A game this old, with a new game having been released, should have the quest breaking bugs fixed by now. I just reached a part where i can't move on, this is even a known bug by the developer.

Beyond that the story is not that engaging, the entire color scheme is grey and brown it seems like. Combat is quite slow and limited, but engaging enough.

But the bug thing alone is enough for a thumbs down from me.

This game has been out a few years and I took a fast look at Neo-core Games effort into the world of Camelot. Let's get to what I liked and what needs to be better.

What I enjoyed:
Aesthetics: Old school, Gothic medieval presentations that made the original Disciples, Heroes of Might and Magic, and terrific art-style that struck the heart of sword wielders fans. So far so good.
Class Warfare: The game is described beautifully as classes rule. Tanks, DPs, Range, Vanguards, Monkeys! Magic, all great stuff.
Lore: It will honor those classic tales of Camelot for sure.
Gear: Gimme that gear. Have at Thee! Potions! Three tier character skill builds.
Buildings: Yep, like Darkest Dungeon or Heroes of Might and Magic, you get building bonuses.
New Ideas: Morality, Vitality and Essence systems give you a nice twist to normal character building, but...
Sounds: Voice, Light blood, Sounds, turn base tactics, and role fantasy are developed well.

What I feel they need to improve
Isometric; Again no one is learning from Mordheim's great inclusion of third person environmental development. This falls to good old isometric, nothing wrong with that, but its been done to death. Developers need to get it through their heads, players have out grown this overhead view. Put them into the action.
TRPG: This plays like a combat objective game than a old fashion role playing game.
Broken Builds: Yep, you will build super tanks and crushing dps builds that can cut into the challenge of the game.
stay off the internet, or they are playing for you.
Morality: I would have liked to have seen new created characters that you don't face later if you don't select that route. This truly hurts replay-ability.
Graphic miss match: The portrait should match the animation. Details matter
Repetitive Tactics: After a while you will grow weary of the same battles.
VS system: Done to death in base chess implementation in turn base games. This again offers nothing new as 4, 5, 6 vs endless chess board enemies have been done forever. Bring something new to your army collecting. Be creative in this old dull format.

Final Take:
Look, despite nothing new here in the massive library of turn base games made in the past forty years. King Arthur does a lot right than wrong. It will give you plenty of hours of fun and if you love turn based, then this one may be for you.
You may get 30 heroes and plenty of combinations and despite its developing notations and size of this game, which was way too much. You are limited due to the parameters they set upon themselves. RPG's need to push the envelope of not just mutation and upgrading systems, but go beyond the chess board. King Arthur is a fun game and its base has the potential to be built on, but will be constricted by its template mechanics. See the video game-play up top in discussion to see if the game play is for you. Wait for a nice sale and you may have another addition to old school turn base games. Sir Mordred and his knights are old school fun. My Score 3.4 out of 5.

No single killer flaw, but it's death by a thousand cuts. Critically, the game is very unstable, I'm getting a CTD every hour or two of place; it's also poorly optimised going by the noise of my fans. There's also something about the tiny fonts and undifferentiable sprites on a low contrast, drab background that makes my eyes water profusely if I try to play the game for more than hour at a time.

In terms of gameplay the main problem is that the battles aren't really tactical; they just involve getting swamped by the same 3 enemies every battle (shield dude, archer dude, two-handed dude). The options to fight back are limited and uncreative. The "mission" maps (a layer between the campaign over world and the turn based battles) involve clumsily walking around drab terrain clicking on treasure or stumbling into battles. The base-building at Camelot is an uninspiring exercise in clicking through skill trees for the sake of it, and the same holds for party management generally. Because you have more heroes than good equipment, the game encourages you to redistribute it between every mission to have the 4 you'll embark with outfitted well. It's not all bad, the 2-axis morality system seems like it might help replayability some what. But in short the three layers of the game are equally uninspired and derivative.

It's not just the mechanics that are disappointing. The dialogue and world-building give the impression of a 13 year old trying to be as embarrassingly emo as possible, while the voice acting is painfully over-exaggerated. I burst out laughing when some zombie knight, with a voice so gravelly it would put Batman to shame, said "we will drench the earth with your blood". Even in a caricature of grimdark fantasy that would be too much, in a game trying to play it straight it's ridiculous. And it's constantly like that, with characters reminding you of how they're massive edge lords at every opportunity. Only to then go "ouch, that really hurt" when hit in combat.


So the game doesn't do anything terribly (beyond being critically unstable), but it doesn't do much right either. It's just about good enough for me to keep going when I'm very bored, but that's a much lower bar than me actually recommending the game to someone. If you want a low-fantasy turn-based tactical RPG, I'd say check out "Fell Seal: Arbiter's Mark" first.