User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 128 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 17 out of 128

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. Oct 8, 2011
    I cannot review the later stages of the game as I quit playing about halfway through. The only part of the game I really enjoyed was the text-based "questing". There are small parts of the game that are also enjoyable but not nearly enough. The game is mostly about fighting and that is just bad. You can actually lose a battle even if you have lost no soldiers and the enemy has lost all but one. Camera sucks near the edges. The enemy almost almost always has stronger and more units which means winning really comes down to being able to control your forces. Of course you really cannot because the game forces you to send troops all over the map. Of course while you are doing something with a unit or group of units, the others are doing something stupid like a unit of light horse charging into a wall of spears. It is actually not that difficult to win battles, but if you lose too many soldiers, you are not going to have enough money to replace your losses. You are able to make laws and decrees. Some of them are pro peasant and some of them are anti-peasant. I thought this was going to be a nice element of the game. I was wrong. I used all the pro laws and decrees and none of the anti. To what end? At the same point where Sidhe armies suddenly begin popping up all over the map, so too do rebellious peasants. It was soon after this that I quit playing. The reviewer who called it "whack the mole" was exactly correct. Did I mention that you have to buy your forces and pay upkeep? You do. This makes sense. What does not make sense is that even with all of the economic upgrades it is not possible to field even three armies strong enough to deal with many of the enemy armies. I think the trigger for the ":whack the mole" part of the game is attached to something the player does. If so, then you could just let time pass and build up your money until you have enough to finish the game before you run out of money.
    The enemy of course always manages to field several large armies no matter how small is his economic base. If you can get this game very cheaply, you might want to give it a try. But I do not recommend it.
  2. Feb 5, 2011
    This game has a fatal flaw. The AI and unit balance are drastically off. The longer you play the stronger the AI gets until it becomes nearly unbeatable. Archers are vastly overpowered and the inability to train user troops to match the elevated levels of the AI make the game a buzz kill when you get deeply into it.
    If you are not proceeding through the game at breakneck speed and with
    amazing luck, you will eventually be overwhelmed by the AI.These limitations and a clumsy interface make this game no match for the Total War series. The story elements are good and the graphics as well, but this game will only lull you in and leave you disappointed in the end. Bad AI and design do not equate with challenge. Expand
  3. Sep 20, 2011
    I really wanted to like this game, and it had so much potential. However it was ruined by the ridiculously overpowered Archer unit (even with the setting to reduce the dmg they do) and also the fact that if you wait 1 or 2 turns to build your army the AI gets so crazy powerful that you can no longer beat them. If you want a game like this, stick to the Total War series. It's a shame as there are some good elements like the talent trees and magic options, and also using land to grant loyalty.. so lets hope they give it another try. Expand
  4. Feb 5, 2011
    Bought this game out of curosity, left it to download and few hours later press play to start game. My only intention was 20 minutes game play and come back later, next thing the sun went down, my room got dark and it was me left in front of the glare of my monitor taking over cornwall and battling king idris and this was six hours later. If your looking for a total war game but more colourful, then this is it. I read a few reviews and everybody gives it a 50/50. I enjoyed this game, well worth the money and the good thing is once you've got it you can always come back to it in your steam account. I give it 7/10, if anyone needs more info about the gameplay of this game you can contact me through steam, ppx100. LONG LIVE STEAM GamerZ UnitE Expand
  5. Mar 15, 2011
    Oh...such a brilliant concept, pulled off so abysmally! The idea is phenomonal, take one of the best mythos' we know, and create an enjoyable rts from it. Sweet and simple. The game, however, is ruined by the fact that the camera allows you to see a whole 0.1% of the action, the fact tat creating one powerful man (a single man!) can effectively win you the game alone, as he tears through whole armies of supposedly skilled fighters...and the constant nagging of the tutorial! Even when turned off, throughout half the game I was getting gamestopping pop-ups explaining something that had been explained a hundred times before.

    Could have been excellent. It wasn't.
  6. Mar 23, 2011
    Do not get into this game if you are looking for a casual RTS or RPG - or else you will be disappointed as the other negative reviewers are. King Arthur (KA) starts out easy, but doesn't hold any punches as it puts you at the helm of managing a kingdom and a fledgling army. The depth to this game is ridiculous. For example, if I go against an army strong with Archers, I would cast a fog spell to limit their range. Not to be outdone, the enemy knight will cast a dragon eye spell to improve the sight of the archers. Then to counter that, I would cast a night spell, changing the battlefield to night and adversely affecting all units... except for my Unseelie archers who have nightvision. KA doesn't tell you any of this. KA doesn't hold your hand and say, "This is the best strategy." KA simple throws you to the sharks and has you develop your own strategy to dominate the battlefield, quelling uprisings, and managing quests. This is a complex game with a steep learning curve, and will challenge the best RTS/RPG player. NOTE: I see a lot of complaints about the arrows - a lightly armored soldier will go down if he takes an arrow. There is a setting that changes this. Similarly, at the beginning of the game, the enemy armies will be more experienced than your green recruits, and you will have to use terrain to your advantage to overcome them. Expand
  7. Mar 6, 2012
    Deep and enthralling gameplay. Doesn't have the budget of the Total War games, but it still has gameplay to rival that series. It also brings role playing, magic and mythical units to the Total War style gameplay and these are skilfully used to enhance the gameplay experience by giving it more depth and originality. I bought the base game on special offer from Steam for Ã
  8. Jul 13, 2011
    This game is excellent. The game is NOT unbalanced, the AI is NOT unbeatable and the camera is NOT that bad (go to options and adjust it). Finally, here is a game where tactics is a necessity, the other army is stronger so think your way around it, stratagize! The plots are interesting and the quests are kinda fun, nice to mix it up once in awhile, the morality and religion is a nice touch and the unit diversity is nice. The graphics are pretty good but the only problem is that there are too many revolts, hard to keep the masses pleased (this is only a minor complaint) yet all in all the game is extremely enjoyable. Expand
  9. Jul 8, 2011
    King Arthur has an appealing mix of rpg elements, management, and total war-style combat. There's plenty of elements to keep you interested until the end and maybe the extra campaign dlc. There are some issues though. Even on the beginner setting the difficulty sky rockets about half way through and makes for a daunting thing to see some of the enemy armies vastly overpower you in both statistics and in battle. This might go with the rpg style of the game and it would be fine of there weren't any time limits to some of the quests and if enemies stayed put rather than continue to poke at your under-powered units or take over your land. This makes for a game that will definitely be better suited to the people with some experience with rts as the sense of urgency later on combined with the difficulty will either make for a thrilling or frustrating game. But despite all this it's satisfying to gather your knights of the round table and watch them develop along with your army and dominate the land as either a rightful king or a tyrant as well as either a believer of "the old faith" or a christian. If you can get past some of the difficult aspects of the game you'll get something that is not only unique but compelling and fun as well. Expand
  10. Jul 24, 2011
    This game is going to appeal to a very select group of people ALOT, but in general will leave many disappointed. The subtitle "a role-playing wargame" should let you know right off the bat that this game is different. Its not just a mashup of an RPG and RTS its really a combination of 4 different games.

    First portion of the game you come across is the TURN BASED grand strategy section
    of the game. Here you will hire and manage armies. Move generals and their said armies to various places to various bad things to other peoples armies and castles. Here time will progress through 4 seasons including winter where your armies must hunker down for the cold. This part of the game is done well enough to get the job done, and the graphics are good enough. The UI itself can be a tad complicated but thats to be expected in a game like this. So if your the kind of person that absolutely refuses to read the instruction manual, and will try to hurry through the tutorials, then this game is not for you.

    The second part of the game, which is accessed via the main map, is the TEXT BASED (and yes i mean text based) questing system. These quests are vital to the game and not only progress you through the game but gets you good loot and new heroes for your armies. An old school gamer like me felt right at home with this questing system, but younger gamers with an aversion to reading are not going to like this, so the game therefore isnt for them either.

    The third part this ambitious mashup is the ROLE-PLAYING section of the title. While the questing system is of course part of the role-playing, what im talking about here is the characters of the game. You the have leveling, loot, equipment and special abilities (some magical) that you would find in any basic RPG. There are different classes of heroes available and each has very diffferent powers which is a good thing. Dont skimp on the magic in the game because you will quickly find your heroes make or break your chances on the battlefield.

    Which brings us to the fourth part of the game, the RTS battles. Theirs definitely a wide selection of units in the game including giants to ghosts to axemen and archers. Most of the melee units though dont seem to be all that different from each other, but you will notice the different between missle units and melee in a big way. Even though in a later patch they toned it down a bit, archers in the game are second only to magic users. Archers do huge amounts of damage and if not countered very quickly the battles can be very lopsided. But myself personally, i found the RTS side of the fights to be my cup of tea. They may seem hard at first but once you get the idea of how all the units perform, you will get the hang of it quickly.

    An important thing to note, is the scale of the these battles. While a large number of people compare this game to the TOTAL WAR series, its not allways a fair comparison. Total war games deal with huge armies fighting it out nation to nation. King arthur deals with much smaller regional kings fighting what amount to a succesion war for the kingship. The battles here are more along the lines of hundreds of troops per side, not thousands like in the total war games. This helps in one way to make you feel more connected to each unit you have, and since they level up like the heroes do, this can be a fun difference from total war.

    The company itself has gone alone way since its release add new features and campaigns via dlc and to rebalance the game to be more fun. I loved everything about this game and would have given it a 8.5 or 9 until this year. What happened? Simply put, they broke it. Bugwise i mean. Fixing the game for other people somehow made it crash before or after battles about 50% of the time (usually after a long hard won battle, which is VERY annoying). I never had problems with the game before the latest expansions and patches and now its unplayable. Being from a small company, you expect the tech support to be from bad to no existant. They have chosen to be non existant. They have yet to respond to my emails and instead rely on forums in which people not related to their company in anyway give nonsense advice and this bug seemingly has no fix or work around.

    BUT... not everyone gets this bug (honestly it seems to be happening most to people with 64 bit windows) and this game is pretty cheap right now. While this game has alot of different parts, that certainly wont appeal to everyone, its still worthwhile as long you dont get unlucky enough to be amongst those while game ending crashes.
  11. Aug 31, 2011
    This game caught my eye and it did not disappoint. With RPG elements of the campaign affecting your kingdom and armies and personal choices affecting your knights, this game has a lot to offer. Some people have complained about the text based side quests but they aren't terribly heavy with text and are a fun break which provide moral dilemmas and puzzles. It's possible to pick at various parts of the game, but this game is FUN. I've had more fun with this game than any other game I've played in a long time, and I play a lot of games on a regular basis. Expand
  12. Dec 26, 2011
    Decent RTS with some nice RPG elements: similar to Warcraft 3, Heroes gain levels and are assigned various abilities based on their class, Warlord etc. I did find the actual RTS battles to be a bit awkward however. Heroes are very powerful (maybe that's your thing), but also camera angles I found to be awkward making controlling armies more difficult than in the Total war games. The combat is somewhat...clunky...hard to describe.

    That said, overall King Arthur does hold up well when compared with Total War. The unit choices are different and interesting for the most part, and the RPG elements make units and heroes more meaningful.
  13. Jan 3, 2012
    The blending of RPG and RTS has never been done so well. The text based quests, item management, skill point/distribution, and morality meter will easily satisfy any RPG lover. While the micromanagement, army strategy, army placement, unit bonuses/weaknesses, and territory management will easily satisfy any RTS lover. Not to mention the game runs smoothly, and looks and sounds fantastic. The best of both worlds, wrapped into one under-appreciated package. A fantastic experience. Expand
  14. Feb 23, 2012
    Great game, better than the sequel by quite a margin. Less bugs, and the province resource system is quite fun. The battles in this game are similar to "Total War" but with a fantasy setting. The units are not balanced, but that's a GOOD thing, as long as you're intelligent enough to figure out the best ways to make a good army. I absolutely loved the teleport spell, it made the final battles so much fun, even though my army was way overpowered :). The game started out hard, then became easier and easier as long as you took the right paths. My only gripe was the victory conditions in the battles, they did that single thing better in the sequel (by removing the capture the flag victory condition). Expand
  15. Oct 12, 2011
    A nice concept in a game which somehow failed to deliver the game play to meet the promise. I really really wanted to enjoy this game far more than I did. In the end I never ever played very far. In fact I found it difficult to get very far at all as it all got so repetetive.
  16. Nov 26, 2011
    Do not like this game very much with the mediocre graphics, wannabe total war battles and a small, kinda irrelevant rpg-element. I do not know if it's because I like the total war series a lot and also play a lot of 'real' rpgs, but this game just felt like a b-movie and didn't give me anything of an enjoyable game. Kinda boring actually.
  17. Dec 31, 2011
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's a great game- but I will probably never bother to finish the campaign. It is because now- near the end I have a super powerful army with four heroes who can teleport on top of the enemy army and win the battle for me without even having to use my army. It was not easy to get my army so strong as the 40+ hours I spent on the campaign to get to this point attest. But now I am suddenly bored by it. The game is just throwing battle after battle at me - and I mean dozens upon dozens. And the battle is alway the same- I win easily with my 4 overpowered heroes and their spells. It has become very repetitive and I am going to force myself to have a battle a day to finish the game! This aside, I found the game to be challenging and refreshing at the early and mid game phases before it became a grind and I recommend it for anyone who likes the idea of magic, roleplaying and total war being put together. Expand
  18. Mar 16, 2012
    I have this game for a very long time. When i bought it i was overwhelmed from the difficulty of the game (i've tried 3 times, one after the other, to play the campaign but there was a moment when i couldn't proceed any longer without losing). I saw some people saying the same thing and i was wondering if there are people out there who finished it. Recently i gave it another chance and i see clearly that i was wrong. The game needs a little bit thorough tactics and thinking if you want to keep up with your enemies. When you stabilize the situation with your provinces, you grow stronger and stronger, it's almost a piece of cake after that. I'm glad i gave it another chance. Expand
  19. Nov 1, 2012
    Keeps the wonderful open world nature of the total war games throwing in superior rpg elements with both scripted and random quests combined with a far more fleshed out leveling system for heros and units.

    Suffers from very simple combat mechanics compared to total war (with a lack of moral fatigue and much less effective counter units) If you loved the natural storys that emerged as
    you played total war but thought it would be vastly improved by additional rpg elements not to mention a fantasy setting then this is the game for you. Expand
  20. Nov 14, 2013
    Good game. I am enjoying it a lot. You can read all the good stuff in other reviews (and i agree with most of them), so i'll jump to the things which were not really in harmony with moi:
    1. I like the tactical part of the game, but the strategical part was a little tedious to me: the camera control is kind of flimsy, and i could never get the right view of the battle field. It is one
    thing to lead 4 formations, and a total different story with 16. Basically, in combat, you need to take control of several key points on a land, and keep your soldiers' morale by defeating enemy legions. Like i mentioned to me, it is somewhat of a headache to control 16 regiments, while the camera does not help, and the interface lacks many useful features and shortcut keys (selecting all soldiers with the same ability, and so on). But then again, the combat is enjoyable, and satisfying. 2. Auto Battle. Auto Battle (for obvious reasons) in aimed against the player, and it doesn't seem like it is taking into consideration Hero's special abilities and spells. The reason is of course to promote "manual" battle since this is a huge part of the game, after all. 3. Some in-game access menus are awkward (like the word "awkward" itself). City access menus, army management. They require you to get used to.
    Otherwise very nice game, with elements of RPG, Adventure (you get word-quests), strategy and tactics (Heroes of Might and Magic come to mind). Enjoying it.
  21. Jan 9, 2014
    I played about 150 turns of this and decided it isn't genuinely difficult, they just didn't design it properly. The problem is that the course of the game is heavily, if not totally, scripted - instead of the actual game mechanics providing balance.

    Players are basically supposed to align with either the Christians or the Pagans*, and in my game I somehow ended up choosing quest options
    that put me into the late game without either side having formed an alliance with me. Which meant that the Christian Saxons in Anglia** had a stack that continually scaled to be twice as strong as my strongest army, but which I could keep pinned down by repeatedly capturing a town in its territory, while on the other side of the map, Pagan Wales had about twenty stacks that were stronger than my strongest army.

    The combined industrial output of Arthurian England was unable to compete with either faction, despite them only having three territories at most, and the limitations of the game mechanic make it impossible to spam units or even to have the expendable generals or suicide missions that the strategic situation required.

    *, ** - regarding Welsh Pagans and Christian Saxons in Anglia, the game has a basically ludicrous pseudo-history that veers madly between the Venerable Bede (a real historian) and the "Slaine" graphic novels. Saxons in Anglia is weird because the Angles lived in Anglia. The Saxons themselves weren't distinctively Christian - the historic King Raedwald (AD 600) who squares off against King Arthur in this game adopted Christianity, but in reality his sons then took the Saxons back to the Anglo-Saxon gods they had before. And the religious conflict that Anglo-Saxon Christianity really had wasn't with Druids (who had all disappeared by AD 200), but with a Celtic version of Christianity.

    The military equipment used by the units is even more anachronistic - e.g. crossbows (AD 1066+), Crusaders (AD 1096+), and gothic plate armour (AD 1400+). Unit stats and performance are therefore basically random. Some units can have stats that are up to four times higher than others - so if two batches of similarly expensive and heavily-armed knights bash into each other, and your batch is the wrong "sort" of knight, they get wiped out.

    Most annoying though is the crummy, 1970s folk revival/neo-pagan conception of Druids being "at one with nature", and therefore aligning with Fairies. Everything gets conflated together - Morgan Le Fay gets identified with "Morrigan" (from a different country's folklore hundreds of years distant) because their names sound a bit similar - and the aspects of the legend that actually interested Thomas Malory and other authors of classic versions get obliterated.

    The combat in the game is quite fun, to the extent that it copies Total War, and on the rare occasions where a balanced battle takes place (and it isn't against fairies) it can be quite satisfying to trick the AI into being flanked, or whatever. Magic is overpowered, but it's King Arthur - so magic should be overpowered - the problem is that nearly everyone and their cat in this version can cast spells, not just Merlin and Morgan Le Fay. King Arthur and Merlin aren't even units - some warrior-king!

    Archers are also over-powered, possibly reflecting British sentiment about longbows post-Agincourt (AD 1415!). Killing someone with flying pointy sticks shouldn't be ten times as quick as battering them to death with heavy blunt things - if that had ever been the case, footsoldiers wouldn't have continued having a military role.

    The victory locations mechanic is daft - and there is never much advantage in making for a particular location on the battlefield, because the AI's archers will always be in range before you get there. Victory Locations consists of the AI grabbing them all in the first 30 seconds due to impossibly fast cavalry and always being located closer to them, and then you grabbing them with your own cavalry over the next five minutes after the AI instantly and permanently forgets it has them.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 24
  2. Negative: 0 out of 24
  1. Dec 9, 2010
    Like so few games before, it King Arthur - The RPG has managed to make many an early morning "quick game" turn into a late night session of "just one more turn".
  2. Sound in the game is superbly done, the music sound track fits the look and feel of the game. With sweeping grand music and drumming beats fit for the grand epic adventure that the game is. So too is the voice acting, with flair and conviction and an earnest truth ringing in the words.
  3. Arthurian role playing is superior to the hit-and-miss strategizing in this hybrid epic about legendary Britain.