Band of Crusaders feels like a game I'm going to have to give a second chance to--the preview build doesn't feature any of the story elements, and I really only enjoy strategy RPGs that feature long-form, intriguing stories that make the dozens, if not hundreds, of hours I spend playing them worth it. So as interesting as it was to play a game largely divorced from any of the narrative context and story--something I've never really done before--the experience more than anything reinforced how important those aspects of a game are. When a game is mostly just gameplay, it isn't all that interesting for me.

Set in an alternate history of medieval England, Band of Crusaders sees you take on the role of Grandmaster of a freshly constructed order of knights that do battle against demons. Set in an open sandbox, you must send your knights where you think they're needed most, doing your best to stem the tide against the demons while simultaneously searching for a way to stop the invasion. Each choice can have long-reaching consequences for the ongoing story, as can the outcome of each fight, whether you win or lose. As another level of complexity, there are opposing human forces as well. The in-game world takes in all of this and changes over time, altering individual battlegrounds depending on whether it's day or night, which season it is, or how much the demons have influenced an area.

That sounds really cool, but what I played did not include the overarching story quests, the world simulation that would advance to reflect the consequences of my actions and alter battlefields, most of the camp mechanics (I could only heal or repair armor), and, as a press release put it, "other important features." I clarify all of this because my analysis will make it sound like I'm against this game and think you should skip it when in truth I just didn't get a chance to experience what sounds like a great deal of Band of Crusaders and the parts of the game that will likely make me a fan are all of aspects I didn't get to see.

Band of Crusaders feels like a game I'm going to have to give a second chance to--the preview build doesn't feature any of the story elements, and I really only enjoy strategy RPGs that feature long-form, intriguing stories that make the dozens, if not hundreds, of hours I spend playing them worth it. So as interesting as it was to play a game largely divorced from any of the narrative context and story--something I've never really done before--the experience more than anything reinforced how important those aspects of a game are. When a game is mostly just gameplay, it isn't all that interesting for me.

Set in an alternate history of medieval England, Band of Crusaders sees you take on the role of Grandmaster of a freshly constructed order of knights that do battle against demons. Set in an open sandbox, you must send your knights where you think they're needed most, doing your best to stem the tide against the demons while simultaneously searching for a way to stop the invasion. Each choice can have long-reaching consequences for the ongoing story, as can the outcome of each fight, whether you win or lose. As another level of complexity, there are opposing human forces as well. The in-game world takes in all of this and changes over time, altering individual battlegrounds depending on whether it's day or night, which season it is, or how much the demons have influenced an area.

That sounds really cool, but what I played did not include the overarching story quests, the world simulation that would advance to reflect the consequences of my actions and alter battlefields, most of the camp mechanics (I could only heal or repair armor), and, as a press release put it, "other important features." I clarify all of this because my analysis will make it sound like I'm against this game and think you should skip it when in truth I just didn't get a chance to experience what sounds like a great deal of Band of Crusaders and the parts of the game that will likely make me a fan are all of aspects I didn't get to see.