Reviews

• 

  BlackMesaIncident

  Jan 17, 2022

  I am extremely torn about this game, for a few reasons. It's mentioned that the game itself is essentially an indie game designed by just a few guys hacking at something. I love that. Absolutely love it. If I had to guess, I would suppose that our design core was a trio of friends who met in uni in a Medieval History program and they liked sharing their thoughts on their favorite Medieval era games and eventually realized they could formulate their own in their head. And that that formulation eventually became a reality. I think that's way cool. I love that the gaming industry is somewhere that could happen. Now let's talk about the game. This game strikes me as Medieval II Total War mixed with some Crusader Kings. That's fine. Two great inspirations. The execution is an issue. The game lacks overall congruence. It's as if our three designers each had their own separate vision for the game and they all brought their visions to the table and they stuffed in every element they had without figuring out the ways in which they fit together. It's as if they started from Medieval II and then tried to make it more like Crusader Kings, but then also wanted to make the battles more engaged, but also wanted to add depth to the world map component of the game. And because none of it fit together, I found myself feeling like I was playing several different games layered on top of each other. Resources were very bizarre. From the campaign map, you expend silver. But you go through silver like it's water. Your industrial buildings in your cities increase your silver output instead of providing specific resources. But you can "enter" your city for a time and micro them to develop them "faster". I say faster because you end up spending a while in your city directing resources around. When you're in your city, our silver resource isn't really relevant. Your serfs gather food and wood and you use those resources to develop your city. So, for example, you could start with a single unit of serfs and a unit of chickens and an otherwise completely undeveloped city. From inside your city, the chickens generate some passive food and your serfs can chop wood to build a barn so that you can buy more chickens and more serfs. Then build your iron and stone mine. Once those start generating iron and stone (again, in campaign they just give you silver income, but in city/battles they give you the resources themselves), you can maybe build a storehouse. So now you have five or six buildings. These all get upgrades to level 5 which just is a matter of waiting for your resources to keep accruing. Then you may decide you want to prepare an army so you build a barracks and a stable or so and start training units (again, no silver cost). And once you've hit your population cap of 30 and you've upgraded all of your buildings, you leave the city. No time has passed on the campaign map. You've explosively developed your city. And more than that, everything you went in and created using micro could've been bought in the campaign map using silver. Except the amount of silver it would've cost would've been immense. You would've been waiting at your screen for almost a half an hour as your taxes were collected. Meanwhile, foreign lords would come and handily sack your towns. It's an economic system within the game that is horribly broken. I can get over the graphics. I can get over combat being extremely awkward in which I never feel like my units do what I want them to (I guess we could call that realistic). I really struggle, however, to play a game where actions on different planes have completely incongruous effects on each other. It basically turns the game into a pile of spaghetti. The general design needs a pretty serious overhaul. The planes need to come into much better synchronization and also the resources need to be sorted out. I think resources like wood, stone, and iron should be brought up to the campaign level. Food as well, but it could be managed differently because it is perishable. And then silver should remain a resource as well. There's a lot that could be done that I'm sure would be fun. It just really cannot remain the way it is.
• 

  VALIS

  Jun 10, 2017

  Tremendous potential here, but it appears pretty early on given its 0.11 version number and the estimated 10-12 months to completion. The art assets are of a high quality for a sub-$20 game, and the voice acting and music seem rather good as well. Of course, being early Early Access, there are little bugs and glitches all over the place. Unit pathing is rough, the tutorial isn't fleshed out, small graphical glitches here and there, and there's no campaign yet. Standard stuff for Early Access. But what potential! Taking inspiration from Age of Empires, Battle for Middle Earth, historical Total War, and Stronghold, it has a little something for all types of strategy gamers. It also offers two features very important to me in an RTS: high camera zoom out and WASD camera control. With good progress this could become a big new player on the real time strategy scene. Already the activity around this game seems quite high for an Early Access RTS with no fanfare. I plan on playing it for another hour or two and putting it on the shelf for a while to check back in a few months. Here's hoping it becomes something great. The foundation is there, it just needs a lot of polish (and a campaign).
• 

  Svenn

  Jun 28, 2017

  So I usually don't write any reviews but now and again a game does pop up that might need a mention . For the past few days I've played a few hours of this game ( I've never played any of the other games they've made ) . And I have to say I enjoy it. Sure there are a few bugs here and there but the developers are actively working on sorting out majority of them . And not to mention they are active on the steam forums ! I do have to admit the first time I did try it I got smacked by the AI and I was not enjoying it at all. However after a few battles I adapted and actually started enjoying this game. So , is the game enjoyable in it's current state ? For me , yes it is. I see myself playing this game a lot when the weekend comes along and I'm off work... I love how the map looks . The options in the battles , be it defending or attacking . The resource management is great. And the difficulty level is amazing . You have to be ready for anything . Can the game improve ? Yes , some improvements are needed to the UI and the campaign map . More information regarding your army that gets deployed , some details about the AI army. Make the AI actually defend during a defend battle instead of occasionally rushing all his troops to my base and catching me completely off guard and snapping my nuts off where I sit trying to build some resource buildings , funny stuff...:) As said they are still working on the game and it definitely does not deserve the negative reviews it has received at the moment. Looking forward to future updates and simply can't wait ! I will update this review as the updates comes along ! For me the game is absolutely worth the money I paid for it. Edit 13/10/2017: Just wow, The devs have been working very hard on the game and the updates clearly shows it. What an amazing job you guys have done so far. I can't wait to try out the new updates since i last touched it. You have come such a long way since I wrote my review back on release. And i still stand by it. Awesome!
• 

  r_zalan

  Jul 15, 2017

  Hello there! Can you please make "save/load" game option? I like the game, but I really dont have time to play whole day. I need to save the game. Thank you!
• 

  ChoppedTommie

  Jul 26, 2017

  So im not normally the type to leave a review, but after playing this title i couldnt help but want to swing it a thumbs up and a little gratification. This game is attempting to achive something that every classic rts fan asks for, whilst combining a 'settlers' type city build game. As its a unique formula that seems to be working on early access, i highly recommend spenind £14 on this title. You wont be disappointed!
• 

  Maxagaze

  Dec 12, 2017

  You know what? This game could fail. But it wont. You want to know why? 1)Developers care 2)Developers listen 3)Developers work 4)Developers inform And i had a personal discussion with a developer about a previous game that had problem with my pc. I am literally a nobody and yet, he listened and helped me. I do not care if the game ever fails. Never in a game industry, the developers were so much devoted to their fanbase, as much as these. PS. The game has been released, and I was right. There game took a lot of love from its devs, and became as good as I've expected. PS2. Yes, this is a poor review. Its like reviewing the developers rather than the game. PS3. Updated. In the end, I was right. The developers did create a game which is nice for what it is, and that's the reason why it has mostly positive reviews. Whoever is toxic and likes to make cheap ad hominem attacks under the coverage of irony because he disagrees, will get his post deleted. Some of you, might think Steam is your playground. Not under my review.
• 

  Dangleberrys®

  Jan 14, 2018

  35 Hours later... Thought id put in some hours on this title as it has been a while since i've actually bought a new game, reason being I find most games now repetitive & lacking depth. So I picked out a game that ticked my boxes, history, turn based, building & at least a challenge without paying for half a game. I was an avid TW fan from day one, but now it has been poor one after the other since MTW2 & Shogun2, I seen MKW & thought id give this a go, now it is early access but I read a few reviews stating that the developers are in key with thier fan base & recommendations, and they were not wrong! In game I have spoke to the developers & they answer you're questions in full plus more.. great to see, they always keep you updated on everything. So my hat goes of to you all for the great work. The game it's self I am getting more into the more I play, if you are looking for a game that is quick, then this is not for you. but if you are looking for a game that takes days, if not a week to do one faction then this is you're daddy! I'll do a few pros & cons - Pro - Decent graphics & art work, although dont be expecting TW style, Unique game play, to me it seems as if the game is a hybrid of TW & Europa universalis Rome, which is uber to me. Cool interface between map & battle mode. Good tech tree & awesome fort upgrades. Hours of gameplay, very immersive & gives the feel of the era. Good saving system, you just quit & it saves any progress, even if it crashed you are not robbed of progress. Cool boat battles although it's only infantry. Cons - Very limited units & unit information (although they will be add so ive been told, & own faction units) Unit positioning in battle can be annoying. AI at the moment can be pretty predictable & clump up or fan out too much. Tech can be quite hard to aquire quickly, you will need to put in hours to get the benifits of the game. Faction movement is a tad chaotic, Venice like to take out half of England & Scotland lol damn sneaky Italians. Crashing, odd little bugs with units & poor tutorial, I did'nt have a clue what was going on but it was fun figuring it out. Do note that they are aware of most things that need fixing & seem to work on it fast, I took a few days of playing & came back to some nice surprises. personally, if they keep it up... I reckon they have made an amazing game.. well worth the candy for me. Factions - Kingdom of Scotland Kingdom of England Kingdom of France The Holy Roman Empire The Venitian Empire Kingdom of Portugal Kingdom of Castile Cale of Ireland Papacy Kingdom of Aragon Emirate of Granada Duchacy of Bohemia Cheers for the read.. hit me a like if you thought it was useful..
• 

  davebinnc

  Mar 15, 2018

  70 hours down in one campaign as HRE, so time for a review. The game is well thought out, and for early access amazingly stable (2 crashes in 70 hours, both during sieges). As a total war and stronghold (other than 3) fan this is a must have. I would describe it roughly as a combination between medieval total war and stronghold crusader. Some impressions and irritations: Longbows are awesome, please keep them awesome. Same goes for Trebuchets. I don't even bother with battering rams anymore. Speaking of battering rams, a few minor bugs that are a little irritating (but understandable for early access): - Battering Rams sometimes will not attack a gate. They will go close, but not "batter". Maybe 1 time out of 5. - Recruiting mortally wounded troops. Sometimes the recruited troops are nearly all dead, right after being recruited. - Cavalry on walls. After transferring cavalry to my city, they were on a wall and I could not move them anymore (twice). - Healing (new feature). When I "heal" the troops, they are more wounded than before healing. - Useless palisade walls. The attackers just walked through my palisade walls as if they weren't there (only once, I think). As said, in general a super/stable game already. Definitely recommended.
• 

  Herubelegdor

  Oct 11, 2018

  So, another RTS set in medieval times and another early access with a gicantic box of promisses... is it worth a buy? DEVs First of all, it's a very small team of developers but with a boatload of experience. This means graphics are cool but not breathtaking, but it also means the focus is on the playing experience and the features of the game. You'd think this game would move slowly and the developers would only take time ever so often to respond to requests, comments and bug reports. WRONG. These developers really understand the value of listening to the players. I've never seen this level of engagement from any other team of developers! I mean, they responded to all my posts within 48hours and have bug fixes within 2hours of releasing a new update, AMAZING! THE GAME Right now, the game is great! It's a refreshing take on the old, dusty RTS genre and aims to immerse the player into his role of noble, under the rule of a king. Right now the game is really playable, enjoyable and does not have a lot of bugs (thanks to the awesome dev-team) . It's not comletely game-changing yet as it needs to grow a little further to reach it's full potential and re-write the rules for RTS games completely but, in my opinion, it has that awesome potential. EARLY ACCESS So should you buy the game in early access? YES. You could still contribute to the direction the game develops in and you will feel like you're part of creating that one great RTS game as the developers really appreciate your opinion and feedback. Hell, they might even put in that one feature you push for because you've been missing it in every other game! PRICE The game is worth the price already and some sales are coming up, so add it to your favourites and support the game with an early access buy and your feedback and ideas! Let's build this game together!
• 

  floss

  Dec 22, 2018

  I found it fun but some lack of information made it difficult to play. I feel like the experience could be much improved just by adding tooltips with information. Some examples: 1) What is upgrading a building going to do. Sometimes it increases my income, other times it has no visible effect. 2) Attacking a town costs money. How much? Who knows. The only feedback you get is that it fails when you don't have "enough". 3) What does research unlock? I tried researching one thing and it had a list of stuff under it I should have been able to do, but it didn't appear to actually change any of my options. I'm not going to ding the game for this because it is Early Access, but some more info during gameplay would definitely go a long way.
• 

  hollywoodb1

  Jan 4, 2019

  Oh man I'm torn on this one. It looks incredible on paper: Grand Strategy (think CK II mixed with Total War) on the campaign map and traditional RTS (Age of Empires) when initiating battles sounds absolutely incredible. I love Strategy games. In a way it does work, but it gets bogged down with clunky controls, lack of visual unit distinctions and no easy way to control larger groups of units. Gripes: Unit control: you can group units together (obviously, this is a RTS after all) but the camera angle is beyond horrible. You can zoom in and out a few yards, but you're mostly stuck just far enough away to not really enjoy watching a battle, and way too close to survey the battlefield. That said, when you give commands to large groups of units, you are only able to see part of your army. Zoomed all the way out, I simply could not select all of my army without panning multiple times to add them to my selection. You really need to be able to zoom in and out significantly further, I'm talking 100% further, at least further out. This is a strategy game. You have to be able to quickly command units and more importantly, see where they are. As they are now, placing more than 3 or 4 units in a line makes you unable to see the flanks from the middle. Army colours: This might sound petty, but there are currently no color options for your army/enemy armies. Your forces are Red. Enemy forces are blue. This really should be an option to change. Graphics/UI: The interface is awfull, there's no other way to put it. The way buildings are upgraded/dismantled and units are built are in the same menu from any given building, with indistinct images differentiating them from one another. A simple menu like AoE II would have been infinitely better than this. The campaign map is much better in my opinion, but the battle interface needs to be brightened up, have some color variation, become overhauled into an actual menu or something. It's clunky and unintuitive as it is. I want this to be fixed and the devs seem terrified of low reviews, so I'm thumbs upping the game. I think it could be great, it's just horribly unpolished.
• 

  Lord Pyrim

  Jan 4, 2019

  I never leave reviews for games...even if I really like the product. However, I have to break precident and leave a little note for this one. All in all, I am leaving my FIRST IMPRESSION view on the game, since I have only playing less than 24 hours. My first mistake was jumping straight into the campaign, thinking my prior experience with grand strategy games were going to be enough for me to play. Lo and behold, it was not. There are some things that you can figure out, but for the most part, you will feel like you are swimming against a strong current. I was ready to give up, but there was something intriguing with the resource management that convinced me to go through the tutorial. And so I did. The tutorial helped unravel aspects of the game that made me appreciate it more. Learning more certainly helped, but what really won me over are the moderators who had "shifts" in the ingame chat (imagine that, a single player campaign that has access to a chat). They were really friendly and helpful and left a really positive impression. In addition, after going to sleep and waking up the next day, I was greeted with the actual developer in the chat! What this tells me is that the game is a product of love and dedication. it seems that the game has been in development since 2017 and past posts documented frequent updates that reflect player feedback. In addition, it looks like another year of improvements are being planned to better improve the product. Again, I acknowledge the game is a little rough around the edges, but the game mechanics and development/moderator team are top notch. This is the type of indy game I can get behind!
• 

  [Myrm]Fable09

  Jan 5, 2019

  Stronghold + Knights of Honor Pros: -easy to create buildings and armies -massive battles -large world map to conquer -complex upgrade structures Cons: -confusing UI -poor animations -boring repeating cycle of going to each city and build the same sequences if you want to save money from world map mode ( expect to spend 15 mins in each city, town to rebuild the same things over and over again ) -same units and buildings from City Mode costs different resources compare to World Map Mode -World Map is real time but when entering City Mode time stop so technically you can build what ever you want without worry about enemy attacking you, so you can mass out armies and defeat any sizes of attackers before they arrived -Each city need to be built from scratch -Lack of interaction between AI and Human, no diplomacy initiated by AI at all -Transferring unit between army stacks need to select one by one slot and transfer so you need to click at least 20+ times to get what you want, no group up like Total War series Suggestions for developers: -Need AI mode to control and built the cities instead of human players go to each city to build -and gather resources since resources in City Mode is cheaper -Raw material from City Mode should be converted to silvers in real time -Allow people to hunt deers and wild]boars for foods like other RTS games -May be create some bandit camps near the cities, villages so new players have chances to practice building armies and looting -There is river but there is no Fishing ? p/s I paid $18 CAD for this why it said I received product for free ?!!
• 

  randy_baton

  Jun 8, 2019

  Played for 11 hours the last few were tedious at best. I played with both difficulty set to medium and after i had 4 towns i just walked up to scotland and took glasgow with an actual battle where the AI was very poor then walked into every other town in scotland and auto battled it. The AI is terrible it just feels like its consists of select all troops and attack. Every battle is the same the Ai just heads straight for you with all the troops in 1 big mess. I won every battle against m y main army even when the enemeys rating was 1/3 higher than mine. I think this has a lot to do with siege engines being given to high a rating. The whole city building element is non existent Hardly had a clue what was going on in the whole research tree thing Loads of the overlays are hard to pick out and just look a mess. Moving around armies on the map is tedious especially if you have more than one. would not recommend
• 

  InDaWoodsIComeFrom

  Oct 19, 2019

  I would give this game an easy 4/5. For a game that is designed to be oldschoolish, and pretty retro and basic, it is a great delivery. You have access to fight all the battles on the ground (which I recommend doing) or auto resolve them, and replace your troops with coin. The map is very large and there is very many ways to play. The diplomacy, while almost painfully basic, has resounding effects on the nature of the game. You can betray your comrades and conquer your nation from within, claim the throne, then install loyal lords to your cause who you can take money from, and will fight your wars for you. Then comes the challenge of conquering the world. Kings don't typically take too kind to usurpers, usually leading to war on all fronts, and trust me. When you are being hammered with battle after battle, losing men left and right, fighting to the timer to just hold onto your capital or to keep your only standing army left, alive to defend the small villages that supply your much needed income- it truly feels like the 100 years war. You'll fight to take a couple cities, only to be assaulted by waves of armies displeased with your recent conquests. One step forwards, two steps back. It's gorgeous. Wait until you upgrade a random town to make you a LOT of coin, and some French guy will roll in and burn the city to the ground. City Management, is in real time, stops the game map, you can jump into your city, and upgrade it with resources instead of coin, to help fund your war effort, and train troops without spending a dime. Then you can set up your defenses, and position your troops to defend for the next inevitable siege that will fail or succeed against your battle hardened men. Truly a great Medieval war game for someone who loves to fight, grind, build, destroy, lose, fail, win, and conquer.
• 

  Sertorius

  Nov 9, 2019

  With seven hours in the game, I now feel qualified to leave my "first impression" review. The game is clunky. Menus are hard to navigate and understand, the game UI itself could use some work to make it more intuitive, and many of the tooltips fail to provide an adequate amount of information to help you make decisions. Couple those issues with lackluster field combat and a few errant crashes when loading between cities and the campaign map and you get the worst of the game's issues out of the way, as the older style graphics are a nonissue to me. So, expect that when you purchase this game and get into it for the first time. But, that said, you should absolutely give this game a chance if it looks even remotely appealing to you. The campaign map is pretty, even if the mini-map isn't, but the cities -- my god the cities are astoundingly beautiful. As they showcased in their videos, there has been an extraordinary amount of love put into the siege maps. And as far as I can tell from some cursory Google searches, they did take the time to scale some (I can't say all, because I haven't seen them all) of the cities to their historic counterparts. While the army against army field combat feels uninspired, the siege battles are exactly the opposite -- and the siege battles are going to be the majority of the fighting you get into, either as the besieger or the besieged. Rushing units from a recruitment district to the walls just in time to fend off a siege tower as it makes contact is extremely satisfying. And, should they fall, the street-by-street melee sludge fest you can turn it into, just hoping to last long enough to wear the attackers out, is equally engaging. Additionally, there are some mechanics that help you get into aspects of warfare that other games just haven't been able to accomplish. Laying siege to a city forces you to build a camp outside the walls to sustain your forces. You had better make sure you have plenty of peasants and cattle with you too, or you risk running out of food and not being able to recruit more units or build up defenses should your opponent decide to sally forth and attack. The two games that, I imagine, are likely to draw comparisons to this game, are any of the Total War series and perhaps CKII. But don't let anyone comparing them dissuade you from giving this game a shot, because MKW does something different by focusing very heavily on the gruesomeness of siege warfare, and letting you get in on the action at the ground level. The tutorial ran me right at a little less than two hours to complete. It is an interactive little campaign with cut scenes that and missions that help introduce you to the games mechanics in a progressive manner. I say buy the game and play through that. Afterwards, you should have a pretty good idea if it foots the bill for you.
• 

  Cratour

  May 23, 2020

  The games is fun, if Civilization and Total War had a baby, this is it. It has flaws, but it's an indie game made by 3 guys, if your into the 2 games I mentioned, you should definately give it a go. It's not exactly like either of them. Just has a common ground with both, but is it's own thing. Hope this helps your decision making.
• 

  TedyBearjr

  Jul 3, 2020

  Hi Guys, I'd like to start by saying I rarely review games but I have to let people know the good and the bad before playing. As I have seen in other reviews there are people stating this entire game was done by a very small team. For that I must say I am impressed, however, that doesn't mean it will or is now a good game. Medieval Kingdom Wars tries to do too much without focusing enough in any area to make it feel fleshed out. The troops feel clunky and sometimes ignore what I want them to do. If I want them to move onto a wall sometimes they'll get there, other times they will walk up the stairs but then some of them will just walk over the wall. In addition to that, I can legitimately leave a town with just chickens and 2 serfs and will be able to spit out enough troops to defend against a large army early game. The system of taxes and coin in general is done with the idea of a massive empire where you take zero interest with the city mode building. Why would I say that? You, the player, can get around the need to PAY for almost every object be it troop or building. When in city building mode you don't have to use silver to buy things, but in campaign mode you do. So I can build an entire army of hunters and militia using food and lumber. I can go back to the campaign map and transfer all of those troops into my moving army. The only cost to me is the upkeep now. That army will conquer anything thrown at it early game. The cost to create troops should have been the same be it on the campaign map or city map. Therefore, I can't make a snowball army because I would never be able to afford the down payment for the troops.
• 

  sp00ky

  Aug 11, 2020

  MKW is like a mix of total war and Stronghold. It seems like a passion project, because since I have it the devs have pushed several updates for free. It's still not my favourite game and has many flaws. But overall I see many people like it, play long campaigns, and I can understand why. The game has an interesting concept, basically it plays on an overworld map of Europe, allowing for basic interaction between lords. The catch is that you, as a lord, can manage several hamlets, cities and castles directly. When you do this the game suddenly transforms into a Stronghold-like game, (without being as deep in the city management aspect) allowing you to train troops, build fortifications and improving your economy directly. The battles are similar, you basically have to build up your army in your encampent and fight off the troops of your enemy (the size of the armies are remniscient of those of total war), sieges are also interesting, having several ways to defend your castle and attacks those of others. Now for the problems: - Art: You know that the dark ages weren't called like that because everything was dark? well it seems to me that the devs don't because everything is so incredibly dark. This makes a color palette that is very hard on the eyes and it becomes confusing to identify the troops at glance. The overworld map as well has an odd choice of colours, specially for the labels in the map that look like black blobs. - UI: In the UI they went for the skeuomorphism, much like stronghold. The big difference is that with it's flaws stronghold UI is very usable. MKW UI constantly fights you, hiding important information between menues, icons, etc. Everything has been done to add an "authenticity" to it, but it's just not friendly, labels are often hidden in tooltips, there are building icons that are hard to tell apart from each other. This is for me the biggest factor that plays against the game, because it is just annoying to figure out what to do. The devs have graciously added a chat where you can actually talk to them and they will help you figure out, but think about this a minute. How come other games don't need this? The devs could save some time by just reworking the UI to be more intuitive rather than wasting their own time assisting players (as kind as that is) - Sound: This is a mixed bag, the voice acting again reminds me of stronghold, being a bit cheesy but fun. The problem is that they are sometimes very specific and they become quite repetitive after a while (see ProZD "I think the enemy got the point" sketch). The music is a pretty standard medieval theme, which is pretty nice actually, it fits the theme and helps with immersion, I wish there were more tracks because what's there is pretty good. There is also a curious approach to unit acknowledgements, for some reason these are positional. So if you click on a unit, and then move away from the unit on the map and give an order, you can't really hear the unit answering your command! making you wonder if the units actually got the command or if it's a bug. That being said, the game is pretty cheap it has interesting concepts and many people love it for very good reasons, because to put it honestly in a game genre saturated by 2000's remakes and repetitive titles this game tries quite a few new things and overall it succeds. So if you can put up with the things I pointed out, go for it because it is a very unique experience.
• 

  Invicta

  Mar 30, 2021

  Re-edited into something more appropriate. And shorter. The game has charming features. Or not. You should in fact by now, acknowledge that there is such a thing as personal preferences and subjectivity. Seeing how a review is meant to give a person's own take on something, my take is: I like it. Gameplay: people should consider stopping the comparisons between this and games like Age of Empires or Medieval Total War. While you still have medieval-setting houses and troops moving around, being built, or destroyed and such, at its essence, I believe Medieval Kingdom Wars is a resource management game. Assuming you spend as much as time as I did figuring that out anyway. So, if you want something that IS like one of those other games I mentioned, I recommend that you actually go and play them instead of trying to convince the devs to change this game so that it suits your genre preferences better. Trying to convince them to polish it up a bit...that's a different topic. Graphics: this is an indie game. What did you expect again? And I still don't find it all that bad, but that probably has to do with me not minding a certain degree of pixels, considering I grew up and got accustomed with games that were developed in the 90's and early 00's. And still. Not. Quite. That. Bad. Feeling overwhelmed from which button does what and where, that is also a different issue, but honestly, not any different from any other game when you first start playing it. Assuming you bother spending more than 10 minutes trying to figure it out. Reason for negative review: the incessant lying from the devs paired with their hypocritical attitude and an apparent complete inability to tune something they created in the first place, into something that is actually functional. I get the 'being an indie three-man team' and blah blah blah and am more than okay with aaaaaall of that. Watching them doing the following, in order of presentation, I am NOT okay with: Create a mess of a game with a myriad bugs that range from graphic glitches to clicking buttons causing a random crash. Proceed to try and fix the bugs upon receiving a report from a player, or several players. Claim they fixed it while not actually having fixed it. Trying again once or twice, failing to fix anything anyways. As at that point it doesn't matter because the player(s) who reported the issue lost interest in the whole thing and stopped playing, they leave it alone and pretend the bug, or bugs, are no longer there. Someone at some point in the future, reports the same issue to them again. The entire process is repeated all over again. Until the next one. With minor variations here and there, of course. Like that if they see that a person is actually a little more persistent and doesn't lose interest, they start ignoring that person too and that magically makes all of their problems go away. Or if someone calls them out on this behaviour, they naturally, ignore that too. There IS always a lot of uncalled hate talk going on and personally, as I dislike it myself, I approve of their behaviour when it comes to ignoring it. But otherwise, pretending that they care about their community when they basically always say they fixed something while not actually fixing it and just switching to ignore mode when something bothers them until it goes away? Sorry, nope. Not recommended. Being an indie team doesn't excuse the mindset of 'no one will really care enough or make a sufficient amount of fuss for this to affect us anyway, so it is okay just ignore it'.