KickStarter King Arthur: Knight's Tale + Legion IX standalone expansion - dark fantasy turn-based tactical RPG from NeocoreGames

[Parabalus]

The mage giving you +100 gold if he sits the mission out, but being extremely potent is great design.

 

[Grunker]

Why would we shame you? If you want to lower the difficulty to Very Easy outside of the menus, it's totally up to you

I'll have you know I held the "Stop & Go" construction sign when the path of least resistance was being paved. I'm a disgrace, nigga.

Sic transit gloria mundi

 

[Grunker]

The mage giving you +100 gold if he sits the mission out, but being extremely potent is great design.

It would be if they didn't make the class very fun to play and didn't give you (even less powerful) alternatives). I like the idea they clearly had with it, but in the long run it's kind of boring to leave out a unique and really fun class because of some slight optimization. I just bring him now and go "fuck it"

 

[Saravan]

What's the matter Eurogamer, can't recommend two tactical RPGs in the same month? https://www.eurogamer.net/king-arthur-knights-tale-review-nice-ideas-cant-lift-a-trudgy-core

King Arthur: Knight's Tale review - nice ideas can't lift a trudgy core
Bors.



A dark RPG-strategy hybrid that's not without its pleasures, but tends towards numb repetition and becomes a slog.

I once got bullied out of going to see the film A Knight's Tale by the cashier at the cinema. He took one look at me and my brother and thought he saw kindred spirits."Do you like cars?" he asked. "Um..." we stalled. "You should go and see Fast and Furious," he said. But we didn't want to: we wanted to see Heath Ledger. So naturally we agreed and went to watch the cars, and I've never seen A Knight's Tale since.

King Arthur: A Knight's Tale is from Van Helsing studio NeocoreGames, which has made King Arthur before. King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame came out in 2009, and there was a sequel in 2012, but whereas those games were a blend of RPG and real-time strategy, meaning huge battles with hundreds or thousands of units, this new game brings it all in on a smaller scale. It's much more like XCOM.

Missions involve running a party of four around smallish maps and fighting a few battles. There's a bit of dialogue sprinkled in, a few choices to make, but everything is usually solved by fighting. And when you fight, it's turn-based. The space around your heroes turns into a grid and you're governed by available action points and abilities. It's very familiar.

After the missions, there's a lot more to do. You'll get the XP and loot you earned during the mission, which may mean levelling up and choosing new skills, or re-equipping your characters, and you also get a chance to do things to - and in - Camelot.

"Nothing ever seems to stretch the player. There's never that feeling of having overcome, or having solved, a particularly tricky puzzle or battle."

You are in charge of Camelot, you see (you can have a base elsewhere - there's a choice - but I chose Camelot) and it's in ruins so you need to rebuild it, using money and a building resource you earn doing missions. Gradually, you rebuild places like the Cathedral and Hospice and Training Grounds, and doing so brings added functionality.

The Cathedral, for instance, is where your characters' heal injuries they suffer during battle. They can get the Plague, which isn't helpful, or Lethargy - there's a whole load of things. And you get rid of these by sticking them in the Cathedral for a mission or two. How long it takes depends on upgrades to the Cathedral.

The Training Grounds, meanwhile, give your heroes XP and levels them up, which is particularly useful for keeping characters you don't choose for missions up to speed. And all of your buildings can be improved by upgrades, getting you better equipment and bonuses and so on, so there's a whole base-building side-game to consider.

Spoiler

It's not much but I call it home. It's actually quite pretty fullscreen, but there is a tinge of smog to it all, in keeping with the game's atmosphere, and it doesn't help present it well here.

Central to all of this, of course, is your Round Table, where you recruit and appoint your champions, and give them titles, which is fun (and improves their loyalty, and gives bonuses) and you will attract a lot of names from legend to you. You can only take four on missions, though, so that means - as seems to be the way in RPGs - a lot of them will be sitting around, scratching their bottoms.

But not here! Here, you can send them away on quests, which is a lovely nod to Arthurian legend and all the relentless questing there, though it's all a bit po-faced here rather than silly, which is a missed opportunity if you ask me. Events pop up on the world map with outcomes to choose from, and one of them usually involves sending one of your knights away to deal with it (meaning they'll be unavailable for a mission or two).

What you choose has consequences, which is another area of the game I find appealing. Knight's Tale records your choices and then plots them on a graph, which is a cross shape, with tyranny and benevolence at either ends of the vertical line, and Old Gods and Christianity at either ends of the horizontal line. Choices all favour one of those things, and a little marker tracks your progress. It takes a while to move it but it's a fun kind of encouragement to role-play, though the depictions of good and evil are a bit juvenile.


I love these portraits (apart from Mordred's), and while it looks like there are lots of lovely stats and skills to play around with, they don't really come into play until later, if it all. Selecting a higher difficulty would bring them more into focus.

Choices also affect character loyalty towards you, and if their loyalty is good, they can get positive buffs, and if it's bad, negative effects. And, naturally, they all like different things.

It's this area of the game, around the core, that I really like. I enjoy tinkering with characters' skills and equipment and making the most out of my Camelot, and juggling my roster as I manage training, quests and injuries. And it's all put together in an attractive, if dour, kind of way - browns and stone greys, and rusty iron hues. I appreciate the effort.

What I'm less keen on is the core of the game itself, the missions, and it's a frustratingly fundamental problem to have. There are a few reasons why. The moment to moment combat seems to lack sophistication. There are things like attacks of opportunity, cover, overwatch, buffs, debuffs, magic - all things that are familiar to players of turn-based games - but even with it all in play, there never seems to be much strategy to battle. It's usually just 'walk there, whack that'. Nothing ever seems to stretch the player. There's never that feeling of having overcome, or having solved, a particularly tricky puzzle or battle.

In Knight's Tale's defence, it does get better. As you get to higher levels and unlock more abilities - enemies too - there's more variation on the battlefield. But not that much more. And by that time, it's repeated a thin formula so much you'll be all but worn out on it, leaving the game feeling like a trudge.


A battle, and a better lit one than most. There are typically a lot of trash enemies and few interesting ones to fight - or few that fight strategically as a team.

This trudginess is reinforced by the game's technical struggles. It's not a looker, particularly - it can convey an atmosphere but it looks dated when up close - and this choice of grim-dark and murky mires what the game has available to work with, leaving it all feeling a bit dreary. It doesn't run particularly well either, and while some of this is probably to do with my ageing machine, I don't get the impression it's well optimised. And beyond that, there's an inherent lethargy to how it moves, to how the characters' move and how they attack. Sometimes that works in Knight's Tale's favour, like when one of your armoured knights swings a giant sword like a life-sized stone chess piece would, and it comes crashing down on an enemy, but usually it lacks zip. You can hold the spacebar to speed turns up but it doesn't eradicate the sluggishness.

There's also very little variation in missions, not just in terms of where they take place, but also what you do in them. The structure always seems to be the same: run slowly around a bit, talk to a character, follow some arrows on the map to some battles, which all feel the same, maybe fight a boss, and done. And I know "boss" sounds exciting but they aren't. They tend to look just like the other enemies. Only one or two have stood out, and they died without much of a fuss.

It's a shame. I'd happily see fewer missions and trash battles in favour of more imagination and surprise, and it would really help getting players to more exciting enemies quicker.


Getting a feel for the gloominess? Here's that morality tracker chart, and a multiple choice 'event'.

It could also do with being a good whack more difficult, though this is something you can rectify by dialling it up a notch at the start, and I suggest you do. Normal is too easy. There's even a Roguelite mode if you fancy it, which doesn't let you freely save and load. A bit more challenge might help bring more elements of Knight's Tale into play, as you pick up more injuries and are forced to use substitute picks, and it could help battles feel less mindless. Then again, it could exacerbate an already slog-like core.

There's things to like here. Wooden as the story and characters can be, I still like the fantasy, and I find the reverence endearing. And there are some lovely touches relating to it, like duels you can fight in missions instead of pitched group battles. They're just one-on-ones but they mix the formula up a bit.

A lot could be achieved with tuning and tweaks, and I've no doubt NeocoreGames will continue to do exactly that. But there's a creakier core that will be harder to solve. King Arthur: Knight's Tale is not without its charms, then, but it's not the once and future king you might have been waiting for. Maybe watch Fast and Furious instead.

I like how he added in the "the default setting" to try worm his way around the fact that had he done his research, he would know that hard was actually the default Normal setting in Early Access but due to relentless whining it was pushed up. In other words, normal in full release is technically easy mode from what the devs intended. Absolute clown.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Not sure what you people are so outraged about, because I'd say it's fair criticism to call out normal difficulty for not being challenging.

Of course if the journo were less braindead he'd switch to a different difficulty at least to see how it feels and comment on that too, but that's a whole different matter.

 

[Saravan]

Not sure what you people are so outraged about, because I'd say it's fair criticism to call out normal difficulty for not being challenging.

Of course if the journo were less braindead he'd switch to a different difficulty at least to see how it feels and comment on that too, but that's a whole different matter.

Yeah it is, if only he mentioned that he played on normal difficulty when making that conclusion. This was dug out by the comments under the review after others pointed it out. It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences. The devs made a mistake by caving to the whiners however when they changed the difficulty settings.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I just killed the first Arthur and I feel... dunno, bored?

Like the main challenge now is about resource management and attrition but I feel the combat is severely lacking. I feel like I ended up doing the same exact thing over and over again everyencounter, just different entry point. Maybe it will open up more when I get more skills

 

[Parabalus]

Not sure what you people are so outraged about, because I'd say it's fair criticism to call out normal difficulty for not being challenging.

Of course if the journo were less braindead he'd switch to a different difficulty at least to see how it feels and comment on that too, but that's a whole different matter.

Yeah it is, if only he mentioned that he played on normal difficulty when making that conclusion. This was dug out by the comments under the review after others pointed it out. It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences. The devs made a mistake by caving to the whiners however when they changed the difficulty settings.

But the journo's point still stands then, no?

Unintentionally, but the devs deserve the flak for fucking the difficulty settings.

Liking it a lot on Very Hard so far.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Not sure what you people are so outraged about, because I'd say it's fair criticism to call out normal difficulty for not being challenging.

Of course if the journo were less braindead he'd switch to a different difficulty at least to see how it feels and comment on that too, but that's a whole different matter.

Yeah it is, if only he mentioned that he played on normal difficulty when making that conclusion. This was dug out by the comments under the review after others pointed it out. It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences. The devs made a mistake by caving to the whiners however when they changed the difficulty settings.

But the journo's point still stands then, no?

Unintentionally, but the devs deserve the flak for fucking the difficulty settings.

Liking it a lot on Very Hard so far.

If you find it too easy your response should be "hm, I should try the higher difficulty settings and note that the default difficulty is probably too easy" not "this game is TOO EASYYY!!!!"

 

[Saravan]

Not sure what you people are so outraged about, because I'd say it's fair criticism to call out normal difficulty for not being challenging.

Of course if the journo were less braindead he'd switch to a different difficulty at least to see how it feels and comment on that too, but that's a whole different matter.

Yeah it is, if only he mentioned that he played on normal difficulty when making that conclusion. This was dug out by the comments under the review after others pointed it out. It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences. The devs made a mistake by caving to the whiners however when they changed the difficulty settings.

But the journo's point still stands then, no?

Unintentionally, but the devs deserve the flak for fucking the difficulty settings.

Liking it a lot on Very Hard so far.

The point about normal lacking any challenge is correct. My issue is that making a sweeping statement that a game lacks strategy etc. without mentioning the difficulty you are playing on and not testing higher difficulties to see if the point still stands is disingenuous for someone reviewing a game in depth. For this game in particular, given that there is such a significant difference between normal, hard and very hard it becomes even more relevant. The vitality/injury healing mechanics and being forced to use B-teams really shine on the highest difficulty.

 

[Nortar]

I just killed the first Arthur and I feel... dunno, bored?

Like the main challenge now is about resource management and attrition but I feel the combat is severely lacking. I feel like I ended up doing the same exact thing over and over again everyencounter, just different entry point. Maybe it will open up more when I get more skills

I just got there myself, that's how far behind Grunker I fell, even though we had started about at the same time.
The "multi-headed" Arthur was not the hardest encounter so far, I had more problems with the very first banshee a couple of missions back.
But maybe that's coz I invested all 3 shrine-buffs into Balan and turned him into murder-powerhouse.
Anyways, onto the Act 2. The difficulty on very-hard was going down bit by bit, but now it is supposed to sky-rocket if I read it right?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Act 1 boss is indeed not that tough. Act 2 boss is much tougher. Once you get to missions in the level 10 range or so difficulty picks back up again. About the same time you start getting the recruitment quests if you weren't making bipolar choices.
Some of those are really hard, btw.

 

[Harthwain]

It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences.

You're being fabulously optimistic here.

And I disagree this is being disingenuous - most people are going to play on normal difficulty, because normal is universally considered standard level to play. If you want a challenge you go for hard (which is something I often do, because I noticed that playing on normal tends to bore me out, while challenge keeps me going). Like you said yourself, it is the fault of the developers for lowering the difficulty, while not changing the name. Some developers do it the smart way, by adding "classic" mode next to "normal" mode (and describing it as "the way it is meant to be played"). That way you know exactly which is the true difficulty setting, while still having the option to play on easy normal. Or go even further and do it like Dungeon of the Endless: you can only pick between "easy" and "too easy".

 

[Saravan]

It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences.

You're being fabulously optimistic here.

And I disagree this is being disingenuous - most people are going to play on normal difficulty, because normal is universally considered standard level to play. If you want a challenge you go for hard (which is something I often do, because I noticed that playing on normal tends to bore me out, while challenge keeps me going). Like you said yourself, it is the fault of the developers for lowering the difficulty, while not changing the name. Some developers do it the smart way, by adding "classic" mode next to "normal" mode (and describing it as "the way it is meant to be played"). That way you know exactly which is the true difficulty setting, while still having the option to play on easy normal. Or go even further and do it like Dungeon of the Endless: you can only pick between "easy" and "too easy".

I fail to see how omitting to make the reader aware of what difficulty you play on, and not bothering to test higher difficulties (or even admit that you haven't tested them) when you make a sweeping statement such as "game too easy" is not being disingenuous from someone reviewing a game. Perhaps you are saying I'm being fabulously optimistic for expecting a higher standard from journos?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The idea that they have some obligation to play the game on normal is bizarre. They should be reviewing the entire game, that doesn't mean playing the entire game on each difficulty but if they find normal too easy then yes bumping the difficulty up while making note of such in their review.

 

[Nortar]

It's disingenuous to draw conclusions such as the lack of strategy in combat and that the player isn't pushed without mentioning what difficulty you are playing nor even testing higher difficulties to review any differences.

You're being fabulously optimistic here.

And I disagree this is being disingenuous - most people are going to play on normal difficulty, because normal is universally considered standard level to play. If you want a challenge you go for hard (which is something I often do, because I noticed that playing on normal tends to bore me out, while challenge keeps me going). Like you said yourself, it is the fault of the developers for lowering the difficulty, while not changing the name. Some developers do it the smart way, by adding "classic" mode next to "normal" mode (and describing it as "the way it is meant to be played"). That way you know exactly which is the true difficulty setting, while still having the option to play on easy normal. Or go even further and do it like Dungeon of the Endless: you can only pick between "easy" and "too easy".

The best (bestest!1) naming for difficulty settings:

 

[Sarathiour]

The baseline for difficulty for the last 10 years was normal being actually easy mode, and anything below that targeted toward a brain impaired primate lacking opposite thumb.

Everyone know that, idk what people are acting here like we just rediscovered the wheel.

 

[Alienman]

Hmmmm, so game is gud? Worth full price?

 

[Parabalus]

The buffs you can get from some items for resting stack, e.g., with the early +2 DMG on rest item, if you save campfires you can enter the last battle on a map with +6 or higher, trivializing it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Hmmmm, so game is gud? Worth full price?

Probably my GOTY depending on how amazing STARFIELD is. Definitely wasn't expecting it to be this good.

 

[Harthwain]

Another question: I have the mission to go to the Bridge of Sorrows. It was said that Balan will meet me there if I set out immediately. However, it turns out I have a side mission as well. Will Balan wait for me or is this a timed thing in which I risk not meeting him if I go for a side quest instead? Also, if I got for the main quest, will the side quest remain or disappear? Essentially - is there some sort of "time management" or am I free to do missions in whatever order I see fit?

 

[Grunker]

Free to do missions in any order

 

[Harthwain]

How Unbreakable Armour works? I have the opportunity to buy the Oath that gives +1 Unbreakable Armour when outnumbered for 125 gold and it sounds like a sweet deal for Mordred, because he's obviously going to tank as many enemies as possible, but I am unsure how exactly this works.

I mean, I understand how armour works (in general), but with this Unbreakable thing I am not so sure. Will he simply ignore any attack that'd normally strip 1 armour? Does this mean it still holds during the same turn? Obviously this won't help against super heavy attacks or armour piercing ones (I just got through the Bridge of Sorrows), but for holding the line against weaker opponents this sounds like a godsend for a tank. If I am understanding it correctly, that is.

 

[Cael]

How Unbreakable Armour works? I have the opportunity to buy the Oath that gives +1 Unbreakable Armour when outnumbered for 125 gold and it sounds like a sweet deal for Mordred, because he's obviously going to tank as many enemies as possible, but I am unsure how exactly this works.

I mean, I understand how armour works (in general), but with this Unbreakable thing I am not so sure. Will he simply ignore any attack that'd normally strip 1 armour? Does this mean it still holds during the same turn? Obviously this won't help against super heavy attacks or armour piercing ones (I just got through the Bridge of Sorrows), but for holding the line against weaker opponents this sounds like a godsend for a tank. If I am understanding it correctly, that is.

You won't lose the last armour point. Ever.

 

[Nortar]

How Unbreakable Armour works? I have the opportunity to buy the Oath that gives +1 Unbreakable Armour when outnumbered for 125 gold and it sounds like a sweet deal for Mordred, because he's obviously going to tank as many enemies as possible, but I am unsure how exactly this works.

I mean, I understand how armour works (in general), but with this Unbreakable thing I am not so sure. Will he simply ignore any attack that'd normally strip 1 armour? Does this mean it still holds during the same turn? Obviously this won't help against super heavy attacks or armour piercing ones (I just got through the Bridge of Sorrows), but for holding the line against weaker opponents this sounds like a godsend for a tank. If I am understanding it correctly, that is.

Yes, armor won't be reduced below the number of Unbreakable pips.
But I'm not sure if it's worth it, unless you can stack up a decent amount of those.

Even worse, if it only works when outnumbered.
With 4 characters on the field, it would only be active while there are 5+ enemies?

I'd rather get an armor with better stats and carry an 40% armor potion.
Right now my Mordred sports a blue (cheap) armor that ignores 25% of enemy attack's Armor Breaking, resulting in most attacks not stripping any armor at all or just 1 point per hit.