User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 85 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 48 out of 85
  2. Negative: 22 out of 85

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 21, 2013
    4
    Think of Total war with deeper RPG elements and magic. That's what you get with King Arthur series. It all sounds fantastic especially if you're fan of strategy and RPG Games, but have Neocore and Paradox Interactive succeeded in creating a great unique niche sequel? Not quite I must say, but there are still many elements you can enjoy within the game.

    In King Arthur II: The
    Role-Playing Wargame, your goal is to unite Britain through military supremacy or diplomacy. You have your grand campaign map to face and conquer multiple factions in various regions, while completing missions and battling enemy armies. Now, when you battle enemy armies you have a choice to enter a 3D battles, where it becomes really interesting. You get to strategically place and pit your units against your enemies and battle it out in the field. Throughout the game, you will make choices that will influence the development of the story and characters.

    I was a strong fan of the first game. In short, it was a great balance between the strategy and RPG elements but with King Arthur II, Paradox Interactive have pushed more towards RPG side of things. Now, that does not sound that bad but they’ve also made the game more linear and they have definitely oversimplified many strategic elements from the first game to be more appealing to broader audience. I understand why they’ve made this decision, which I hope will definitely will attract more players like they’ve intended, but this decision in many ways is a double edge sword.

    Unfortunately, in many ways, it is a quite a letdown to players returning to the franchise, as it ultimately feel limited and contained. For example, the only way to earn income is through missions and battles. There are no tax system, even though you own regions through conquest. The RPG element tech tree focuses on military only, as there is no economy management. Regions feel constrained as you are limited to areas tied to story elements and AI is generally neutral, never aggressive, which removes the depth of layering effect it had from the first game.

    With that said, there are definitely improvements in the game as well. For instance, voiceover is a great addition to the missions. Voice acting is generally great and it definitely adds to the emersion of the game. There are more unit, magic and artifact varieties within the game and you also have the ability to craft your own artifact to match your hero and play style. Lastly, graphic has been improved dramatically, especially when looking at the campaign map, it is simply gorgeous.

    When King Arthur II: The Role-Playing Wargame came out, I could not recommend it to anyone since it had too many bugs and glitches that seriously hindered the playability of the game. There were too many reports of screen tearing, stability issues and freezes and frankly, I wasn’t sure if Neocore or Paradox Interactive had the ability to resolve and patch these issues. I am happy to report that they’ve been working hard to fix these bugs but I would still recommend people to wait it out a little more for the price drop and more fixes. Until then, I highly recommend everyone to try their first King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame a try while waiting for the sequel to be more stable.
    Expand
  2. May 24, 2013
    10
    Arthur II tries to make a narrative for a story-driven fantasy game, and it does so fantastically! If you wanna enjoy this game you cannot expect the freedom of action that you have in the Total War series. The game expands as you progress through it, and the payoff is a good story and a world that feels more alive. When playing along with the constraints the design-choices puts on my game-play, this game shines like nothing I've played before! Expand
  3. May 8, 2013
    7
    The game is pretty good wih great Gothic atmosphere and some interest choices but unfortunately the gameplay is inferior compared to the Total War series there are also some annoying bugs
  4. Mar 16, 2013
    7
    Really good looking game, fun to play with and the music is actually extremely good (or my taste that is). HOWEVER: the game keeps randomly crashing, I cannot run it in 64bit mode and I could go on. A shame really otherwise it would have been a much higher score...
  5. Mar 15, 2013
    5
    ce jeu devrais etre un des meilleur mais a cause d'une ai defficiente qui fait que les ennemis n'attaque que tres rarement et sont incapable de recruter alors on s'amuse une vingtaine de tour puis on meurre d'ennuis les 4480 tour restant ...!oui vous avez bien lu 4480 tour pour amener mon heros au max de ses pouvoir et pour debloquer tout les batiments et unités du jeux donc on passe des tours ou on fini la campagne(en tres difficile sois disant) en la baclant donc on est pas passé loin mais des mise a jour et quelques dlc s'impose car la c'est vraiment dommage l'idée etait super et les pouvoir divertissant... ah! et oui messieur les yougo quand on sort un titre comme cela on le prevoi en plusieur langue au moins dans le texte....... Expand
  6. Feb 28, 2013
    10
    Excellent, story telling game I loved every minute. and after final patch, everything is working for my friends (I had no issues even before). Strategy could be deeper, but it is not that kind of game. this one actualy sets up the new genre. I love DLC even better then game (Love Roman times).
  7. Feb 15, 2013
    2
    What a mess. When a game makes you feel seasick, you know something is wrong. How the game manages that? Simple, in battles you have a crappy camera that barely shows anything so you have to constantly adjust it to see at least a little of what is going on. Worse yet, the game also has horrible camera controls and no less horrible performance that makes everything seem sluggish and slow to respond even with highend hardware. So you end up constantly moving a sluggishly reacting crappy camera around that moves strangely and is hard to control.... I really started to feel a little sick after a few battles and haven't played since. The game also suffers from crashes and some of the longest loading times I've ever seen. Best stay clear of it and should the scenario interest you, try the first King Arthur game which is much better. That game, even thought not perfect, I actually enjoyed playing. Expand
  8. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    This is easily one of the most under-rated games I've had the pleasure to play. All in all, this is a really impressive game and I'm sad that I let the negative reviews on metacritic stop me from buying it earlier. It's an absolute gem, that strongly built on the first game in every way.

    I found the huge number of heroes and different paths to take their skills really quite enjoyable.
    Then there are the vast number of magical items you can find, craft or buy. The effect on the battlefield is substanital.

    The battles are simply gorgeous, with easily the best graphics I've seen in this style of game. The landscapes play a good role in the game, but more could have been made of these interesting maps. There is much more detail on them than in Total War.

    There is a decent mix of units and cavalry charges are working nicely. There are some interesting choices to be made on how you upgrade your units as well, as you can't do everything!

    The diplomacy was a nice twist, not hugely complex, but yet more choices on how to customise your units, recruit unique ones, or gain other effects.

    The story was solid and drove the game well all the way to the end. The campaign map is much bigger than in the first game and boats a deal more complexity in gameplay as well.

    Research is similar to the first but upgrading buidlings is far more decentralised, it's not just at your strongholds that you need to do this.

    The game did crash a few times for me, but I didn't find it really hindered things, it was just a case of replaying the odd battle. Yes, this was frustrating but I found the battles fun so no big issue.
    Expand
  9. Nov 1, 2012
    2
    The first king arthur was a clever turn based strategy game meets rpg elements which successfully mimicked total wars open world nature which nurtured the wonderful natural storys you develop with your generals.

    This game throws that away in favor of a heavily linear experience with dumbed down management. In short it trys to tell you a story some people love having there hand held
    forcefully through a story so for them this might be a plus, for me the simplified mechanics (in an already rather simple strategy game) and the extremely linear story made for a very disappointing experience. Expand
  10. Aug 29, 2012
    9
    Excellent game, interesting and engaging up until the last 10% of the game.

    It has a weak ending, but up until then its atmospheric and exciting.

    The battle system could use some work, though I definitely enjoy it more than Total War. It could use a bit more conquest and diplomacy.
  11. Jul 13, 2012
    0
    Shortly put, if you're a fan of the Total War series, avoid this game. It will be a major disappointment at every level. And NOT necesarily because it's a bad game! I am a 13+ year veteran of the entire Total War series and was primed for a level of play that this game simply wasn't able to deliver. Although it has some neat features I sadly found myself constantly saying "they should have done X, Y, and Z like Total War". I would reccomend this game to people who are new(ish) to straegy games, but then to then move up to the TW series. But if you're a TW vet like me, you'll want to try other games. I found Crusader Kings II and Europa Universalis III to be much more rewarding, and complex. As long as you're not hooked on the real time battles. Expand
  12. Jun 13, 2012
    0
    In my system (Core2Duo 4Ghz, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon HD4870) the game is unplayable (about 2 FPS on the battle phase) even on low settings. While my PC is not high-end, I can play Total War Shogun on Medium/High settings at 25-30 FPS. I knew the game was buggy and poorly optimized at release, that's why I bought it 5 months after released. Sadly, after several patches the game is still unplayable.
  13. Jun 12, 2012
    7
    Purchased this game on the Steam sales this last weekend, and have been hooked on this for a while now. For those of you who are familiar with the first King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame title, you won't find anything particularly new in this, in terms of core mechanics...which, for me, is a plus. I spent many hours playing the first King Arthur game. Drawn into the story campaign...and the fusion of Total War and Roleplaying Game elements kept me going for a long time, but never finished it since it was too much of a struggle due to the consistent barrage of the AI.

    The game however, is riddled with problems to this day (Patch 1.1.07). Far too many bugs are being discussed on forums, as well as, instability of performance, and just general glitches in both, Campaign and Battles.

    On a positive note. The inclusion of a narrator has improved the overall feel of immersing the player with the storyline in the campaign. Graphics are absolutely breath-taking (with some emphasis) to look at. Even though, I personally have performance issues on the highest settings, even if you set it to low, it still looks absolutely amazing...a joy to look at when ending your turn, moving from season to season.

    Overall, I still think this game is worth a purchase when it's on sale next. People with 32-bit computers should stay away since it's currently not working at all (Should change in the future, so try and keep updated prior a purchase). I give this a 7 out of 10...would give it a 8 otherwise if it was more stable.
    Expand
  14. Jun 7, 2012
    6
    Pros -Good graphics -Interesting gameplay events -Arthurian lore -A solidly built RTS -Interesting battles -Interesting creatures to use or fight on the battlefield Cons -Repetitive -Battles, and battle controls, feel awkward at times -Lack of true RP depth, many areas of gameplay, but still feels shallow -No real improves you can feel over king Arthur 1 -Struggles to keep pace with its rival game, shogun 2

    The game is alright, but I would give the first game a 8 taking everything into account with its time of release. King Arthur 2 however I give a 6, because I couldn't see a major improvement. The areas of the game I wanted improved and built on seen no new improvements really, and it was disheartening. I didn't hate the game, I actually put 20+ hours into gameplay. I just was so bored with the first game, I couldn't get into the 2nd game because it was just a carbon copy of the first game. If its your first time ever playing a game in this series and you love knights of the round table, Arthurian lore, and RTS games, you will probably love this game.

    It is on sale right now for $5 through steam, and its a killer buy for a game that is decent the first play through. Be warned it has no real replay value, atleast with me it didn't, but everyone is different.
    Expand
  15. Mar 17, 2012
    6
    This game would be awesome ... if it weren't so buggy! Omg it was released way too early. My first two attempts at the game ended in buggy quests that wouldn't update, and my third kept getting crashes in the middle of fights. It's very disappointing since the graphics are great, the storyline is good and it's a fun game but the bugs pretty much ruin it. Get more QA testers and programmers!!
  16. Mar 3, 2012
    9
    Personally, I thought it was a very good game. I can't understand some people's reactions. It felt to me like they'd improved every aspect of KA1 and wrapped it up in a nicer package. The graphics are wonderful, the level of detail and zoom you're able to do is interesting, the UI was overhauled, the RPG elements are by far more interesting, and the level of aerial threat, while not anything new, added a nice new layer of tactical intelligence. It's certainly not the greatest game of the year, but I strongly enjoyed it. Expand
  17. Feb 25, 2012
    3
    The first King Arthur Role-Playing Wargame was a fantastic attempt at merging a grand strategy RTS experience with an RPG experience, the result was a surprisingly enjoyable game. So naturally you'd hope and assume that it's sequel would take that unique approach to the genre(s) and improve on it, right? Wrong. King Arthur 2 quite literally does nothing better than it's predecessor. It looks more polished (when you can get it to run smoothly, or at all), but that's about as far as the 'improvements' go. The realm management is completely gone, as are the unit descriptions, making the entire experience seem more like i'm playing with fantasy army men toys instead of running a kingdom. Heroes have more limited roles now and cannot lead their own armies, unless of course they are one of the special heroes that are allowed to lead armies (these heroes are discovered during the main quest line). The soundtrack is largely the same and is neither stunning nor too bland. At the end of the day the King Arthur 2 experience feels stripped of all it's frills and depth, everything that drew me into the first game was thrown away for the second. Expand
  18. Feb 9, 2012
    8
    Ka2 is a tricky beast to review as it's proved somewhat divisive amongst its fans due to abandoning the open ended nature of the ka1's campaign in favor of a more driven campaign with new mechanics to reflect it. If you're looking for a "bigger and better" version of ka1 or a fantasy total war, you're not gonna find it here and king arthur 2 suffers badly from jilted expectations because of it (as is reflected in most reviews i've read so far). This game is best viewed as a spiritual successor to warhammer dark omen amongst others due to a strong campaign and though you might have the odd non scripted battle with a rival power for the most part you will be walking from story objective to story objective.

    Reflecting this narratively driven approach, the armies you can control are designated by the plot and the old kingdom management has been scraped due to being incompatible with the way the campaign works (most of your money comes from spoils of war rather then being the result of your yearly revenue) and this is another change that has annoyed players who like playing the economist and enjoyed the logistical challenges of ka1 in where the strength of your economy translated into the number of armies you had and how powerful they were (which had the result of producing ka1's notorious end game difficulty spike). You also progress in tiers at certain story points which automatically upgrades your army, gives you new choices and allows you to fight previously unbeatable armies. The tier system has been met with mixed success, it's a great pacing tool imo that works with the campaign approach but others feel it's dumbing down from ka1. Yet despite what some players say, the game isn't dumbed down due to the removal of kingdom management, quite the opposite, well actually I'll let you decide for yourself: in ka1 once you had your eco growing it was easy to research and build everything, the only real factor was in what order.
    In ka2 money isn't free and every purchase must be carefully considered on higher difficulty levels.
    Does the 2nd really sound dumber then having the money to do everything you want? It's less total war and more dark omen but can't call the 2nd one dumber for it.

    It's not like you build less in ka2, quite the opposite, whereas in ka1 construction was limited to your 3 strongholds in ka2 construction is all about your provinces and the locations within them, which then give buffs and bonuses to the army of the liegelord which is actually a deeper system overall then in ka1. Expanding on how ka2 is actually more complex on ka1, you now have access to artefact forge and can combine obsolete or just unwanted items to make your own (a very fun addition), you are now free to level up your units however you choose (in ka1 you were limited to investing 4 points max in any 1 area, and as max unit lvl was 10 this would mean most players would have all their melee units 4melee/4defence/2 stamina and non melee would be 4 archer/4defence/2 stamina) and units go to lvl15, Most welcome addition of all is extended diplomacy options that allow for added immersion as you interact with other powers and gain significant benefits from doing so too, enough to want you to be on good terms with them as they supply you with benefits, instead of merely conquering them (though that remains possible too).

    The battle system has been changed a bit too, there is now a "magic shield" to aborb or mitigate enemy spells and how much you want to invest in magical defences is a welcome strategical decision (you can just as easily focus on shattering the enemy shield with an offensive spellcaster, or find a balance between the 2, point being magic shield is a welcome addition to battles and adds a strategical layer) and then there's the addition of flying units who work well, moving and flying gracefully before swooping down on the enemy below or strafe with fire attacks in the case of dragons....
    I had great fun with ka2s tactical battles overall and see it as a marked improvement over ka1.

    Lastly I suppose I should speak about the visuals and "feel" of the game. Visuals are gorgeous for music, considering ka1's music was sublime, how ka2s music matches it is beyond me (I seriously love ka2s overworld map themes).. Not much to say here, ah yeh, some people complain this game runs badly on high powered rigs. I play this on my laptop and game runs fine (graphical settings on high) so can't really say anything about that.

    Bug wise the game has known 4 patches so far and personally, last bugs I had were gone with the latest patch. By comparison shogun 2 took me months before I could play it.

    In conclusion, the game is great if taken on its own merits. Expect fantasy total war or a bigger ka1 and you will be disappointed. Enter the game with an open mind or acknowledging that ka2 is more driven then open world and you will love this game.
    Expand
  19. Feb 8, 2012
    9
    It is good, but the first was better. I give for it a 9, becouse it was made by hungariens! It is good, but the first was better. I give for it a 9, becouse it was made by hungariens!
  20. Feb 5, 2012
    4
    If you want a fantasy Total War game do not buy this. The combat is anemic and simply not fun. Most of the nuance that made TW great is completely missing, No morale, routs, or fatigue. In stead you get anemic battles of attrition and "puzzle maps" where you have to slog your way through capture point to capture point. This is a puzzle based RTS with a turn based campaign map. I found myself auto-skipping most combats, but once in a while the game finds some lame story based battle that I can't skip. The game thinks I need to see this, I beg to differ. The campaign is sort of fun, but considering that I got this game with the intention of doing the battles, I just don't see the rest of the package being worth the money. Expand
  21. Feb 5, 2012
    3
    This game should not appear on the PC and the shame that platform. Horrible graphics on a console that disgusted look. Physical models of the environment is simply unfinished pritivnye cubes rastavlennye not handy. It can not be compared with games from Bethesda even close. In general, even the demo is not fully have the strength to go through to the end, just picked up and removed.
  22. Feb 3, 2012
    9
    I never played King Arthur but read lots of positive reviews about it so I picked up King Arthur II. I didn't know what to expect and first I was a bit confused about the rpg mixture but it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise for me. I definitely liked the great graphics and the atmosphere. And I loved the text-based adventures as well, it was like a blast from the past, only spiced up with pictures and voiceovers. The hero development is fun to explore, you can upgrade your heroes like in an RPG and it sure feels like they are growing in strength. I was interested in the battles and I was satisfied, the battlefields look fab and they are huge, there were lots of tactical possibilities and I think there is still plenty to it to discover later when I choose different strategies and bring different units. Anyway, it gives you the impression of being in the middle of a fantasy battle with spells and monsters. My only problem is that it's still a bit buggy but I guess these will be fixed with the upcoming patches. All in all a good game, worth trying despite the minor flaws. Expand
  23. Jan 31, 2012
    5
    KA1 was very much a diamond in the rough. Its game mechanics were rough but beneath those was a great concept which, at times, really managed to shine through. KA2 is less of the same. The concept is the same. You play a character who builds up an army and recruits more characters. The game mixes RPG and RTS to create a hybrid. Unfortunately the 2nd iteration does not do as good a job as the first. KA2 doesnt really need a player, it would be far better as a graphic novel such is its linearity. Although you can still do research, assign skill points and build buildings the whole lot from top to bottom has been stripped bare leaving very little of interest for the player to do. The units upgrade automatically at certain points in the game. They still level up giving you the choice of a single stat upgrade (and ocasionally a skill) but you dont really notice these in the battles. Like wise you level up your heroes. They come in three flavours, a leader, a warrior and a mage (differently named) and if you have two of the same, then regardless of upgrades, they will perform similarly making the upgrades almost obselete. The research is just a bunch of stat upgrades with a few nice things thrown in and the building is incredibly dumbed down. One nice touch is the morality meter which luckily hasnt changed. Infact its almost identical in every way to the first game. The battles, similarly to the first, are ok, but do not compare to those of Rome or medieval 2 Total war which is their natural comparison. The graphics are truly stunning from the interface and map to the battles. But with the battles you wont notice them because you will be looking from so high up they will appear as splodges on the screen with no easy way (apart from tiny banners) to tell your units (or enemy units) apart. The text adventure parts of the game are fun but its often hard to know if the option you chose is actually what you intended to do. All in all this game is incredibly average. Its fun, for short periods at a time, but the story its trying to tell (which is not bad) deserves a far better game to tell it. And this does not do the first game justice at all. Given that this is quite a year for tactical and strategy games, i think i would advise avoiding this and waiting to see if the future games offer a deeper and more enjoyable experience. Collapse
  24. Jan 30, 2012
    5
    A nice mix between a RPG and RTS. Just like the first King Arthur game. Interesting setting, rich lore and deep gameplay. But then there is the technical state of King Arthur II. Crashes, bugs and game breaking glitches will accompany you you throughout the entire time you spend with this RTS. These are only topped by the performance issues. Unless you have an absolute high end machine (possibly even then), King Arthur 2 will deliver FPS way below the acceptable 30 frame limit. Dropping down to less than 20 frames regularly during the larger battles, making said skirmishes unplayable at times.

    Just like its predecessor this promising game is held back by a desolate technical state.
    King Arthur II is an unfinished product, a work in progress (that may or may not get fixed with upcoming patches), but ultimately not recommendable to anyone in its current state.
    Expand
  25. Jan 30, 2012
    9
    Great game with many improvements. I love the quests, they are well-written and fun, now there's a voice over on every single quest which is really helpful as I don't really like reading that much and I really like how the guys expanded the diplomacy options since the first game. Now you can choose from many different alternatives and it definitely adds to the game. The battles feel a lot more balanced and you are not forced anymore to take those locations on the maps, it is still worth it though because they can give you really cool spells like Lightning Bolt or Crystal Shards or they can boost your shield and protect you. I especially like the flying beasts and the new magic shield and that I can break enemy spells. My biggest issue with the first game was that the enemy hero could kill my strongest unit in no time with a good spell, but now I can boost my shield and it does not happen again if I pay attention. So I really like the game and I think it is fun. It still has a couple of bugs though, so I can't give it a 10 yet, but nothing that can't be patched in the next few weeks and it is still fun even with those around. Expand
  26. Jan 29, 2012
    9
    I liked KA1 and I like KA2. This game is a mixture of RPG elements like Text adventures and Heroes with skill trees with total war like strategy elements. In fact Shogun total war took some elements from King arthur 1 like victory locations or customisable heroes (altough the skills matter more and heroes have a more vital role in King Arthur). The Province management from KA1 has been reduced, but the game got a beatiful diplomatic system. The game balance seems to work well, and unit and Skill trees are well designed.
    There are however also bad things to say. Some users have performance troubles even on strong PC's (on other users PC the performance works fine). There have also been some bugs and I had some system crashes. This is the reason why I give it a 9/10 instead of a 10/10. I hope patches will fix that, at the game itself I have little to criticize.
    Expand
  27. Jan 29, 2012
    4
    Ka1 was a great game unfortunately this sequel is very disappointing. Neocore took that great game and dumbed it down. They have removed most of the management and upgrade parts of the ka1 game.
    The game is also not well optimized, I have a 6 core intel cpu + gtx 580 yet the frame rate is just acceptable, I wonder how many fps will someone get with a system barely meeting the syst req for
    this game. Expand
  28. Jan 27, 2012
    10
    Innovative and fun strategy game with an interesting mixture of role-playing elements. Adored the concept, and its implementation.

    On campaign map it reminds me Disciples 2, which was a true gem. Battles are very much Total War like. If you like epic style Lord of the Rings theme games, you will probably adore it.

    The graphics are stunning, both on campaign and battle level. The
    music is a pleasure for the ears. Nevertheless, performance issues have been reported for not high-end specs users. Overall the game is quite polished, but has some minor bugs. However, the designer team worked pretty hard so far on the feedback received from the community.

    I would also like to praise the AI of the battle engine of the game. The enemy cavalry beautifully performed flanking attacks chasing my archers away from behind of the bulk of my army.

    I have decided to give this a 10, predominantly for its innovative spirit, captivating environment and story-telling. Please note that this review is based on the dead legions version of the game.
    Expand
  29. Jan 31, 2012
    0
    KA1 was very much a diamond in the rough. Its game mechanics were rough but beneath those was a great concept which, at times, really managed to shine through. KA2 is less of the same. The concept is the same. You play a character who builds up an army and recruits more characters. The game mixes RPG and RTS to create a hybrid. Unfortunately the 2nd iteration does not do as good a job as the first. KA2 doesnt really need a player, it would be far better as a graphic novel such is its linearity. Although you can still do research, assign skill points and build buildings the whole lot from top to bottom has been stripped bare leaving very little of interest for the player to do. The units upgrade automatically at certain points in the game. They still level up giving you the choice of a single stat upgrade (and ocasionally a skill) but you dont really notice these in the battles. Like wise you level up your heroes. They come in three flavours, a leader, a warrior and a mage (differently named) and if you have two of the same, then regardless of upgrades, they will perform similarly making the upgrades almost obselete. The research is just a bunch of stat upgrades with a few nice things thrown in and the building is incredibly dumbed down. One nice touch is the morality meter which luckily hasnt changed. Infact its almost identical in every way to the first game. The battles, similarly to the first, are ok, but do not compare to those of Rome or medieval 2 Total war which is their natural comparison. The graphics are truly stunning from the interface and map to the battles. But with the battles you wont notice them because you will be looking from so high up they will appear as splodges on the screen with no easy way (apart from tiny banners) to tell your units (or enemy units) apart. The text adventure parts of the game are fun but its often hard to know if the option you chose is actually what you intended to do. All in all this game is incredibly average. Its fun, for short periods at a time, but the story its trying to tell (which is not bad) deserves a far better game to tell it. And this does not do the first game justice at all. Given that this is quite a year for tactical and strategy games, i think i would advise avoiding this and waiting to see if the future games offer a deeper and more enjoyable experience. Collapse
Metascore
66

Mixed or average reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 39
  2. Negative: 2 out of 39
  1. Apr 5, 2012
    60
    An intriguing idea that the franchise is yet to live up to. [Apr 2012, p.64]
  2. 70
    A nice mix of strategy and RPG starts slowly and suffers from linearity but it has its charm and lasts for hours. [March 2012]
  3. Mar 21, 2012
    77
    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]