21-Oct-2004 King Arthur was the stuff of legends, until Jerry 'Pearl Harbor' Bruckheimer came along with his magical wand of big-budget Hollywood storytelling and left a whole new generation of kids thinking he was a right old dullard. Bastard. Unfortunately, this game is based on that film and not the classic tale we all know and love. No yanking swords out of stones or Merlin unleashing fireballs from his eyes, like how it really happened. Instead, what we've got is some pretty-looking massed battles that suspiciously resemble those we saw five minutes ago in LOTR: Return Of The King.
Using specific scenes from the film as its inspiration, King Arthur drops you into a series of bloodthirsty encounters where you're usually outnumbered and under constant attack from crowds of local nutters.
Lord Of The Kings King Arthur is very, very similar to the LOTR games, see. Movie footage sets the scene, then everything morphs seamlessly into gaming action. The buttons unleash specific attacks, but you'll probably find yourself mashing randomly, so frenzied is the action and so crammed with incident is the screen.
The only major difference we can see so far is the camera, which is a tad too close to the action for our liking: you can't see enough of your surroundings; you can't even see both players at the same time in co-op mode. But they can fix that in time for the November release (cunningly timed to coincide with the DVD release). They can fix everything if you close your eyes and wish hard enough.
Our favourite feature so far is the fact that you can play as all of the movie's main protagonists: Guinevere is a bit tasty with her bow, and a bit tasty in general; Arthur's stallion is handy for giving locals a hoof or two in the face, while Sir Bors is your standard close-combat headcase. It's a great way of keeping the game fresh throughout and mixing up the playing styles for each encounter.
Look out for the full review of King Arthur in next month's issue.
King Arthur is usually associated with England in the middle ages, but The Bruckheimer decided to go with 'historical research', that suggests the rather more revisionist theory that Arthur was just a soldier lopping off heads during Roman times. And that he's not even a proper King...
Merlin can’t even pull basic card tricks, and instead of being Arthur’s mentor from birth he’s just the leader of some scruffy gang of thugs who join up with Arthur against the Saxons. He doesn’t even have stupid hair or speak in a weird voice or anything.
Gone is the beautiful damsel in distress, traditionally wrapped up in a love triangle with Arthur and Lancelot. In her place is a fierce warrior from a tribe called the Woads. She manages to cop off with Arthur, but there’s very little three-way action here.
Picked up by the Romans from the far reaches of Eastern Europe, Arthur the warrior is brought to England to do battle with the Saxons. Merlin doesn’t guide him from an early age, and there’s no pulling magic swords out of stones malarkey going on, either.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
