King Arthur PlayStation 2

  • Publisher: Konami
  • Release Date: Nov 17, 2004

Mixed or average reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 22
  2. Negative: 6 out of 22
Buy On
  1. Computer Games Magazine
    In the end, it does a decent job of bringing the massive battle formula to the King Arthur license. [Feb 2005, p.9]
  2. A fairly middle-of-the-road game, offering Arthurian fans a chance to play through some pretty cool battles but doing little to attract more mainstream gamers.
  3. Game Informer
    Numerous playable characters are a big plus, but the repetitive enemies and environments are not. However, I'm always a fan of good cooperative play, which this title successfully incorporates. [Nov 2004, p.149]
  4. 70
    The controls are excellent, and the game never slows down even with hordes of savages attacking you at once.
  5. Cheat Code Central
    A two-player co-op mode is a great addition. I played it with a friend of mine last night and I seemed to enjoy it much more than the one-player mode. Any Gauntlet fans are advised to try the co-op mode.
  6. 69
    The repetitive nature of this hack-and-slash title will eventually get the best of those who pursue it, and if it doesn't the unfair difficulty of some later levels probably will.
  7. One thing that I was kind of disappointed about with King Arthur is the fact that it goes by too damn quick. You basically hack and slash your enemies until the end, and that is pretty much what the game comes down too; hacking and slashing.
  8. A hurried game that attempts to borrow a previously successful formula and use it to boost franchise sales. Well, this reviewer says they’re going to have to try a lot harder than this to create fans.
  9. Play Magazine
    On-the-fly switching between ranged and melee combat gives the solid action more depth than you'd expect, and the characters and stages look excellent, complete with nice environmental effects. [Nov 2004, p.75]
  10. Despite the fact that Krome Studios was able to translate the story, look, and feel of the film well enough into its offering, the gameplay is simply too lifeless and frustrating to hold your attention the entire way through.
  11. King Arthur’s problems begin with its controls. I am fully aware that this is an action game, but it is not one with much depth to it by any means. So why are not one, not two, but five attack buttons needed? The answer: They aren’t.
  12. 60
    Most importantly, the gameplay feels just a bit looser and less controlled. That's not to say it fails -- it just could have been better.
  13. 60
    It's solid-looking, but terribly tedious and irritatingly hard at points. In co-op, it's better, but it's a still a long way from being good.
  14. Rent it as a last resort. You can live without this game, trust me.
  15. Sadly, the developer seemingly hates its audience because battle is so maddeningly unforgiving.
  16. 50
    While the uninspiring movie didn't help matters, it's the lethargic gameplay that winds up making King Arthur an equally disappointing game. Repetitive and frustrating, it fails to live up to the potential of its cinematic presentation.
  17. Game play can be summed up in one word…repetitive.
  18. 40
    And urgency is desperately what this game needs, but sadly doesn’t have. Boredom is sure to set in during the very first level.
  19. Looks terrible, plays worse. Ageing side-scrolling combat and dour mission objectives create something truly worthless. Like the peasants, its revolting. [PSM2]
  20. PSM Magazine
    Somewhere between the unhelpful camera, crappy animations, sloppy control, and repetitive level design, we stopped ranking the offenses. [Holiday 2004, p.86]
  21. Official U.S. Playstation Magazine
    The game is one long wave of monotonous, sloppy combat. [Jan 2005, p.102]
  22. This is not the worst game ever made, but it's so inept at so many different points that it inspires more anger than a genuinely awful game.
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 10 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 3
  2. Negative: 1 out of 3
  1. HieuMinhN.
    May 10, 2005
    It's a good game but so hard to finish it. =)
  2. Will
    Dec 26, 2004
    One of the best games ive every played co-op is the best because when your in trouble you`ve got backup.brillant.
  3. DragonKnightofFinalFantasy
    Dec 9, 2004
    Oh boy yay another LOTR clone... Like Forgotten Realms that copied Two Towers Arthur copies Return of the King with co-op for that I Oh boy yay another LOTR clone... Like Forgotten Realms that copied Two Towers Arthur copies Return of the King with co-op for that I don't give it a 3 but it's still not too fun. Seeing your character just flail around with his swords hitting everything in a dark ugly enviroment and unskippable movie sequences are a annoyance as well not only that but they are LOOOOOOOOONNNGGG! You just button mash all day long even more than LOTR and it's clones. Avoid this please avoid it PLEASE! Full Review »