Title Joan of Arc: Siege and The Sword Publisher Rainbow Arts, 1989 Game Type Strategy Players 1 HD Installable Yes Compatibility All Amigas Submission John Burns (firstname.lastname@example.org) Profiled Reviewer Review This is one of the earliest graphic strategy games for the Amiga. Similar to Defender of the Crown style wise, in this game you are cast as King Charles VII. Your ultimate goal being to unite France and establish your rule using the usual formula of taxes, raising armies, capturing enemy territories, etc. Despite the foregoing you actually start the game commanding an Army led by Joan of Arc with your first task being to get to Orleans and crown the King. Only when this task has been achieved can you access these and other facets of the game such as employing spies and the like. Many people raved about and still regard Defender of the Crown as a classic. I, however, am not one of those as I regard the game as being nice to look at but lacking any real gameplay. Therefore, knowing that this game was similar didn't fill me with a sense of goodwill towards the game. First impressions of the game aren't helped when one sees the graphics which were nothing exceptional in 1989, let alone now. I haven't grabbed any screens to check but I suspect that they only use 8, or 16 at best, colours; no doubt a legacy from it's being ported from the PC. However, in the interests of fair reviewing I decided to persevere with the task at hand. Anyway, how often do you get the chance to play a cross-dressing (the reason she was condemned to death by the church) psychotic? The game is simple enough to play using the mouse to select and move your army. However, as you progress you will be faced with other tasks such as defending your castles from attack and attacking towns, both of which take some practice and are harder to master than the similar sections such as jousting in DotC. Actual land battles are in the graphical sense rather comical with both your forces and the enemies being depicted by a bunch of dots which when ordered to attack move like a swarm of ants towards each other. Once again the game won't win any prizes for presentation. This doesn't matter though as the key to winning these battles lies with your decisions on when to deploy each of the elements of your Army, (archers, cavalry, infantry, cannon) rather than their representation on screen. In summary then, this is a game which has the gameplay but is let down by poor graphics. Of course this doesn't stop you enjoying it and having a good time but nice graphics would have been a welcome bonus. In a perfect world this game's gameplay would have been married to the graphics of DotC and the resultant game would have been hailed as a classic, probably rightly so. The question is though is this overall better or worse than DotC. Well, since for me gameplay is more important than nice looks then this game scores well and earns a Yes. However, I must say that the graphics are poor and taking them in the context of those of it's contemporaries then it gains a No and I would have to declare it a draw. Both games being in my opinion good but flawed.