Cruel gods have punished me for my interest in the series by making it look indistinguishable from trailers of the last 2 Might & Magic Heroes games.
It’s not clear at all where does it go. Narrative and combat screenshots make me think that it’s more like Battle Brothers, you’ll have persistent squads that develop on their own. I can understand them wanting to go away from that approach of gathering thousands of units with almost every race providing you with a couple of stereotypical units, but there’s nothing quite like it anymore. Even games like Age of Wonders that look like good old Heroes went the other way and represent races in a broader way.
It wouldn’t be right to criticize them for not doing the same stuff they’ve been doing for more than a decade, but it seemed to work.
Burning up is a problem with the series, yes. Even if you like all the tactical combat there’s a lot of it. Achievements/medals help by giving you some optional stuff to do in each fight but still you have to embrace the combat system as the game doesn’t have any of those simple filler fights, it’s all intensive tactical goodness from start to finish.
I’ve been super tempted to re-install King’s Bounty Armored Princess or Crossroads lately (which is why I looked up the status of this entry in the first place), but I need to focus on my BACKLOG until new games like this one release!
Yeah, that’s a really weird comparison. Also not sure based on a skim of the article whether the writer is aware of the King’s Bounty franchise’s history as an ur-HOMM.
As someone that spent countless hours playing the original on the Genesis it’s still deeply weird to me to see these new incarnations (even though I quite like them).
I get the distinct impression I’d have had an unbelievable blast if I’d had an Amiga in that day and age. Sadly we didn’t get any home computer until '94! I played some stuff on friend’s computers, and spent an ungodly amount of time playing Ultima Underworld on my uncle’s old PC, but there are whole eras that I was around for but missed for lack of proper tech.
I think new KB series os criminally underrated. Those games are probably longer than they should be and the first one is a little off, but Crossworlds and later ones are great and any turn-based strategy fan should try them. The graphics are timeless, the story and writing are… well, easy to skip. The exploration is enjoyable and combat is as good as it gets. There are some irks like a lot of forced backtracking to creature dwellings though.
To be fair, I actually remember reading that this was supposed to actually be more an RPG than a strategy game, but I haven’t been following this (and forgot it was coming until this thread was bumped).
I played a ton of that initial remake, loved it and read that article earlier today. Sounds like he should just go play Witcher 3 again. I was thinking the same as some of you throughout my reading, “Why is he comparing apples to oranges?”. That they both have RPG elements are the only similarity and just aren’t comparable outside of that narrow bit. I don’t think he even mentioned that initial remake either. I was waiting for a comparison to that.
Fair enough, but I’m pretty confident it’s not supposed to be in the same genre as Witcher 3. If it is, I have no idea why they’re calling it King’s Bounty anyway.
I don’t remember much about the story or the writing exactly, but I admired how gonzo they were with their world building. I remember the first King’s Bounty plot revolving around a demonic magical box and it giving you the option of marrying a zombie or a frog princess. Ludicrously great stuff.
Yeah, this stuff was awesome - I really, really liked all of these games, and played each to completion at least once. The last one was the best, imo, and I was super excited for KB2 when it was announced, but then it was a more RPG type of deal and while I’m still interested in seeing how it all turns out, it’s not really on my radar.
