King's Bounty II

[cyborgboy95]

 

[Lacrymas]

Ooooh, PEGI 16, we are getting hardcore now.

 

[IDtenT]

Ooooh, PEGI 16, we are getting hardcore now.

That's a big butt plug there at the start.

 

[Ontopoly]

I was a little negative of the game at first but I'm loosening up the more I see. I think at this point, it will depend on how well they can design the combat encounters. Still don't care about "cinematic" crap but the gameplay seems like it could be there.

 

[Lacrymas]

https://www.fandom.com/video/lQvPo028/king-s-bounty-2-everything-you-need-to-know

This video gave me mumps.

 

[Mazisky]

I don't remember a game of this genre doing seamless exploration-to-battle terrain based maps instead of a separate "arena".

 

[d1r]

Does Demoness Xeona make a return? I need to know before I am going to buy it.

 

[Mazisky]

Does Demoness Xeona make a return? I need to know before I am going to buy it.

Nope. Previous games were made in an era where developers still had a dick.

 

[cyborgboy95]

Now ain't that friendly? Let's hope both games will be able to stand proud alongside the good installments of Heroes of Might & Magic.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.gamebanshee.com/news/125137-king-s-bounty-ii-previews-2.html

WCCFTech:

Part of what will truly set King's Bounty II apart from previous entrants in the series is the location of combat. I'm not sure how much scope you will have, within the third-person RPG part, to lure enemies into different locations, maybe even ambush them at selected points, but for the first time in the series, the area of the map you meet an enemy is where you will fight them. It seems strange to have to promote, but it's a big change for the series, and it should help increase immersion.

When you meet somebody in a castle, begin a fight, you expect to be in an area with high ground and other obstacles to consider. This will increase the tactical aspects of King's Bounty II a great deal. At least it should. You'll judge the area you're fighting in and choose the units needed for that fight. A large variety in altitude and only narrow passes? Get your ranged units out. A lot of open space? Melee and others, giving you a chance to flank and pin down your enemies. It expands the level of tactics the game has featured in a limited way in the past.

RPGamer:

Between combat, the game plays much like other third-person open-world RPGs, complete with plenty of sidequests, areas to explore, and loot and resources to collect. The game map looks fairly large, and players have access to a horse for quicker travel between areas as well as a number of fast-travel points. Choice will play a large part in many of the game’s quests, with players often given multiple ways to proceed, which will result in different outcomes and different opportunities in future. Though the main quest and its conclusion is largely the same, the game encourages multiple playthroughs not only through the choices in sidequests but how the different protagonists play. Some quests even have different potential solutions based on which protagonist is being played.

TheXboxHub:

King’s Bounty II can be split into wildly different loops, and during this second presentation we got a decent look at both; world exploration and tactical turn-based battles.

During the open-world sections, the team at 1C Entertainment cited such examples as Fable, The Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect as examples they are trying to emulate. We were introduced to one of the three main playable characters in King’s Bounty II, Aivor. Each of these main characters plays vastly differently, and the word replayability was batted around in order to get the most out of King’s Bounty II.

 

[IDtenT]

Nobody posted the last Dev Diary

 

[Ontopoly]

Not sure how I feel about leveling up individual units. I liked to toss them aside wherever I see something new rather than feel committed to one unit.

 

[fantadomat]

Not sure how I feel about leveling up individual units. I liked to toss them aside wherever I see something new rather than feel committed to one unit.

That was actually in the warriors of the north game. Maybe in the princess one too,but i don't remember for sure. If it is like in that game i see nothing wrong with it,it was pretty good addition. It made you play more tactical and conserve your good units.

 

[Ontopoly]

Not sure how I feel about leveling up individual units. I liked to toss them aside wherever I see something new rather than feel committed to one unit.

That was actually in the warriors of the north game. Maybe in the princess one too,but i don't remember for sure. If it is like in that game i see nothing wrong with it,it was pretty good addition. It made you play more tactical and conserve your good units.

Only one I've replayed was the legend so I wouldn't know about that. Never played Warriors of the North though.

 

[fantadomat]

Not sure how I feel about leveling up individual units. I liked to toss them aside wherever I see something new rather than feel committed to one unit.

That was actually in the warriors of the north game. Maybe in the princess one too,but i don't remember for sure. If it is like in that game i see nothing wrong with it,it was pretty good addition. It made you play more tactical and conserve your good units.

Only one I've replayed was the legend so I wouldn't know about that. Never played Warriors of the North though.

I recently replayed them all while listening to horrorbabble,and must say that that i like it the most after legends. It has some pretty good things in it and it is fun to play. Tho all of them have game breaking bugs that you have fix yourself in a way.

 

[Lacrymas]

I recently replayed them all while listening to horrorbabble,and must say that that i like it the most after legends. It has some pretty good things in it and it is fun to play. Tho all of them have game breaking bugs that you have fix yourself in a way.

People usually say Warriors of the North is the worst of the bunch. Why do you think it's good?

 

[fantadomat]

I recently replayed them all while listening to horrorbabble,and must say that that i like it the most after legends. It has some pretty good things in it and it is fun to play. Tho all of them have game breaking bugs that you have fix yourself in a way.

People usually say Warriors of the North is the worst of the bunch. Why do you think it's good?

Hmm don't know,had the most fun. The balancing is pretty good,the new faction have interesting units and the runes add to the combat,have good encounters,it is big but fun to explore,there is good diversity in the enemy,the levelling is pretty good and the units levelling does add up. The worst is downright the last one,the undead garbage,the princess have the worst balance and it is pretty short and very repetitive,was the most bored with her. People repeat what they have heard like parrots and it creates such an impression. Also most people are retards that don't have personal opinions of value. The codex does have a parroting problem,a lot of people here just try to fit in and not look like outsiders that don't know jack shit. They just repeat this game is good,this game is shit,without even playing them let alone having a valid opinion.

 

[InspectorRumpole]

The original and Princess were the best as far as I remember (it's been over 10 years).

I remember being disappointed with the units in North, and I don't remember the undead thing at all.

 

[fantadomat]

The original and Princess were the best as far as I remember (it's been over 10 years).

I remember being disappointed with the units in North, and I don't remember the undead thing at all.

Same here,till i replayed them back to back,the princess one was really not fun to play,had more fun with the north warriors.

 

[santino27]

Definitely enjoyed the original the most. Will have to play North again and see if I like it. Honestly, a bunch of them all kind of run together in my memory.

 

[fantadomat]

Definitely enjoyed the original the most. Will have to play North again and see if I like it. Honestly, a bunch of them all kind of run together in my memory.

Yeah,that exactly. They are all the samemy,you could say that it is a single game. And yeah legend was the best.

 

[cyborgboy95]

https://www.pcinvasion.com/kings-bo...JXTDn8Db5GooP6oJ8FbnUrZcP4jDeYRgvDYxfrWZ0avqo

King’s Bounty II preview — A promising bounty
A bounty of information.
By TIM MCDONALD June 3, 2021

You might think I’m in denial about my age, but dammit, I’m not old, even if this King’s Bounty II preview makes me feel that way. The original King’s Bounty — one of the important precursors to army-raising tactical-strategy-’em-up Heroes of Might & Magic — came out in 1990. It’s 31 years old, everyone, and I spent way too much time playing it.

I also spent way too much time playing its 2008 spiritual successor, King’s Bounty: The Legend (hell, I reviewed it), and that game’s own sequels. And now, after those six-ish games (depending on how you count them) we’ve finally got… King’s Bounty II? Yes. King’s Bounty II.

Spoiler

Wait, King’s Bounty II?
Yeah, that was my reaction too. I asked 1C Entertainment’s CEO Nikolay Baryshnikov why this is something they consider the sequel to the original King’s Bounty, and not a sequel to the The Legend successor series, or its own thing.

“At some point, we decided that we needed to get back to series roots. After all, The Legend is an excellent game, but [it’s] a ‘light reboot’ of the whole series and not a direct sequel,” Baryshnikov told me. “This is a big new step in the series. The natural evolution of all those ideas that its original creators laid down.”

And there are changes and evolutions aplenty in King’s Bounty II. Some are big, some are small, and some are particularly striking. The most immediately noticeable change is to the perspective. Rather than a bird’s-eye perspective, this particular game has us wandering around in full third-person view as whatever hero we choose.

Big strides
In that respect, King’s Bounty II resembles a modern-day CRPG (computer role-playing game) rather than the army-building tactical strategy RPG it actually is. You roam in third-person, perhaps mounting your horse to speed up travel. You talk to people with gold exclamation marks above their heads, accept quests, and explore and fight through the world at your leisure.

It’s not a pure open-world game, although other developers might call it as such. Baryshnikov described it as a “corridor world” — it’s huge and there are plenty of paths to go down in whatever order you choose, but you can’t roam anywhere you like. In the segment I saw, this is hidden pretty well: you’re not glued to roads and there are off-the-track places to visit, and anything blocking you from wandering off tends to feel quite naturalistic, whether it’s a cliff, a bridge wall, or a thicket.


Probably not the expected perspective.

This giant, fully 3D world also plays into the combat. When one of the many turn-based battles starts, it starts at that location. The place in the world is divided into hexes, and all the landmarks that were around you are part of the battlefield. Further elements like high ground and line of sight are incorporated into this, and so too is the environment itself. If you’re fighting in a wide-open field then you can expect the battleground to be quite large, suggesting you might want lighter, quicker units than if you’re fighting in the close confines of a dungeon.

An idealistic vision
But possibly the most intriguing thing to me is the Ideal system. This is kind of like King’s Bounty II‘s equivalent of a talent tree, but it’s also combined with its morality system.

There are four Ideals: Order, Anarchy, Power, and Finesse. Each of these has its own talent tree, but perhaps more importantly, each is also tied to how you finish quests and how your character develops. Quests have multiple paths and multiple outcomes, and your rewards are very precisely tied to these.

As an example, let’s say you’re dealing with bandits. If you side with the villagers and fend off the bandits, then you’ve finished the quest in an Order way. You’ll get talent points to spend in the Order tree, which will tend to boost units related to that Ideal. On the other hand, if you side with the bandits, you’ll get Anarchy points instead. From the sounds of it, the way you choose to finish quests will also tie into the units you’ll be able to unlock and recruit: if you want to grab yourself some undead units, you’re going to have to side with the undead at times. Not necessarily a “bad” thing either, as undead aren’t inherently evil.



Ideal level of replayability

But what pushes this a step further is that the Ideal doesn’t just shape your character in a mechanical sense, but in a more personal sense. If you spend hours upon hours doing nothing but good deeds and becoming a paragon of Order, you’ll actually lose access to the ability to finish quests in an Anarchy way. Your character can’t just turn around and go “Actually, I’m going to side with the bandits now” if they’ve done nothing but good deeds up until then. You could see this as taking away from player agency, but I actually rather like the idea of my decisions having far-reaching repercussions in exactly this manner.

And, naturally, the world itself and the challenges you face will be impacted by this. Anarchy characters might be able to talk their way past a bandit leader everyone else has to fight, while a character who finished an earlier quest in a particular way might get some unexpected assistance in that battle.


Anything that’s not a Blight creature can be recruited, be it a soldier, a zombie, or a dragon.

With all of that said, you’re not locked to one Ideal, and your character isn’t going to start refusing your choices immediately. Apparently you have to go quite far into a tree before that starts happening. You can also mix-and-match to create a kind of subclass of your own; while things like Order and Anarchy oppose each other, you can certainly pick up a few points in each, and you can heavily invest in, say, both Anarchy and Finesse.

Combine this with the varied units you can pick up, the ability combinations and interactions, and the three characters you can choose from to start with — each of whom is an actual character with a history in the world, unique methods of solving quests, and their own strengths and weaknesses — and there’s a lot of potential for varied playstyles and replayability.

“All three [characters] have a different class (warrior or mage, for example), other starting special abilities (some of them can cast spells, some cannot, etc.), and yes, all of them can be pushed more towards certain Ideals,” Baryshnikov explained. We only saw the warrior Aivor, who, Baryshnikov says, “is a great warrior and natural leader with middling magical abilities, but inexperienced in warfare. He’s able to recruit the largest amount of units in the shortest amount of time. One of his important starting non-spell skills, for example, increases all of his units’ XP for winning battles by 10%.”


All of that said? Yeah, you’re still taking turns to battle it out over hexes.

Bountiful prospects
All of which sounds absolutely bloody fantastic, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t have much in the way of worries about the tactical combat, as 1C has generally done a solid job with the King’s Bounty games it’s pushed out before. The Ideal system sounds… well, ideal, and the tweaks it brings to the traditional RPG formula are something I’m eager to experience.

Ideals do bring about one of my concerns, though, which is that if I’m going to care about questline resolutions and the evolution of my character then solid writing and voice acting are going to be essential. I’d like to care about this world and these characters as much as I care about cracking skulls on the battlefield. At this point, I have no idea how well this’ll work; most of the gameplay I saw was more concerned with the combat and the Ideals, which is fair enough.


Also, it looks lovely.

As a King’s Bounty veteran, one other possibility occurred to me: is it possible to fall into a death spiral where you run out of troops and gold and simply can’t progress? Baryshnikov reckons so, and explained as much when telling me about units.

“Everything can be purchased if you have enough gold and leadership, but yes, anyone can fall into a death spiral where you don’t have the gold to hire new troops,” he said. “So, oversee your spending before making the next move.”

In short, keep some backup saves handy, especially before big fights. But regardless of my concerns, I haven’t seen much that actually worries me. Planning ahead and taking fights carefully should be natural to veterans of this genre.


I’m not quite sure what’s going on here, but if it gets me more powerful units I’m all for it. Vampires, please.

And alright, fine. Maybe I am old. But at least that means I can hope some of the old tricks still work, because a nice big army full of undead that replenish their ranks as they slay their foes would give me quite a leg up.

King’s Bounty II is due out on August 24.

 

[cyborgboy95]

 

[cyborgboy95]

King’s Bounty 2’s Witcher-like open world is great for its tactical combat
The turn-based battles could use some tuning, but there's promise in this sequel

It’s been nearly seven years since the last King’s Bounty game. In that time developer 1C Entertainment has gone back to the drawing board with the aim of overhauling and reimagining the beloved fantasy series for a new and modern audience. Their plan? Combine the tactical combat of 2007’s King’s Bounty: The Legend with a Witcher 3 style open-world adventure. The result, King’s Bounty II, shows glimmers of promise, but struggles to make the most of either inspiration.

I played through most of the preview build twice, each time with a different character. Aivar is your stock mercenary fighting man; gruff, grumpy, and adept at punching his problems away. Katharine is a sharp-witted noble, as deft in arcane magic as she is at delivering one-liners. My journey through this small slice of King’s Bounty II only provides a limited amount of exploration and problem-solving scenarios that are specific to these characters. Anything that requires magic to bypass – having to interact with a rune for example – is out of the question for Aivar. For the most part though, both characters are free to navigate situations however they see fit.

The main story doesn’t really grab me. It’s a hodgepodge of magical prophecies, political intrigue, and impending doom, and you’ll no doubt have seen versions of all of these things before. With the exception of some choice NPCs, the wooden voice acting and bland writing doesn’t make investing in this heroic quest particularly tempting. You hit the same plot beats no matter which main character you choose, and NPCs treat every character the same way.

Side quests are abundant, as seemingly every town guard and pauper has something to ask of you. These jaunts tend to introduce the best characters, but also feature the most absorbing storytelling. A couple of my favourite side quests involve chatty skeletons – one was a mage who had a magic mishap, the other was a child who was a victim of a terrible crime – which speaks to King’s Bounty II’s potential to flesh out the world of Nostria with interesting stories.



Nostria itself is gorgeous. Its epic fantasy inspirations are clear and present in the massive, Tolkien-esque structures that dominate the skyline, and the swampy blighted zones reminiscent of that scene in The Neverending Story. Living in the shadows of huge elven mage towers are poor peasants in threadbare clothing, grouped in little villages just trying to get by. The frosty forest of the Albian Highlands and the rolling plains of the Crown Lands are both nuanced and complex maps with lots of interconnected paths and points of interest.

All that said, you’re pretty limited in how you explore this beautiful world. Disappointingly, very few doors can be opened, and you can’t climb up ledges. Besides trotting down winding paths to get to each destination, you can warp from fast travel points, but it feels very linear and direct for an open world game.

The turn-based strategic combat is very reminiscent of King’s Bounty’s spiritual spinoff, Heroes of Might and Magic. Each unit, yours included, is a squad full of individual members that make up a cumulative health and strength total. Your character watches sternly over the battlefield in a leadership role, casting supporting spells to buff or damage units. Both characters can use magic, but Aivar can only use disposable scrolls, while Katharine can cast spells until her mana pool is empty.

Spoiler

It takes a bit of time to navigate all of the information on the HUD at any given time, and even then I wish some key details were clearer. An indicator to tell me if my archers will have line of sight on the enemy in their new location before moving them is a frustrating omission.

Despite some fights that I’m able to steam roll, many of the battles in King’s Bounty II require a lot of trial and error to beat. Enemy units always seem to know how to efficiently exploit your weaknesses and show absolutely no mercy when doing so. In the early stages of a battle any small slip up can be the domino that brings your whole ploy crashing down. With time you start to identify which of your units can make the most out of any given encounter and act accordingly, but the slipway to competence is pretty steep.

Since battles feel like they can be won or lost based on how you set your army up, King’s Bounty II at least gives you the enemy army list before you engage. Mercifully, you can opt out of a fight too, giving you a moment to reshuffle your troops or return to the fight another time.



If you do lose the fight, it isn’t game over, but it does suck. A loss sends you back to the adventure screen without any of the friendly units that died during the battle. This is a curse in disguise. Initially it seems like a fresh opportunity to raise a new army and try again with some revised tactics, but the opportunities to do so become slimmer and slimmer with each loss. Units are expensive, and there are really only three ways to get gold: completing quests, winning battles, and selling loot. The first two are often connected and can thus be exhausted, meaning if you’re stuck on a particular battle the only way to get stronger is to plunder every barrel, backpack, and unturned rock for trinkets that can be sold. And if you’re really stuck then eventually you’ll run out of loot to plunder, too. At some point, you’ll run out of the ability to continue, even if it seems like King’s Bounty II is giving you all of the time in the world to try. Saving often is the only way around this, especially since autosaves are rather sparse.

There is a lot to like about King’s Bounty II on paper, but after a few hours with it some concern is creeping in. The commitment to bring a big open world adventure to the turn-based strategy games space is one they get right in form, but not always in function. The bread-and-butter combat is rewarding if you have the patience to weather its steep learning curve and are willing to work around some of its chokepoints, but it can be a devastating challenge for all but the most determined strategy gamers.

The King’s Bounty II release date is set for August 24th, , and it’s releasing on PC, PS4, Xbox One, and Switch.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/kings-bounty-2/witcher-3-open-world-strategy

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/kings-bounty-2-pc-preview

King's Bounty 2 is a better tactical battler than it is an RPG
I'd prefer a Snickers




Throughout my early playthrough of 1C Entertainment's upcoming tactical RPG King's Bounty 2, I couldn't help but think of CD Projekt Red's Witcher 3. Sure, King's Bounty 2 is an RPG that's shaped by turn-based tangos on hexagonal grids rather than the familiar, third-person adventure mould we know and love, but everything from its world and atmosphere to its exploration and dialogue feel very much inspired by Geralt's high fantasy japes. That, and I'm pretty sure the voice actor behind Geralt's smooth dialogue, Doug Cockle, has also lent his vocal tones to a bloke in King's Bounty 2, compacting the comparison even further.

Of course, stacking up any RPG against CD Projekt Red's juggernaut probably isn't going to turn out too favourably for the stackee, so perhaps the comparison is a little harsh, especially when the bulk of King's Bounty 2 - its turn-based, tactical battles - is clearly doing something very different to Geralt's witchering quests. Nevertheless, the RPG element of King's Bounty 2 feels a bit lacking by comparison. When Geralt talks to a cursed tree with that lovely voice of his, you just know it's about to spiral into a complex, emotional side-quest with repercussions that'll ripple throughout the story. In King's Bounty 2, on the other hand, you'd either speak to the tree or snap all of its branches in two. Those are your only options.

I think it depends on what you value most when approaching a game that straddles two genres like this. At the start of King's Bounty 2, you get to explore the world as one of three starting characters. I opted for the warrior: a typical-looking knight fella with brown stubble and a weathered jawline. Unlike the game's combat, adventuring is done from a third-person perspective, and it's actually rather pleasant. The medieval-inspired world is suitably, well, medieval. Early on, there are snow-covered pine trees and log huts and rocky ruins off the beaten track. Later, a walled city with cobbled paths strewn with hay and barrels of beer outside taverns. While not stunning, they're nice spaces you can see on foot, or trot between on your faithful steed.

A compass at the top of the screen will guide you towards the all-important vendors and quest markers. Alas, it's this questing element of King's Bounty 2 that currently feels the weakest. At one point, for example, three beefy golems blocked my path, and the options available to me were either fighting them, or finding another way to pass them by peacefully. I tried to speak to a mage up the road who might be able to help me out, but it simply wouldn't let me. Turns out I had no choice because I'd chosen the "power ideal". There was no option to persuade them, or play tricks on them, or anything like that.


Stats like Unit Speed determine the number of hexes they can cross in one turn. And other stats like Initiative decide turn order, which is shown on the numbered flags.

I found this odd for an RPG that gave me options in the first place. Like Mass Effect, the decisions you make are marked down as Anarchy, Order, Power, or Finesse by an external processor that hums away in the background. Depending on what you choose the most, that's how the game categorises your character. Since I'd gone down the Power route at this point, any other options I might have pursued simply weren't available to me. As time passes, you'll become committed to one of these ideals, and actually refuse actions that go against them. In its strictness, it revealed that 'choice' was more of an illusion than I thought.

There are also moments that just feel plain silly. At another point, I spoke to this sketchy bloke who nattered about a witch, then just ran off. After chasing him (that is, jogging a few meters into a portal), my character proudly exclaimed, "Now I've got you, marauder! Did you truly think you would be able to escape me?" but the whole thing felt very daft and anti-climatic. Then I needed to figure out how to get to this nasty witch, because the sketchy guy couldn't for the life of him figure it out. In the end, it was just a case of slotting some crystals into holders; a classic. The crystals were right next to the holders, though, which gave off big MMO energy in its simplicity.

Fortunately, the fights sprinkled throughout each of King's Bounty 2's quests are a lot more enjoyable. Before most battles (although not all), you'll stand in front of a glowing yellow barrier in third-person mode as the enemies saunter up to meet you. Step through and it'll transition you to hex-grid fight-land, where you'll need to pick your army units for the job.

Units can be bought from vendors in town, and more can be unlocked by completing side quests, allowing your army to grow as you progress through the story and gain influence. Mine consisted of a handful of swordsmen, archers, healers, and dogs. Eventually, I also got hold of some ghouls and undead archers, but they didn't mesh well with my original human army so gradually fell by the wayside. You'll need to take into account how each unit will get along with one another, because if they don't have the same ideals, there's an increased chance you'll miss a turn.

Spoiler

There's one spell which lets you summon some hulking golems. They're beefy lads who are strong against archers and can club enemies with some hefty blows.

Unit composition is important in King's Bounty 2 because fights are tough, sometimes surprisingly so. Before each fight breaks out, you'll have one free turn to get your army in a nice formation, but even early on you'll be punished for fudging your units' positioning, or prioritising the wrong targets.

Thankfully the nuts and bolts of King's Bounty 2's turn-based battling is easier to grasp, even for newcomers to the turn-based tactical genre. Aside from being smart about where you place your army around the hex-grid (such as whacking your healers to the back, or charging the biggest threat first), enemies have various different types of weaknesses to master as well. For example, archers aren't effective against the undead, but healing magic is, and a lot of the toughest fights come down to picking the most effective units for the battle and ensuring they're in the best position to use their active abilities. Each unit has skills that cost Ability Points, but they'll be much better than a basic attack. Dogs can make enemies bleed each turn, and spearmen can land guaranteed critical strikes.

I should also give a quick shout-out to spells, as they're essential to success. I particularly enjoyed one called Ray of Light which laser beams an enemy unit with an orbital strike. They don't come cheap, as they'll require scrolls and mana crystals you find out in the world or as quest rewards, but they're satisfying and impactful to use.


Pictured: demon dogs before they got hulk-smashed by the golem above.

That said, there are still a few UI issues I hope will be ironed out before its full release on August 21st. For instance, I never really knew if I'd selected a skill properly, as it didn't ping me with a glowing box saying, "Yes, you have selected me, a skill". Even the most basic things were difficult to parse at a glance, too, such as seeing who'd dealt damage to who, and by how much.

Still, beneath those issues there's a glimmer of something good here. While most of its character customisation options are textbook RPG stuff, like the Power branch of its Talent tree offering stat bonuses to mostly melee units, armour and giving you swingy-hitty stat boosts, I'm intrigued by some of the other routes on offer here. The Order branch of the Talent tree, for instance, seems to be based around reducing your Morale penalty, which would mean my humans and ghouls might actually get along further down the line.

Trouble is, my mind keeps wandering back to The Witcher 3. While there's plenty to admire in the battling part of King's Bounty 2, its third-person questing and exploration has, so far at least, left me feeling a bit cold. There's still time for 1C Publishing to prove me wrong, of course, and if you're here for the battles over the quests and roleplaying then this could be right up your street. As an RPG liker, though, I worry that King's Bounty 2 isn't quite doing enough to make it stand out from the crowd here. We'll find out for sure come August 21st.