Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom Review

By Dave McCarthy Published 1 February, 2008

Hellish.

Version tested: Xbox 360

I made a mistake while reviewing Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom. I made the mistake of playing its single-player campaign for 12 hours before venturing online. That's a mistake because the single-player game is terrible, reaching new heights of energy-sapping tedium and ennui-inducing boredom. The story is rudimentary, fragmented, bizarre, and pointless, the game is an unconcealed level-grind, and that level-grind is monotonous and tedious. So for those 12 hours, the score at the bottom of this review ticked inexorably down in inverse proportion to the levels that my character was monotonously clocking up.

As with every review, I started out with doe-eyed optimism, the game's fancy graphics giving me a surge of confidence that remained undimmed by the insanely inappropriate repetitive metal guitar noodlings that make up the soundtrack. Visually it's the sort of impressive that's now standard for next-gen games - the opening woodland level is all bloom lighting and fancy particle effects, and lots of stunning scenic cliff-top views. The five starting characters all look pretty enough, and offer a well-balanced spectrum between slow and strong and quick and light, and the action is immediate - wandering down what are essentially corridors, meeting a crowd of monsters and then meting out massive violence by hammering your face buttons.

'Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom' Screenshot 2

You'll want to switch the blood on or you won't always be able to tell when you're taking damage.

That's pretty much it: the game laid bare inside the first ten minutes. Except that as it goes on, the stunning sylvan idyll gives way to boring clichés like snow and lava levels, populated by one of the most irritating bestiaries in videogame history, full of monsters that are capable of freezing you solid, knocking you over, or bringing their allies back to life. And as the unceasingly simplistic action becomes more and more tiresome, punctuated only by an insipid array of camera-breaking, attritional boss battles, the micromanagement of your inventory becomes increasingly intrusive. That's because it costs something called SP to equip items and weapons. It also costs SP to attack with an item or weapon, and if you run out of SP in the middle of a battle you just have to wait till they charge back up, which means that you also have to equip items that recover your SP. But that means that every time you try to equip a new item you'll also have to come to a new balance of SP consumption/recovery.

Micromanagment aside, Circle of Doom is, in case you hadn't noticed by now, essentially a third-person Diablo clone, eschewing the RTS elements found in previous Kingdom Under Fire games. Heck, even the flaming-lettered game logo is reminiscent of the Diablo II box. There's nothing inherently wrong with Diablo clones, or with level-grind games in general. There is, after all, something satisfying about dispatching wave after relentless wave of baddies. But that satisfaction can quickly turn into tedium unless a game keeps throwing new things at the player. Each new character level needs to bring with it new items, or weapons, or experiences, to inspire further level grinding; each new item needs to be more wondrous than the one before. The problem with Circle of Doom is that mostly the new weapons are pretty rubbish, useful only for fusing to your existing weapon using a half-baked weapon synthesis system, providing barely incremental advances where paradigmatic ones are needed.

'Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom' Screenshot 3

The Balrog is the most annoying boss in the game. Pro Tip: join up with someone who's synthed a one-hit-kill weapon for an easy achievement.

Or so I thought. Then I ventured online and it all began to make some kind of sense. Not perfect sense: while the online experience enhances the game immeasurably, it's still not quite enough to mask its fundamental inadequacies. But yes, sense of a sort. As with any action-RPG, collaboration with a decent party of fellow adventurers makes the experience more enjoyable. In Circle of Doom's case, it also reveals the hidden depths of the weapon synthesis system, as you encounter players who have created super-powerful weapons by canny trading or teaming up with more powerful parties, developing their characters in all sorts of different directions and playing styles.

And so the score at the bottom of this review ticked slowly back up. It had to stop, of course, because, even though the game comes to life online, it is still, essentially, a slightly empty experience. The problem really is that, even online, the only incentive to carry on braving Circle of Doom's tedious environments and simplistic action is to obtain a high-powered character, or a monstrous weapon. Except once you've done that, it renders the game even more tedious and simplistic as you one-hit-kill your way around the same stultifying environments that you've been grinding through. Which, online or offline, eventually gets a bit boring.

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dave.

About Dave McCarthy

Read more articles from Dave by visiting the Dave McCarthy archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (33) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • [maven] #1 4 years ago

    I only glanced through this review, but it seemed quite useless:
    - How many players in an online game?
    - How is persistence handled?
    - Randomly generated levels?
    - ...

  • Darren #2 4 years ago

    The demo was horribly repetitive and I could feel myself losing the will to live as I played it. Looks OK, sounds OK, plays like... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Sorry where was I? Oh yeah, loved the Xbox games but don't like this, I'll wait for the proper KUF II sequel, thanks.

  • jlaakso #3 4 years ago

    No persistence in any way, shape, or form. Randomly generated, mind-bogglingly samey levels. Really, it's just not worth the time. One of the worst games I've played in a couple of years, only outdone by the atrocity that is Pokémon Battle Revolution. It's frustrating, too, because the foundations could have supported a much stronger game, and it's not essentially *broken*, it's just way too boring to bother with.

  • NthSimulachum #4 4 years ago

    Needs more Deckard Cain. And Hoarorardrim.

  • SlackMaster #5 4 years ago

    Was never really gripped by the KUF games... still this has to be better than 99 Nights.

  • Milbe #6 4 years ago

    there is no way to properly review this game. this is _the_ love it or hate it game.

    playing with the right people, it is great fun, collecting, upgrading, looting. for some, it is just plain boring. just try and see for yourself.

    BTW it has 4 player coop.

  • Miths #7 4 years ago

    I was just on my way out the door to do a bit of grocery shopping and had contemplated picking this game up on the way home - even though I had already seen the Metacritic score.
    With very few exceptions I'm not a fan of online play, so I guess this review just made my decision easier. I'll stick to the groceries :).
    Edited by 1 at 01/02/08 @ 14:34

  • Dave_Taurus #8 4 years ago

    Dr_Superb: calling them cutscenes is dignifying it a bit. And they are mentioned in the review (the bit that says, "The story is rudimentary, fragmented, bizarre, and pointless";).

    [maven]: I only glanced at your comment, but it seemed pretty useless to me. Why does the number of players in an online game make any difference to whether the game is fun to play or not?

  • Triggerhappytel #9 4 years ago

    Should have stuck with the strategy/combat mix of the first two. They were good - fucking hard though.

  • Carlo #10 4 years ago

    Shovelware

  • mechamonkey #11 4 years ago

    Please dont be shit Too Human. PLEASE!

  • kangarootoo #12 4 years ago

    Was very disappointed with the demo. As feared, they have taken KuF, removed the great batytle mechanics in an effort to make it "more accessible" and ended up with a souless button masher.

    Yes you could apply slightly more advanced tactics than mashing buttons, but a) it made little difference and b) I couldn't be arsed as I was bored by that point.

    The king is dead :(

  • miiiguel #13 4 years ago

    What a crapy review. Sorry reviwer, but it is.

  • Tepic #14 4 years ago

    I almost bought this today when i was shopping. I am SO glad I managed to hold out until I got home!

  • BillyBrush #15 4 years ago

    the one redeeming feature in the demo was a semi pretty forest and quite nice depth of field effect on tree canopies in the distance

    despite being guff it is still more than twice as good as the excellent TenchuZ though, apparently

    pours one on the kerb for poor old Tench

  • BillyBrush #16 4 years ago

    [maven]: I only glanced at your comment, but it seemed pretty useless to me. Why does the number of players in an online game make any difference to whether the game is fun to play or not?

    Dave, Dave, Dave, a lot to learn, a lot to learn...when mentioning online in a review, noting how many players can play together online is (newsflash) of some use to anyone potentially interested in buying the game. Your review may well put off most people (as the demo will have) but for anyone still interested they may, within reason want to know. Also maybe be nice to the people who read Eurogamer, let the bad comments flow like water off a ducks back, rise above the dirrty throng of internetland

    just a thought

    and if i may critique, 5 mentions of SP with 0 of story, atmosphere, character, design, or 'big swords' isn't great going for this game TBH

  • Miths #17 4 years ago

    Damn, I ended up buying this anyway an hour ago. I went in to get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and came out with both.
    I gotta stop impulse buying games :p

  • Feanor #18 4 years ago

    Just wait for Diablo 3.

  • Dave_Taurus #19 4 years ago

    That was me being nice. You can find that stuff out on the back of the box.

  • jlaakso #20 4 years ago

    BillyBrush: the levels get a lot worse very quickly, the opening level remains the high point - it's all downhill from there, visually. I really lost my nerve in the mansion-level - the camera is just worthless.

  • Krun #21 4 years ago

    why do I still have a desire to buy this?

    Is it because I'm still playing Shadowrun, which got a 6/10

    is it because I actually like Arkadian Warriors which got a 4/10

    is it because I found Halo 3 a which got a 10/10 a tedious halfhearted reworking of halo 2.

    Yes it is.

    Although two worlds really did deserver a 4/10 which was generous to be honest.

    So I'm stuck in this dilemma, I can no longer trust your scores or reviews to guide me if the game has Roleplay elements. Is this going to turn out to be a Shadowrun or is it another two worlds?

  • Aysir #22 4 years ago

    Normally i'd ignore such reviews about hack and slashers. Reviewers often can't quite comprehend the idea that hack and slashing for hours on end can be fun; but Dave knows what Dyansty Warriors and it's ilk are all about. I'm gonna take his word for this one and maybe check out KUF: COD when it goes super cheap. Besides it's only one week until DMC4 anyway :)

  • DFawkes #23 4 years ago

    I try to ignore prices for games, but I saw this for £45 and thought I could have Arkadian Warriors (same grinding with less visual flair, but only 800 points), Rez, Sonic 1 and 2, and Warriors Orochi for that price. I still love to grind, but that's not a full price game. It's a budget spin-off.

    I know I'll still get it though. I can't resist it!

  • spookyzombie #24 4 years ago

    I bought the full game yesterday. I actually really like games of this genre, but I feel that this title is missing something. 6/10 would have been my score.

  • bloodflowers #25 4 years ago

    Not mentioned in the review, but it's also incredibly slow. Just just the graphics (although they are very poor when trying to move), but the play too. I'm happy the demo exists.

  • Dave_Taurus #26 4 years ago

    The speed of the game is slightly dependent on the character that you choose to play with.

  • DFawkes #27 4 years ago

    @Dave_Taurus

    I agree totally. I tried out the Paladin in the demo, and would've give it 0/10 - it doesn't count as a game at all if all I can do is walk towards the enemy, then stand being interrupted before my attacks hit.

    But with Leinhart your swift attacks really change the game and make it okay. Just okay for me, but at least playable. So I felt you needed the fast character to make it feel lik a proper fast paced hack and slash game.

    They usually "forget" or have "technical issues" with demo of rubbish/average games. Thus could've done with that to help sales :)

  • Dave_Taurus #28 4 years ago

    Oh, and the other thing is that, as mentioned in the review, you really need to sort out your SP balance to make sure you can continue to attack at a fast pace.

  • Trikk #29 4 years ago

    Surprise another shovelware for the 360.

  • NegativeZero #30 4 years ago

    It obviously never occurred to them that calling your game 'Circle of Doom' on a system where "Red Ring of Death" is a meme with its own acronym might not be a good idea.

  • Milbe #31 4 years ago

    I find it hard to believe how shortsighted the review is, shame on EG. The reviewer barely scratched the surface by only playing 10 some hours with the game (probably because he hated it from the start).

    The only thing worse then this is how many people judge the game by this review and belive they did the right thing not trying it. Your loss.

    The game is definiately not for everyone, but if you like the genre, it is clearly an 8/10.

  • hiddenranbir #32 4 years ago

    Not surprised at this score. Demo was ugly.

    Why can't they have given a proper sequel to the Xbox KUF games? That was great.

  • RamblinSydRumpo #33 4 years ago

    Boring demo put me off this. Also had bloody awful tearing.

    Nice review Dave. Succinct and well written.