King Arthur Critic Reviews

In the end, it does a decent job of bringing the massive battle formula to the King Arthur license.

A fairly middle-of-the-road game, offering Arthurian fans a chance to play through some pretty cool battles but doing little to attract more mainstream gamers.

Numerous playable characters are a big plus, but the repetitive enemies and environments are not. However, I'm always a fan of good cooperative play, which this title successfully incorporates.

The controls are excellent, and the game never slows down even with hordes of savages attacking you at once.

A two-player co-op mode is a great addition. I played it with a friend of mine last night and I seemed to enjoy it much more than the one-player mode. Any Gauntlet fans are advised to try the co-op mode.

The repetitive nature of this hack-and-slash title will eventually get the best of those who pursue it, and if it doesn't the unfair difficulty of some later levels probably will.

One thing that I was kind of disappointed about with King Arthur is the fact that it goes by too damn quick. You basically hack and slash your enemies until the end, and that is pretty much what the game comes down too; hacking and slashing.

A hurried game that attempts to borrow a previously successful formula and use it to boost franchise sales. Well, this reviewer says they’re going to have to try a lot harder than this to create fans.

On-the-fly switching between ranged and melee combat gives the solid action more depth than you'd expect, and the characters and stages look excellent, complete with nice environmental effects.

Despite the fact that Krome Studios was able to translate the story, look, and feel of the film well enough into its offering, the gameplay is simply too lifeless and frustrating to hold your attention the entire way through.

King Arthur’s problems begin with its controls. I am fully aware that this is an action game, but it is not one with much depth to it by any means. So why are not one, not two, but five attack buttons needed? The answer: They aren’t.

Most importantly, the gameplay feels just a bit looser and less controlled. That's not to say it fails -- it just could have been better.

Rent it as a last resort. You can live without this game, trust me.

It's solid-looking, but terribly tedious and irritatingly hard at points. In co-op, it's better, but it's a still a long way from being good.

Sadly, the developer seemingly hates its audience because battle is so maddeningly unforgiving.

While the uninspiring movie didn't help matters, it's the lethargic gameplay that winds up making King Arthur an equally disappointing game. Repetitive and frustrating, it fails to live up to the potential of its cinematic presentation.

Game play can be summed up in one word…repetitive.

And urgency is desperately what this game needs, but sadly doesn’t have. Boredom is sure to set in during the very first level.

Looks terrible, plays worse. Ageing side-scrolling combat and dour mission objectives create something truly worthless. Like the peasants, its revolting.

Somewhere between the unhelpful camera, crappy animations, sloppy control, and repetitive level design, we stopped ranking the offenses.