The Kings' Crusade PC

Metascore
71

Mixed or average reviews - based on 12 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 12
  2. Negative: 0 out of 12
  1. The lustre of this combination has dulled a little with familiarity, but it still provides a gaming experience that few other titles offer.
  2. But what could easily become an overburdening mess of a structure is cleverly handled by the developer, and Lionheart is engaging as a result.
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Dec 20, 2010
    80
    Highly addictive historical strategy game offers hours and hours of fun thanks to its polished combat system, PRG elements and uncommon concept. [Dec 2010]
  4. 78
    We still have a decent title on our hands, with two sides different enough to warrant a replay of the single-player campaign, a well-designed economic system and a factions / research tree which can seal the deal.
  5. Dec 20, 2010
    75
    Lionheart remains appealing throughout because of how well it captures the period. It's not a perfect historical representation, of course, but it puts you in the seat of two all-conquering medieval heroes.
  6. Oct 24, 2010
    75
    Combining a serious focus on battlefield tactics with some enjoyable role playing makes Lionheart: Kings' Crusade a winner.
  7. Lionheart: King's Crusade is all the fun of battling heathens and crushing homelands, but without those pesky plagues.
  8. Oct 25, 2010
    71
    Generally, Lionheart Kings' Crusade is a nice game; however, it lacks strategy and action in the battles.
  9. Dec 27, 2010
    70
    A good strategy game which suffers the presence of other great alternatives that came out during this year, and It's not able to stand out on any aspect.
  10. Dec 20, 2010
    67
    Standard game mechanics are well-integrated to produce a solid game. RPG and RTS elements are combined into an enjoyable experience. Not great, but not bad, either. Competent.
  11. Jan 3, 2011
    65
    Mildly realistic combat and addictive RPG elements put Lionheart above Crusaders and XIII Century. Unfortunately, the lack of a strategic mode and technical glitches are serious turn-offs that won't stop only the hardened fans of the Crusades epoch.
  12. Dec 20, 2010
    50
    But there's one problem, and it's a big one: the game has been out for roughly one month at this point and Neocore still hasn't addressed critical crash errors that severely impact the experience.

Awards & Rankings

User Score
6.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 21 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 9
  2. Negative: 3 out of 9
  1. Sep 5, 2011
    4
    The controls are easy and the game is a good Total War-like clone where you manage your army in combat. You basically take over territoriesThe controls are easy and the game is a good Total War-like clone where you manage your army in combat. You basically take over territories without retribution. I somewhat expected the Saracens to attempt to reconquer lost territory, but they never did. Also, your inventory is limited in size, so you have to distribute your items or sell them to see them all. There is no inventory scrolling if you have too many items.

    Overall, I found the game as fun and like a quick map diversion ---- until I got to the very last campaign.

    As rwh1 states, it crashes. The game played almost perfectly, until the end. I would very much like to play the final fight in Baghdad, but it will not let me finish. I bust through the first walls, the game loads the second part (where you must bust the second layer of walls) and within a few minutes, you get the generic crash message. The game was fun up to that point. I wanted to see the ending, but now I am frustrated. I tried updated video and bios, but get the same result. It's been 2 years since the last patch update and I will not buy DLC as this bug made the game un-enjoyable for finishing. I will also mention that I purchased the game on Steam. I do not think that matters as they patch with the latest updates, too. But it isn't pleasant to get to the end of a game - only to be plagued with a crash and no support.

    If you want, try it out from bargain bin - avoid DLC unless you get them as part of bargain. If the game will play to finish for you, you are more fortunate than my experience. I seem many complaints on the Steam forums - but I was fortunate, until the end. I may try the 5th time to finish this game, but maybe I'll go try King Arthur or XIII Century. It is good when it is working. The path (French, Holy Roman, Templar or Papal) you choose is interesting and so is the side-quests. Also, upgrading units with relics or weapon/armor/potions is a good touch. If you enjoy the combat phase of Total War, you might enjoy this ---- provided it won't crash.

    Crashing - 0 points
    Fun when it works - 10 points
    Full Review »
  2. Sep 8, 2011
    7
    I sumitted a review back on August 30th, but didn't set my score correctly. I meant to give it a 7. Overall I liked the game play but felt itI sumitted a review back on August 30th, but didn't set my score correctly. I meant to give it a 7. Overall I liked the game play but felt it deserved to lose some points because at higher graphics settings(med - high) the game frequently crashes at the end of battles before the user is given a chance to save their progress. Still, on the lower graphics settings, the battles and game play are fun and the game is mostly stable. Full Review »
  3. Feb 23, 2012
    4
    I looked over at the Critics Review and I honestly had to question if they and I were playing the same game. My consensus is that flashyI looked over at the Critics Review and I honestly had to question if they and I were playing the same game. My consensus is that flashy graphics automatically give you a 7 on most of these sites and the rest is just jelly on the burnt toast. The game is real time strategy with tactical unit based combat...basically Total War. Unfortunately it doesn't rip enough off Total War to be a good game, however because it fits so closely in their genre it will ceaselessly be compared to a vastly better game, even though Medieval 2 was their weakest title in the series. It adds RPG elements which allow you to customize your units King Arthur style but these don't really add anything to the game as you will only choose the attack or armour bonuses. Your units are unbalanced and cumbersome, their strength ranges from almost indestructible to absolutely worthless. The campaign missions become repetitive and disconnected, they are historically accurate...relatively, but the units seem to be more varied in fantasy. And some of these fantasy units are so overpowered that they throw any sense of balance out the portcullis. A lesson learned for Neocore games, people will tolerate unbalanced gameplay as long as it is based in realism, but when it's complete fantasy it ruins gameplay. The economy is non-existent, inventory is restrictive, and factions are uninteresting and offer token rewards. As a matter of fact factions are absent on the game map aside from the Saracens, so think of what little political intrigue there was in Medieval 2 and multiply it by 0.

    The selling point of this game is the graphics, which on medium to lower systems will look terrible anyways, besides a game should never try to sell itself based on graphics alone, that's why we have movies. If you're looking for more Total War experience in new and different settings there are literally hundreds of user made Mods out there. Instead of playing this game I would recommend you support the modding community and in the process enjoy a superior gaming experience.
    Full Review »