Four Hours with King's Bounty 2 Changed My Mind

Let's face it: King's Bounty newer reached the same level of recognition as the famed Heroes, even though eleven years ago, 1C got the timing perfect with the release of The Legend – the remake of a cult-classic that was the original inspiration for Heroes of Might and Magic. At the time, Ubisoft was experimenting with the formula that PC players adored, but we would have to wait a little longer for the ultimate result of their efforts. Meanwhile, the Russians, quite unexpectedly, entered the fray of turn-based strategies with King's Bounty, offering not only a nearly identical combat system, but also an adventure module, which was a nice, role-play seasoning of the otherwise familiar premise.

The success of The Legend, released in 2008, was so big that it warranted another three installments of the King's Bounty series. None of these was, however, a full-blown sequel. Exploitation of the brand was rather an attempt to expand the proven idea with new elements, while maintaining the original framework – which resulted in each subsequent entry in the series being more outdated and obsolete. Now, years later, we can talk about a complete reinvention, which is apparent by just looking at the title – the number two appearing there is no coincidence.

LET'S BE MORE SPECIFIC

1C allowed us to test the same demo we could play on Gamescom, but this time, we had a chance to spend almost four hours with it – instead of just thirty minutes. This enables us to closely examine all the gimmicks the developers prepared, as well as to conduct a preliminary assessment of the gameplay mechanics – even of those that are far from finished.

Surprise number one

After launching the game, fans of King's Bounty are in for a minor shock. The biggest change (not just at first glance) is the perspective. The developers opted for third-person, setting the camera at about the same distance and height as in the recent God of War. As a result, the protagonist takes up a lot more space on the screen, and we're closer to the action. This decision has profoundly changed the way we explore the world.

In previous releases, we had a very broad field of view, which made it easier to decide where to go. There was no fog of war, so we knew exactly which items are within our reach, and which are blocked by enemies. In King's Bounty 2, you just have to go looking for stuff – just like in an RPG.

Exploration is quite an important element of the peaceful phase, i.e. the stage, during which we visit different locations and gather resources for battles. The items crucial for our operations are located in chests which totally do not stand out against the backgrounds. That wouldn't be much of a problem if not for the fact that these chests are immediately marked with an icon on the minimap once they come into our eyesight. As a result, we're mostly focused on the circle in the bottom corner of the screen – if we don't want to miss anything.

That's a rather poor solution, especially since the game also constantly highlights items that are not in our character's direct sight. What follows is that when you're crossing a bridge, you will certainly learn there's a chest at the bottom, right underneath it. The devs should make up their minds and decide whether to give the player such information or not. I wouldn't mind knowing where all the chests are, provided they would visibly stand out against the background. Constantly looking at the mini-map is simply a nuisance.

The pursuit of the chests would not have mattered so much if it had not been for one, small detail. The authors decided to remain faithful to the core principles of the previous parts of the series, where the search for resources was insanely important. Thanks to the objects found in the world (gold, crystals, etc.), we were able to arm and develop our character, which is absolutely crucial for success. I dig the fact the devs haven't forgotten about this aspect, but a slight correction is really needed here. Fortunately, it should not be a problem.

CAN'T GO HERE, CAN'T GO THERE

The way the world is constructed reminded me of GreedFall. While we have an area that we can freely explore, but we can't go anywhere we want. King's Bounty 2 quite often uses all sorts of obstacles (also invisible walls) so that we can't freely satisfy our curiosity. Simply jumping off a ledge, which is a usual thing in an open-world game, can be problematic. I also didn't like the fact that I had to move on foot the entire time. You can use sprint, but the speed of running is a bit disappointing. The devs promise there will be horses, but the demo featured none. So, I had to do away with teleports.

Hey, stranger, stop there! Stop, when the old man implores!

The TPP mode also facilitates the introduction of another, rather important novelty – the interactive NPCs. So far in King's Bounty, the world has been pretty dead – sure, various creatures roamed the lands, but usually any contact with them led to conflict. The world here, on the other hand, is simply alive, and the characters we meet may be simple farmers, merchants, or leaders that can grant access to additional units.

We can interact with all these creatures (don't forget – it's not just humans in this universe), and this leads to the next interesting addition – the dialogs. The devs got rid of walls of text (that were of rather poor quality, let's be clear about that), which always described the encounters with those characters that didn't just want to kill us on the spot. Instead, we're getting dialogs, baby. Interlocutors willing to exchange opinions with our brave warrior may also want to give them a variety of tasks designed to help us develop the character.

The quests in the demo may have not been astonishingly exciting (mostly running simple errands), but they definitely introduce more freedom than the old solutions. They also allow establishing characters important for the story, which is kinda important in an RPG.

Chaotic good

The advantage of adding typical quests can be seen in another aspect – the development of the hero. The authors offer interesting solutions, reminiscent of the Mass Effect series, where the decisions of the protagonist are rewarded with rep points. Unlike the adventures of Shepard, we don't have two main choices, but rather four, which can lead to interesting outcomes. I'll give you a small example. I have obtained an item that was very much desired by two parties that didn't really like each other. Depending on whom we give this object, we will get points of two, mutually exclusive attitudes. One awards legal actions, the other – vice versa.

Before making a decision, we're hinted by icons informing us about what the results maybe, and thus what points can we get. Obtaining these points determines, in turn, what skills we'll be able to unlock. For example, heroic actions will help to improve the skills of a quasi-paladin, and at the same time, our abilities to develop other skills will be more restricted.

The need to make difficult decisions may turn out the biggest advantage of the RPG module of the game, because it will force us to always follow our philosophy. The skillsets available in each part of the four-piece circle are so powerful in fact that getting a particular skill from one of the trees may become the goal itself. And this leads to important consequences. An opportunist may bury relationships with NPCs, which we normally wouldn't like to screw up. There's a great potential here, and I hope this will actually work in the game.

War doesn't make anyone great

Combat was always an important element of the King's Bounty series, and this is also true here, although not without surprises. The authors obviously aim to reduce the number of encounters and their length, so that battles should only take about 30% of the total time needed to complete a campaign. Emphasis on "only" because that's a lot less than in previous installments. Is that bad? It depends on the point of view. Most fans of the series will probably agree that combat with humans and monsters has always been the best thing about the series, but beating wussies is never as satisfying a standoff with a true hero. Reducing these proportions could bring very positive results if...

...exactly. It was hard to judge the quality of combat in the fragment presented by 1C, because the authors admitted they didn't really work on the balance yet, so every army we encountered was either labeled as "weak" or "very weak." As a result, I won every battle without much fuss. Bearing in mind the core principles of the series, I regularly supplied my army with powerful units, so the enemy troops were always decimated in the blink of an eye.

I also liked the fact that each hex contains a realistic number of units. In his gamescom report, Jacob criticized this solution, but I simply enjoyed it. Seeing the enemy infantry melt away under your fire is much more exciting than watching pawns and some numbers. Battles have become more legible, and you can immediately see who needs to retreat, and who can stay and fight. Unlike my editorial colleague, I also have had no problems distinguishing between my units. While they do look alike a lot, spending a few hours with the game allowed me to comfortably recognize them at a glance. During the initial stages of the game, the management of the army was facilitated by the legible interface (which is very nicely done, I should add), because all of the parameters are easily accessible. There icons of units are also quite large, so that even a complete beginner will not confuse archers with crossbowmen.

I was also pleased with the things that were immediately visible in the interface. The troops have many special attack and passive abilities available. It was one of the biggest advantages of the previous parts of the series – sometimes, you wouldn't opt for the units that were generally most powerful, but rather some dudes who were able to compensate their overall weakness with rather quirky abilities. I'm glad 1C didn't mess things up here, and now I'm convinced they're going in the right direction. The demo offered less than ten units, but the full version of the game is supposed to bring a few dozen in total.

The next thing I was stoked to see was that the devs preserved the rules governing the size of armies – it's determined by the command coefficient. This parameter determined how many units of the given type we could obtain, so increasing it was one of the main goals of our actions in The Legend or Princess. Nothing changed in this matter, so the pressure to level the character up and get new command posts is even bigger.

I would also like to spare a few words about the maps, on which battles take place. They are clearly smaller than before, so setting up your army before the battle is more important now, especially since, in King's Bounty 2, the shape of the terrain will be very important. Previously, mobility was limited by various obstacles lying on the ground – here, the shape of the terrain may, for example, provide cover from archers and crossbowers. The developers have said that the battlefields will match the terrain, where the skirmish takes place, and I honestly have to admit that this is indeed the case.

It's pretty out here

Finally, some general remarks. Visually, King's Bounty 2, looks more than decent. The graphic style evokes associations with both The Witcher 3 and Kingdom Come: Deliverance, although the colors in the Russian game are certainly brighter, and the graphics less realistic. Compared to previous installments, however, the improvement is very apparent, and there's no trace of the fairy-tale style known from The Legend or Warriors of the North. Overall, it's better than GreedFall – I'm currently playing the RPG from Spiders Studio, I should know.

I have already mentioned the really good user interface. For me, it's always an important aspect of the game and it's great that it looks pretty much ready, even at this early stage of production. Bot its design, as well as readability, are really good, and since King's Bounty is a game, where reading the interface and keeping all the stats in check is crucial, this is great news. Again, I will compare to GreedFall, in which interface is not only ugly, but also not functional. In this respect, King's Bounty 2 looks like the best game on the planet compared to that game.

I can't say much about the dialogues, because the game only had the Russian version of voice-over available, and the devs thought I'd have a better experience without any voices altogether. 1C already promise the game will wait for the full Polish language version that for compatriots who like a little toporne RPG from the shelf AA, but it is, speaking in our (I look at You, the representative of gothicowego concrete) does not matter.

Overall, I must say I had a lot of fun. Not everything in the demo version has worked as it should, but it was still difficult to find fault with something particular. A few hours spent with the game convinced me that the development of the project is going in the right direction, and if only the Russians do not mess the core elements, this should be a good follow-up to the famous series. On the one hand, the sequel is diametrically different from The Legend, but still remains firmly rooted in the same premises that once made KB great. I expect that to be the case here as well.