How failthful to Arthurian lore is this game?

[Poganin]

I've always been somewhat of a buff for King Arthur and the Round Table legends, so I thought I'd ask this before buying the game. If it takes too many liberties with the source material, I might give it a pass.

[Necron99]

Um, did you read the game's description? This game takes place AFTER Arthur dies.
Having said that, I'm also an Arthurian Buff and I have enjoyed this game and it's story as a fresh, new addition to the classic tales. There's some great homages and attention to detail in this game...things that follow Sir Thomas Mallory's tales to the letter...with a twist - Balin, (the "Knight with Two Swords") does indeed show up wielding two swords, albeit, he too is now "undead".
The game is great and it's a fresh spin on an old, classic tale.

[Harnak]

Source material? Arthurian lore itself has been reinterpreted many times by many authors throughout the years.

[Ceckard Dain]

Arthur dies. Lady of the Lake resurrects him but in doing so releases a curse, Arthur is corrupt and all of Avalon as a result. In order to save a catastrophe Lady of the Lake also resurrects Mordred. I believe this premise, twist if you will, on the Arthur legend is enough to realize things are not as they seem and all is not well in the land of Avalon.

[Left-Hand Path]

Originally posted by Harnak:

Source material? Arthurian lore itself has been reinterpreted many times by many authors throughout the years.

Yeah, I was about to say the same. Lancelot for instance is basically a fanfiction Garry Stu written by someone who was probably sexually frustrated.

Edit: But if the op likes to see Mallory´s version for instance, there is nothing wrong with that : )

[Ace490]

In general many characters are fairly faithful to their portrayal in the stories, but some have considerably changed due to their death and resurrection. Most obvious example is Sir Ector and his tyrant alignment (I still wonder why Morgana isn't a tyrant after all). However, how everyone is willing to make common cause with Mordred is not overtly well done imo. It is a bit too easy and convenient for every character to just say "oh, dying and what Arthur became made me reevaluate my opinion". There could have been a bit more effort here, but in general the setting and the lore are well done. Only other point of criticism might be the ending. It got all pretty convoluted in the end and to be honest, I just didn't get how Balor fits into all that, what Arthur had to do with him, what the Lady of the Lake's role in this whole charade was (not Arthur's ressurection, but her dealings with Mordred). It seems like they meshed together a bit too many lore elements here without giving the story a consistent ending.

[Ceckard Dain]

Originally posted by Ace490:

In general many characters are fairly faithful to their portrayal in the stories, but some have considerably changed due to their death and resurrection. Most obvious example is Sir Ector and his tyrant alignment (I still wonder why Morgana isn't a tyrant after all). However, how everyone is willing to make common cause with Mordred is not overtly well done imo. It is a bit too easy and convenient for every character to just say "oh, dying and what Arthur became made me reevaluate my opinion". There could have been a bit more effort here, but in general the setting and the lore are well done. Only other point of criticism might be the ending. It got all pretty convoluted in the end and to be honest, I just didn't get how Balor fits into all that, what Arthur had to do with him, what the Lady of the Lake's role in this whole charade was (not Arthur's ressurection, but her dealings with Mordred). It seems like they meshed together a bit too many lore elements here without giving the story a consistent ending.

Not everyone changes due to dying/resurrection. Like the grail knights, Galahad, Percival etc.