Comments on: Wot I Think: King Arthur

By: free business advertising

free business advertising — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 07:01:07 +0000

This is a good idea. We must have a transparency government in every country. We need to know what our government do within politics world and we need them to make a report to all citizen.

By: UK_John

UK_John — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:43:21 +0000

Agree with DK. Patches have cleared almost all the problems – you really think Creative Assembly would have made a patch where a menu item would be added to make archers less powerful? I would rather have a game like this that needs patches than get another of those boring unreal engine built corridor shooters that are so si9mple and shallow they rarely need patches!

This is a company with 1% of the funding of a Creative Assembly, let alone a SEGA,and yet it has manged to produce a gem, in my opinion!

This is a deep game. The manual HAS to be read, and you have to think about what you are doing! Also, like all great games of old, if the opposition is too strong, run away and fight another day! What’s with all this re-loading!!! If you had done that in games like Daggerfall, you would have missed a lot of the great features of the game!

Seems too many gamers have been softened up in this multiformat world! Luckily I have never owned a console, so I haven’t got used to playing games where you only need to die half a dozen times in an 80 hour game (Oblivion anyone?!) or where it autosaves every 17 seconds! :)

By: Collic

Collic — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:39:35 +0000

That book is excellent. It was lent to me by a friend. Easily some of the best Warren Ellis I’ve read. Nasty and funny in equal measure, and reasonably accurate from what I’ve managed to gather, too.

By: DK

DK — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:44:30 +0000

Almost all the criticism in that Wot are user error. Archers, for example, are only overpowered if you do nothing to counter them – woods, spells and most importantly formations. A single click on “horde” formation and archer effectiveness plummets dramatically.

By: Railick

Railick — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:45 +0000

I agree the Longbow is certainly one of the best war machines ever made. One of the best attack helicopters ever created IMHO :)

By: Kieron Gillen

Kieron Gillen — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:34:15 +0000

In passing – with all the Longbow debate, I’d recommend the splendid Warren Ellis short OGN Crecy. Imaginative essay-in-comics about the famous battle.

Go gets!

By: Arathain

Arathain — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:59:27 +0000

That’s the thing about plate armour, really. Historically, it was only the thing for a very short period, pre-Renaissance. Very shortly thereafter firearms started to show up regularly on battlefields, which made plate obselete fast- the cost of an arquebus (or whatever early variant) and the training of a peasant was vastly less than letting a rich noble in hugely expensive custom tailored plate get shot by one.

Plate armour survives in our minds because it typically looks fabulous, not because it played a big part in history.

By: mujadaddy

mujadaddy — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:20:05 +0000

One thing that was somewhat off-putting to me when I watched the Dev Guide trailers (last week?) was the fact that all these knights were running around in full plate, hundreds of years before that was the style.

Agincourt was around 1400…isn’t Arthur supposed to be around 400?

By: Taillefer

Taillefer — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:38:26 +0000

It’s thought the main reason for such an overwhelming defeat at Agincourt was more down to the terrain not allowing the knights to flank the archers effectively, and the knights themselves being disorganised. Knights at the time, of course, despite popular depiction, weren’t necessarily professional soldiers, simply the French aristocrats who could afford the equipment. So they’d charge the English, funnelled in a tight formation, some horses would be brought down by the arrows and cause chaos. Knights would fall over other knights, some would be trampled, the ones that weren’t had to trudge through mud in full armour. Also, archers often drove big wooden stakes into the ground in front of them, so even if the cavalry reaches them head on, they get impaled.

The longbow still would have been responsible for hundreds of kills, but it wasn’t as much of a decisive weapon (in that particular battle, which probably made it most famous) as first thought. Still the weapon of its day though, certainly.

By: Namos

Namos — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:58:19 +0000

Of course longbows are the Bees Knees. For proof, just look up Fighting Jack Churchill, war hero and awesome dude all around.

By: Starky

Starky — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:34:18 +0000

link fail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs

By: Starky

Starky — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:32:17 +0000

Oops forgot to paste the link I talked about, here it is: hhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs