor with awesome expandable ideas, a thought-out mix of RPG and strategy, nice-looking presentation, a fresh, well-formulated scenario and airworthy units, which are yet not overpowering. But what happens? Like so many other titles, King Arthur 2 releases in the market in a completely immature state. Persistent fans can take delight in playing it, but only with a stubborn will. But I'm tired of struggling through crashes, plot-stoppers and judder-performance. Actually, I appreciate Paradox as sympathetic niche publisher of games offside the mainstream. But nothing is squandered as fast as sympathy and confidence. So please, Paradox: from now on no more hasty reactions.

The best strategy titles cause players to become obsessed with their various systems, and to lose sleep playing late into the night. To the contrary, in King Arthur II, I found myself skipping battles whenever I could, and I stayed up late playing only because I had to write this review. That doesn't mean there's nothing to enjoy about this title, and, as they say, your mileage may vary. Only one thing is for certain: If you buy this game, you will spend a lot of time being read to.

It's sad that I've come away from King Arthur 2 with such a negative impression. Almost universally, I crave more and better storytelling in my games. Here we have a game that's oozing with story, but that's about it. I wish the writing was enough to carry it into positive territory, but truth be told, the gameplay bored me to tears and I couldn't wait to put it down after even a half-hour session. Maybe King Arthur 3, if it's made, will find the right balance.

This second installment in the King Arthur franchise can be great fun, but doesn't offer enough depth. The AI is just stupid at times, making the experience less enjoyable. Still, the vibe is pretty good and it really feels like you're part of King Arthur's magical world.

The biggest problem with King Arthur II is that is tries to do too much, and as a result, just doesn't do any of it truly well.

An intriguing idea that the franchise is yet to live up to. [Apr 2012, p.64]

If you go through a few fantasy books every week, love long texts or maybe even text-adventures and feel the urge to be the master of the battlefield for a day, then this might be the one for you.

Because the gameplay is so straightforward, newbies to the genre who are nevertheless fans of the setting may find a friendly sort of Frankenstein monster to play with here.

There are some features to love in King Arthur II. The story is interesting and there are a handful of solid, entertaining gameplay mechanics, but be prepared to fight through a few of the game's weaker elements.

It's not great, in fact there are many elements I wouldn't even classify as good, but there aren't any massive, game destroying, deficiencies either.

King Arthur II captures the spirit of the legend, but it's weighed down by an inferior wargame.

This mix of a strategy, role-playing and text-adventure game has its strong story moments with its quite often entertaining battles. On the grounds of these facts it's a pity the game is being struck down by pointless linearity and a noticeable game elements imbalance.

Oddly enough, King Arthur II is stuck in the same dilemma full-motion video games were: it is hard to both tell a story and give the player meaningful choices to make. In the end, the strategic and tactical elements feel like a sideshow to the railroad that is the main quest. There is fun and creativity in here, but interspersed with long stretches of tedium and frustration.

All I wanted from King Arthur II was more of the great lore mixed with a degree of difficulty that was challenging but not sadistic and better tactical battles. I got the great lore.

Glossy rather than glorious, decidedly wobbly and very limited.

It's easy to see the potential for King Arthur 2 to have been a good game rather than "not bad." But it never gets there, mostly because it's doing a half-dozen unrelated things at once, and none of them very well.