A Paradox fan thoughts on Lionheart: kings' crusade
The game I'll be talking about for today, has two words in its title that drives people from all around the globe crazy for phantoms that are not there: Lionheart: kings' crusade. But even though it's not the game you all been screaming for, I found it absolutely worthwile. It is indeed a game about the Third Crusade, the one where Richard Lionheart fought against Saladin. It's these two sides you can choose from: the European crusaders or the Arabic Saracenes. And to my pleasant surpise the two campaigns are really different. With completely different goals, campaigns and tactics, both sides will feel like two entirely different games inside the same game.
Lionheart: kings' crusade looks a lot like the Total War games, but has more spirit.
The game looks like the Total War games, as you can see by this screenshot. The ingame demonstration they gave me, also gave me the feeling of a Total War battlefield. But in contrary to what I though at first, it's a completely different game. One of the most striking differences, is the attachment to the army you get. In the Total War games you train an army which you replace the moment it's half dead or obsolete. Here our army will grow. If you're playing for the crusaders, for example, you have to take into account that the army you command is made up from several different European states, and that they all have their different opinions, wishes and needs. As your game progresses, your choices to support one or the other faction will affect your army in a lot of different was. Do you listen to the French advise to charge in the morning, or to the Holy Roman Empire who wanted to sneak behind enemy lines in the middle of the night? You'll hurt the feeling of one of them by choosing, and this will affect the composition of your army in the future.
Not only your army, but also your commanders grow individually with all your actions. You shape characters, and get to learn the men you sent forward. It also helps that all the movements were captured with the motion capture technique. I have seen a movie of how they did it: they even got a real life horse to pose for them, and do all sorts of movements. A man on the back of the horse would for example charge, or shoot an arrow, or maintaining his position: all give you a realistic feeling. The movements feel like they are real.
The game has much detail.
I also liked the detail displayed in this game. Not only does the landscape look real, with zoomed in trees that look like they come straight from Far Cry 2 or some game like that, also do the soldiers look like their from flesh and blood. You can zoom in and see for example Richard's facial expressions. It's not as blocky as I was used from for example Medieval 2.
Last week I've been to the Paradox Interactive Convention 2010, being the lucky winner. During my stay in Stockholm, I reported back on not only my whereabouts, but also on the games I saw. I thus did a review on Lionheart: kings' crusade, from my perspective. Because not everyone would find their way to my AAR, I was asked to post it also here.
The game I'll be talking about for today, has two words in its title that drives people from all around the globe crazy for phantoms that are not there: Lionheart: kings' crusade. But even though it's not the game you all been screaming for, I found it absolutely worthwile. It is indeed a game about the Third Crusade, the one where Richard Lionheart fought against Saladin. It's these two sides you can choose from: the European crusaders or the Arabic Saracenes. And to my pleasant surpise the two campaigns are really different. With completely different goals, campaigns and tactics, both sides will feel like two entirely different games inside the same game.
Lionheart: kings' crusade looks a lot like the Total War games, but has more spirit.
The game looks like the Total War games, as you can see by this screenshot. The ingame demonstration they gave me, also gave me the feeling of a Total War battlefield. But in contrary to what I though at first, it's a completely different game. One of the most striking differences, is the attachment to the army you get. In the Total War games you train an army which you replace the moment it's half dead or obsolete. Here our army will grow. If you're playing for the crusaders, for example, you have to take into account that the army you command is made up from several different European states, and that they all have their different opinions, wishes and needs. As your game progresses, your choices to support one or the other faction will affect your army in a lot of different was. Do you listen to the French advise to charge in the morning, or to the Holy Roman Empire who wanted to sneak behind enemy lines in the middle of the night? You'll hurt the feeling of one of them by choosing, and this will affect the composition of your army in the future.
Not only your army, but also your commanders grow individually with all your actions. You shape characters, and get to learn the men you sent forward. It also helps that all the movements were captured with the motion capture technique. I have seen a movie of how they did it: they even got a real life horse to pose for them, and do all sorts of movements. A man on the back of the horse would for example charge, or shoot an arrow, or maintaining his position: all give you a realistic feeling. The movements feel like they are real.
The game has much detail.
I also liked the detail displayed in this game. Not only does the landscape look real, with zoomed in trees that look like they come straight from Far Cry 2 or some game like that, also do the soldiers look like their from flesh and blood. You can zoom in and see for example Richard's facial expressions. It's not as blocky as I was used from for example Medieval 2.
