PC Critic Reviews
Filter by platform
77
Metascore
Generally Favorable
positive
19(73%)
mixed
7(27%)
negative
0(0%)
Showing 26 Critic Reviews
95
An absolute must for RTS players.
86
Strategically sound, with great replay value, but weak multiplayer. [Dec 2004, p.93]
85
The depth of the game encourages players to try all kinds of different playing styles. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that once you’ve beaten the game, you’ve pretty much seen everything there is to see, and the only incentive to go back would be besting a high score or attempting a higher difficulty.
84
It’s a lot of fun, and I found myself falling victim to the “just one more minute” tendency frighteningly often.
84
The gameplay is simple enough for casual gamers to like and filled with enough options for more serious strategy gamers to enjoy.
83
It may not look like much with its dated 2D graphics, but beneath the surface is one of the richest empire-builders around. [July 2005, p.85]
81
It may not be as pretty and as rich sounding as Rome: Total War, but if you want one very extensive game with lots and lots of replay value then give Knights of Honor a try. It doesn’t redefine the genre, but I firmly believe that strategy connoisseurs will enjoy it.
80
A strategic tour de force. The graphics fit the theme and setting, the gameplay is deep, challenging and rewarding, and there’s enough variation between warfare, economics, and diplomacy to suit most players’ personal styles. The replay potential is mammoth.
80
Multiplayer options notwithstanding, Knights of Honor is a triumph of play balance, attention to detail, and a wealth of elements coming together to present a challenging and authentic-feeling simulation of medieval politics.
80
If only the battle portion were better and the management section more accommodating of large empires, Knights of Honor would give the "Total War" folks a serious run for their money.
