Defender of the Crown

The Good
The atmosphere of the game is so firmly set that the PC version, even though it lacks the bright colors and sound of the Amiga version, is a joy to play and watch. Even in CGA, the subtle shadows in dimly-lit scenes are visible.

The strategy of the game is simple, which is both a good and a bad thing; for those who don't like to think too heavily playing strategy games, it's fun.

The Bad
Since the strategy is so simple, gameplay will occaisionally swing to the side of "hit or miss" -- that is, half of the games played will be long and evenly-matched, and other games will end violently in less than 15 turns.

Also, the PC CGA version's sound/music leave much to be desired (the Tandy version's sound/music is much better, but you need a Tandy to hear it).

The Bottom Line
If anything is representative of "the classic computer gaming renaissance," it's Defender of the Crown. The definitive Cinemaware game deserves to be played by everyone at least once.

The Good
I... guess? the fact that they put a couple extra minigames (the morningstar fight and the castle defense with crossbow). Not the minigames themselves, but the fact that they thought to include them.

And the fact that it was published by Ultra Games, who also published the NES version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which is actually one of my favorite games on the console, so as far as I'm concerned, that's a positive for me...

And... that's about it.

The Bad
Everything else.

To begin with, the original Defender of the Crown, from 1986, was largely a "playable" tech demo for the Amiga computer's graphical capabilities -way, way beyond those of any other computer, console, or even arcade system of its day-, but not much else; the gameplay itself, what little of it there was, was extremely difficult to the point of being almost completely impossible -a common tactic to hide that a game is really very short and/or on around the same level of complexity as the original Pong; see also Dragon's Lair or Shadow of the Beast-. Unfortunately, this NES version is no different.

The controls, like in all the Amiga versions of all the Cinemaware games I've played, are slow, clumsy, and unresponsive. Trying to aim your lance in the joust or walk forward in the swordfights is like playing arm wrestling with the control pad. These are not controls fit for action minigames, which is a problem, because your success in this game depends on your success at the minigames.

Which ties into problem number two; the money balance and AI. You are supposed to conquer territories to collect gold and use that gold to hire an army. But the enemies start right next to the most valuable lands (between six and eight gold every month), allowing them to get bigger armies than yours, more quickly than you can. Once they do, they go into a frenzy and start crushing everyone who gets in their way. Your only hope of success is to get to the southern lands before they do -leaving your castle completely unprotected while you're at it, because in the first few fights you won't get anywhere with less than twenty guys- and hope they don't inconvenience you too much before you can raise enough money; hardly a sensible idea for a "strategy" game. Also doing well at the minigames so you won't have to worry about conquering lands or collecting taxes (just joust/steal the other guy), but that's its own hurdle, as detailed above.

Finally, the graphics and audio are, to say the least, atrocious. The NES was capable of excellent graphics and audio, but it was simply not up to the task of looking like even a Commodore 64 port of an Amiga game, which is the reason this version should have never been even attempted in the first place. And that's about as much as I can say about it.

The Bottom Line
Beam Software, the actual developers of this port, essentially made the same mistake Elite Systems made when they ported Dragon's Lair to the NES. Since they could never recreate the original graphics, they thought they could compensate by recreating the original gameplay, either not knowing, not realizing, or not caring that the original gameplay was barely there and what was there was unreachable. So what they have left us with is a game named after the original that possesses all the flaws of the original and none of its virtues. If you really like turn-based strategy games with action minigames and you must have one for NES, I recommend North and South instead.

The Good
Well the artwork gives a lot of romanticism to the game (despite how the box art might make the game appear). I think the game would have particular meaning to British gamers or those with British roots. Seeing the familiar British counties with the same names, but in a much different time, populated by major settlers, the Saxons and Normans. I see the game as semi-historical and semi-educational. Though I think all the characters are fictional, many of them created by British author Walter Scott (people can debate the existence of Robin Hood). Though the game does have a sort of "magical" feel to it, there isn't any magic or divine intervention in the game, which I think further helps the game feel historical and educational.

Some complain that the game is too short and it certainly is quite short, but it does take a lot of effort to not get conquered by the enemy and I'd also say that the game is perfectly replayable. It's of course quite non-linear and random, something that I don't necessarily like, but I think it certainly helps this game.

The Bad
Underneath the romance, the game is pretty barbaric, even more so in the Amiga version. The game puts you on the side of the Saxons and presents them as the heroes with the Normans as the villains, but the Saxon and Norman lords behave in much the same way, conquering, raiding and besieging. In the Amiga version, which after playing the PC version, appears to have been released semi-complete, you can only complete your turn and continue the game by conquering land, raiding a castle or paying for a tournament (which isn't an option if you've just returned from one). So you're often forced to be a murdering or thieving bastard and attack or steal from people who did nothing to you first! (This issue was removed in the PC version, which lets you "pass" to complete your turn, also unlike with Amiga, buying army takes up one turn.) Another thing that I think improved the PC version was your ability to pass through the lands of fellow Saxons. Even in the PC, Saxons can attack Saxons, but in the Amiga, the other Saxon lords are scarcely your allies. Moving your campaign army onto their land is taken as declaring war.

So there is a "female element" to the game. There are four Saxon ladies who can be kidnapped by Normans and you have the choice of rescuing them. If you are successful, she will reward you with "love" (sex). I will admit that the female inclusion was slightly dignified. I wouldn't say that the love scene between the Saxon lord and lady was sexploititive, the ladies do have full names (not like "Anne, Miss July") and their images appear alongside yours at the start of your turn, suggesting a partnership (I've yet to discover if you can rescue multiple damsels and have them presented alongside you as further "conquests").

I'm very disappointed with the promotional material for this game as I think those who made the game should be. The sexploititive cover art and description make it seem like this is some sort of adult-oriented, highly sexual adventure, when really it's not. I don't think it's much more adult than your standard war game of the mid '80s and I think a child could appreciate the fairy tale element i.e the fictional, Walter Scott characters and Robin Hood, and with practice, perhaps understand and appreciate the gameplay system.

The Bottom Line
So the game is an interactive Robin Hood or Ivanhoe movie i.e semi-historical, romanticized violence. Personally I still like the game, though I think the Amiga version is inferior to the PC.