Review
More freedom, less bite – Styx: Blades of Greed review
by Kim Muntinga
Gold instead of obedience: "Crown of Greed" tested
16/4/2026
Translation: machine translated
Pictures: Kim Muntinga
Since "Majesty", strategy fans have been waiting for a worthy successor. "Crown of Greed" aims to close this gap: with indirect rule, Slavic darkness and a gold system that decides everything.
I wear the crown, see the monster camp on the map and am seemingly powerless. No click on soldiers, no order to attack, no advance. Instead, I open my treasure house, place a bounty and wait. «Crown of Greed» makes it clear early on that power here is not based on control, but on patience, calculation and the hope that others will solve my problems.
This loss of control is not a gimmick, but the centrepiece of the game. It doesn't want to be a classic real-time strategy game. It forces me to change my habits. I don't give orders. I seduce.
With «Crown of Greed», the Polish indie studio Blum Entertainment dares to take this unusual approach, putting an old design idea that has long been considered a niche at the centre of the game. Instead of direct control, the game consistently relies on indirect control through incentives and rewards.
The crucial question here is not how I command units, but whether this system works for hours on end. That's exactly what I've been thinking about over the last few days.
The legacy of «Majesty»
To categorise «Crown of Greed», it's worth taking a look back. «Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim» was released in 2000 and was a minor marvel: a strategy game without direct control that forced players to direct their heroes via rewards. It had charm, depth and a loyal fan base.
The successor «Majesty 2» unfortunately didn't live up to the original in 2009. It lacked the charm of the first game, even though it further developed the concept of indirect control and expanded the campaign. Since then, there has been a gap that various indie projects have tried to fill without really building on it.
«Crown of Greed» is the most serious attempt to date alongside «Lessaria». This is already evident in the first few hours of play. Blum Entertainment has understood the original and expanded it with its own ideas: a trait system reminiscent of «Darkest Dungeon», a dark world with echoes of Slavic folklore and a campaign structure that aims to be more than just an homage.
The gameplay: When gold replaces decisions
In practical gameplay, «Crown of Greed» translates its central promise into a system of brands, priorities and probabilities. I don't decide who acts, but which tasks are attractive enough to be taken on voluntarily. This shift makes the game more indirect, but strategically much more challenging.
Gold does not replace decisions, it makes them more complex. Even if I set bounties in clear gradations - one hundred, two hundred, five hundred or even a thousand gold - it often remains unclear which hero will actually take on which mission. More gold increases the probability, but guarantees nothing. Especially when there are several competing objectives, the system can sometimes seem opaque. I invest consciously and still get surprised.
Recruitment plays a central role. New heroes are not created automatically, but are actively recruited via specialised buildings. Their class is linked to the respective buildings, but I only find out the random hero characteristics afterwards.
In the beginning, these buildings are strictly limited: for example, two hunters from the hunter camp or two warriors from the barracks. These limits can later be increased through upgrades.
Alternatively, I can construct another building, but this is significantly more expensive than the initial construction and ties up more gold in the long term. Recruitment thus becomes an economic decision with a delay effect: I plan not only who I need, but also when I can afford to get the hero or heroine in the first place.
The heroes themselves follow their own weightings. Traits influence which brands they favour, how willing they are to take risks and when they abandon tasks. This logic is consistent, but not overtly predictable. I can read tendencies, not force decisions. This creates dynamism, but costs reliability.
This becomes particularly noticeable when several systems interlock. New recruits compete with existing heroes for lucrative missions, while resources are tied up in ongoing battles and new threats emerge elsewhere. Instead of clear game phases, there is constant pressure to make decisions.
A structural problem remains: Initiative comes almost exclusively from my «intervention». Heroes rarely explore the map on their own or attack enemy stocks without explicit incentives. Especially in the first few minutes of the game, I was noticeably overwhelmed by this because the game does not adequately communicate what it actually expects of me. As soon as I understood this, however, the whole thing quickly changed. The system takes hold, the processes become clearer. Suddenly, this indirect gameplay is really fun.
Heroes between self-will and calculation
Ten hero classes populate my kingdom, each with their own specialities and preferences. Berserkers tend towards more direct solutions, rogues react more strongly to lucrative offers, knights favour safe tasks in familiar terrain. This sounds like clear role models, but in the game it manifests itself more subtly.
Decisions are not based on fixed rules, but on weightings. Traits shift priorities, they do not fix them. Heroes hesitate, cancel plans or choose detours if risk and reward do not match. This gives them personality without making them predictable.
What's missing: The heroes barely develop within a mission. The level system is there, but flat. After a long scenario, my veterans don't feel much more powerful than at the beginning. This diminishes the emotional connection.
Rodovia: a world in the background
The world in which Crown of Greed is set is called Rodovia. It does not impose itself. Forests, swamps, ruins and abandoned villages are clearly drawn, but deliberately unspectacular.
The references to Slavic folklore are noticeable, but restrained. Monsters and factions do not appear exotic, but rather familiar and gloomy. Rodovia does not tell a story about good and evil, but about control, stability and the slow advance of chaos. This fits the mechanics: The world responds to neglect, not narratives.
Instead of an open sandbox, a campaign structures the action. It consists of clearly defined scenarios, each of which introduces new conditions, enemies or economic constraints. In this way, the game gradually unlocks new systems, options and levels of complexity. At the same time, the objectives remain clearly formulated, often deliberately narrowly defined.
In narrative terms, the campaign remains in the background. It provides context, but no emotional anchor. Characters barely emerge, conflicts are hinted at, not played out. The focus is on sharpening the system piece by piece. Rodovia changes less through dramatic twists and turns than through increasing demands.
«Crown of Greed» was provided to me by Blum Entertainment. The game has been available for PC since 31 March.
In a nutshell
A worthy heir to "Majesty" with clear weaknesses
"Crown of Greed" works differently than classic strategy games. I don't give direct orders, but set incentives, and have to live with the fact that not every decision is implemented as I plan it.
It takes some getting used to. The start is bumpy, and the game only explains to a limited extent what it expects from me. Even later, some processes remain difficult to understand, and the heroes develop less strongly than I would like.
As soon as the system takes effect, however, a game flow is created that clearly stands out from other genre representatives. Decisions feel more indirect, but not arbitrary. I have influence without being able to control everything.
The bottom line is that the idea is viable. Not always clean, not always comfortable, but self-contained enough to be remembered.
Pro
- Unusual game concept with indirect control instead of classic control
- independent, dynamic game flow through autonomous hero decisions
- coherent, restrained atmosphere with a dark setting
- Successful further development of the Majesty idea with own approaches
Contra
- Partly opaque prioritization for competing goals
- Low emotional attachment to units due to flat level system
Header image: Kim Muntinga
My interests are varied, I just like to enjoy life. Always on the lookout for news about darts, gaming, films and series.
Review
Which films, shows, books, games or board games are genuinely great? Recommendations from our personal experience.
Show allThese articles might also interest you
5 comments
later