GrogHeads Forum

Digital Gaming => Computer Gaming => Topic started by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 08:42:07 AM

Title: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 08:42:07 AM
Did anyone take the plunge and purchase?  I've been reading Cornwell's Arthur Series and by god I want to play an Arthurian game. 
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Gusington on February 08, 2012, 08:56:49 AM
I am holding off after reading some descriptions of the game play that I didn't really like: the game is more 'on-rails' with less of a sandbox element. I wanted just the opposite. I did love the first one.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 08:58:20 AM
Yeah.  I started reading the KA2 forums and reviews.   It's not looking good to say the least. /sigh/ Perhaps I'll just go back to the original.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Gusington on February 08, 2012, 09:01:02 AM
^Do you have the expansions to the original? They really made the game shine.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 09:01:52 AM
I do actually and never played the Druids ones.  So maybe that is where the fix can be found.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Gusington on February 08, 2012, 09:06:30 AM
^Druids is very good. IIRC I think that's the one that opens up the sandbox mode.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 09:08:07 AM
I think so too.  Guess I have an Arthur game to play afterall.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Jarhead0331 on February 08, 2012, 09:17:29 AM
I posted this at wargamer awhile ago.

Quote
Neocore really seemed to be destined for great things after the release of King Arthur: The Role Playing Wargame.  It was a little rough around the edges, but ultimately blended some exciting unique elements to make a really enjoyable game.  The future looked bright.

But each game released after KA I found to be completely underwhelming.  None of them really included kingdom management or the more complex RPG elements that KA introduced to the genre. For example, take The King's Crusade. I was certain this game would take elements from the original, Crusaders: They Kingdom Come, and add the more complex grand strategy elements from KA. It failed to do this and as a result, the game still felt half-baked and was unenjoyable.  It last for a few weeks on my harddrive.

Now enter King Arthur II.  I've been on the fence with this one and came very close to pre-ordering on a number of occassions.  However, I hesitated due to lack of information and rumors of poor performance.  Then I just learned that ALL of the core strategic game elements have been REMOVED.  There is no more food production, no more taxes (gold is earned exclusively through scripted missions) and no more round table.  Knights have no loyalty rating and there is no morality compass.  These are the very components that made KA unique and interesting.  They helped KA rise above its rough edges and stand out from the crowd. Without these elements, there is no sandbox feel and its just an exercise in moving from scripted mission to scripted mission.

Nevertheless, Neocore seems to be committed to destroying their future games by watering them down and turning them into "just another RTS."

No matter how pretty the screen shots look, I will not be pre-ordering.

Pretty much sums up how I feel on the matter.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 09:29:00 AM
Thanks JH.  I think this is a pass of a game.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: TheCommandTent on February 08, 2012, 09:41:26 AM
Im glad I read this thread I was considering the game as well.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Gusington on February 08, 2012, 09:49:35 AM
I may get it once they realize they made some design mistakes and create DLC to change them, and put them in a discounted bundle like they did last time.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 09:53:24 AM
The major issue I've been reading from a gameplay stand point (seperate from piss poor optimization) is that the strategic map layer has no effect on the game.  I'm not sure that is something that can be DLC added, since it was a design choice that would require I'd assume a complete rebuild of parts of the engine code.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Gusington on February 08, 2012, 09:59:23 AM
How can it have no effect on the game at all?
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Bison on February 08, 2012, 10:08:24 AM
It's as JH said there is really no kingdom management.  No food requirements for example.  So the map if I understand what I've read correctly is just means for the rail from battle to battle.  Which could just as effectively be done with a story or cut scenes.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Gusington on February 08, 2012, 10:10:40 AM
Ah. Sounds more limited than the first title. In the first game players could wander, although they would get their ass kicked if they went too far out of bounds.
Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Martok on February 08, 2012, 10:33:03 AM
James from Out of Eight (JaguarUSF) wasn't very keen on the game either: 

http://www.outofeight.info/2012/02/king-arthur-ii-role-playing-wargame.html


Title: Re: King Arthur 2
Post by: Mr. Bigglesworth on February 08, 2012, 11:22:37 PM
^Do you have the expansions to the original? They really made the game shine.

Really, I didn't know that. I will have to get them.