Enclave

Introduction

Enclave sends players into a medieval world split by a bottomless rift between the peoples of Light and Darkness, and its defining structural choice is playing both sides of that conflict in full: two separate campaigns, roughly 20 levels each, one following the Light faction's fight and one following the Dark side's attempt to summon back a fallen power. Developed by Starbreeze — later known for Chronicles of Riddick and Payday — and published on Steam by Topware Interactive, it originally released in 2002 for Xbox and 2003 for PC. Now sold at NZ$14.75, it holds a large, mature review base of 2,229 English-language reviews, Mostly Positive at roughly 73%. This review reads a substantial share of both the negative and positive samples, and finds one of the sharpest disagreements encountered across this whole review cycle: reviewers on either side of the score divide describe the exact same combat system in almost diametrically opposed terms.

A structural idea that still reads as ambitious

Whatever else divides this review's sample, the dual-campaign concept draws consistent, specific credit as genuinely ambitious rather than a gimmick. One reviewer, with an extraordinary 63,413 minutes logged — over a thousand hours — described the two campaigns in detail: the Light side helping repel the encroaching darkness, the Dark side helping a character named Mordessa summon back a fallen power called Vatar, "both sides fully fleshed out" rather than one being an afterthought reskin of the other. Character variety compounds this: reviewers credit a roster of unlockable playable characters and classes across both campaigns, giving replay value that goes beyond simply seeing the other faction's cutscenes. For a 2002 release, telling the same conflict from both sides with genuinely separate content on each is a real structural achievement, and it's the thing this review's sample credits most consistently regardless of how they feel about combat.

The combat disagreement, in the players' own words

This is the most striking finding in this review's read of the sample: reviewers describe the same combat system in almost exactly opposite terms, with comparable specificity and conviction on both sides. On the positive side, reviewers credit the fighting as "challenging," "satisfying" and genuinely skill-based, with one specifically praising bow combat as "the most developed and fun" part of the system even while acknowledging melee is comparatively basic. On the negative side, one reviewer with 105 hours logged and 109 upvotes — a real signal of community agreement — wrote plainly: "The combat. The core element of ARPGs, the COMBAT. Is the worst combat I have ever seen in an RPG in my entire life." Another described "the entire combat system" as the game's worst flaw, citing an "inaccurate" melee detection system specifically. Both groups are responding to identical mechanics — imprecise hitboxes and a simple, repeatable attack pattern that some read as charmingly of-its-era and others read as simply broken. This isn't a case of one side having played a patched version the other didn't; it's a genuine difference in how much tolerance different players bring to 2002-era action combat mechanics.

Technical rough edges on modern systems

Separate from the taste-based combat divide, this review's sample raises real, more one-sided technical concerns. Multiple reviewers report the game running poorly on current operating systems and hardware — input lag, bugged controls, extended loading screens, and inconsistent frame pacing that reads as a legitimate compatibility gap rather than a matter of opinion. Difficulty spikes draw a similar complaint: reviewers describe the challenge curve as steep and inconsistent rather than a deliberately escalating one, which compounds frustration for players already finding the combat imprecise.

One more point is worth flagging directly rather than glossing over: a review with 884 upvotes — an unusually large number for this sample, and a strong sign the community has engaged with and endorsed it — raises a specific concern about adware bundled with the game's installer by a past publisher, and compares the Steam version unfavourably to a GOG release the reviewer describes as clean. This review did not independently verify what the current Steam installer contains, and can't confirm whether this remains an active issue or reflects an older, since-resolved release. Given how prominently it features in the sample, though, it's worth a cautious buyer checking recent reviews and community discussion for the current state before installing.

Final Verdict

Enclave earns real, lasting credit for a structural idea that still reads as ambitious more than two decades later: two complete, genuinely distinct campaigns letting players experience the same conflict from opposing sides. Where this review's sample offers no easy consensus is on the combat itself — the core of any action RPG — which splits reviewers into camps using almost opposite language to describe the identical system. That's a genuinely unusual finding, and it means this review can't simply tell a prospective buyer the fighting is good or bad; it can only say clearly that a meaningful share of engaged, detailed reviewers land firmly on each side, and that tolerance for early-2000s combat imprecision is likely to be the deciding factor for any individual player. At its current budget price, it's a reasonable, low-risk way to find out which camp you're in.