Always thought of it more of a strategy game...yet it is listed in the RPG section.
Thoughts?

It's not really stategy game as it almost entirely lacks stategic aspect nor does it have enough RPG elements to be called RPG. Only stategic element is to decide who to attack and with what forces as your opponents are almost all static (there are few groups who patrol set areas but no one reacts your actions). It's more a game with series of tactical battle with RPG elements (think of Heroes of Might and Magic without AI player and you pretty much have King's Bounty).

Tactical adventure. :o

Wait, isn't a tactical rpg the same as a strategy rpg? I'm confused.

Either way, I played about 13 hours of the first Kings Bounty and thoroughly enjoyed it.

To be considered a stategy game would require an opponent that would react to your actions and would try to defeat you. All KB's mobs are just static garrison (with few mobs that patrol certain areas) that only attack if you get too close and they have overwhelming superiority in strenght or numbers (patrolling units will always try to intecept if you get too close I think). Stategy game would also require managing of resource production (either directly or thru control of static production facilities), garrisons, logistics, more than one army etc.

As I said, KB is pretty much Heroes of Migh and Magic without opponent (and no/reduced city/resource management). Cambrey's assestment is actually quite accurate, it's tactical adventure game (with RPG elements).

While it certainly is not bad game, it's not certainly not great one either mostly due to lack of depth. There simply isn't enough new or improved elements to replace the lack of stategic aspects (yes, yes, I do know it's remake of original King's Bounty that also lacked them but still). Quests are mediocre at best, all 'NPC's' lack personality and depth, there's almost no choise and consequence involved anywhere (world should react much more to your actions even if the events would be scripted). I'd have at least wished that rage spirits and pricesses had had more depth but as is pricesses are just additional inventory space and minor magic item (cursed! :-p ie. you can't remove them without 'divorce') and rage spirits are just alternate magic school.

Mages are also overpowered as by mid/endgame I pretty much vaporised entire armies with one or two spells (this was actually good thing as game tedious/mononious toward the end and insta killing most opponents speeded things up a bit). I don't see how fighter or knight (or what ever the two other classes were called) could replicate these feats. Game, mostly due to lack of choise and consequences, also almost totally lack replayability (world is static so there's very little new to discover on second playthru).

Some military type is probably going to correct me, but as far as I know, the difference between tactics and strategy is one of scale. Tactics is how to fight the battle, while strategy is how to fight the war. They're on two different levels, see? And KB only has tactics, not strategy. By "the first King's Bounty", do you mean this? Or the remake? This is only natural, since the original King's Bounty was more or less Heroes of Might & Magic 0.

You're technically right, but you're also being a little pedantic. Yes, it's certainly a tactics game rather than strategy if we're going by the textbook definitions of both terms, but colloquially both tactics and strategy games fall under the umbrella of "strategy game" when discussing the genre in a broad sense, and when categorizing it under a genre in a place like GoG's catalog.

Well, technically scale could be smaller than KB's world but as I said above it would mostly need opponent that would actually try to defeat you overall, not just in individual battles. Stategy game also generally need fighting over and guarding key strategic locations (cities, forts etc.) and unit/resource production.

Oh and stategy game does not actually need tactical portion at all to be called stategy game. LOL, ninjad :-p. I was sure someone would comment about this so I mentioned it in my second reply. While this is true, they really should have extended the adventure/RPG/tactical parts far more as it's now just that, HoMM without stategy

Oh I forgot about the AMIGA King's Bounty. Yea, I played that too, but that wasn't what I was talking about. They consider "Armored Princess" the sequel to vanilla King's Bounty. WOW the quoting on here is broken.

In a way similar to HoMM

I would classify as strategy, role-playing, fantasy, turn-based

A true classic, better than the original game imho. Not having to pay armies isnt missed but not having a time limit on the game is. Worth triple the listed price here.

I personally consider it an RPG with strategic elements.

You control a character who levels up. You do quests for experience and gold. Some quests have multiple options for solving. You get loot from enemies. You explore a world of NPCs, leaving the tough ones alone until you level enough to slaughter them with few losses.

I think the fact that the player is prancing about with a group of units that have their strengths and weaknesses makes it seem like it's a strategy game, but this also happens in RPG games. Should Baldur's Gate be considered a strategy game as well? There is a tactical approach when doing combat in all of these party based games, but mostly it's all about leveling up your character and beating groups of mobs you go and pick a fight.

In most strategy games, the AI is massing an army and moving against you. Sit around in your base and someone always comes knocking on your door. That doesn't happen so much in RPG's

Neither of these should be used to define the genre of the game, at least not mechanics-wise. Pokemon is very different than Final Fantasy IX is very different than Final Fantasy XII is very different than The Last Remnant, but yet, they are all jRPG's.