Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
War of the Roses VS Chivalry Medival Warfare
Recently ive been looking at War of the roses and almost bought it but then a friend told me about chivalry. Both look very similar and I am having a hard time making a choice.
Has anyone here played both or one of them and care to share there opinion?
"You have some serious mental issues you may need to seek some help for. There are others who post things, but do not post them in the way you do. Out of every person who posts crazy shit in this forum, you have some of the craziest and scariest" -FarReach
Comments
I actually found both of these Quite Lacking.
War of the Roses has the basic gameplay right, with directional attacks & manual parrying, and well done archery, but in the end it failed for me because it feels like a watered down Mount&Blade.
Yes, there are good things like armor and deflection, but the troll-pony-physics are a huge disappointment. Also, what's with console-minigames for reloading crossbows and what not? The executions & reviving are -horrible too-, not to mention the fact that your attacks are not even interrupted when you take a swing at you, which made fighting all the more tense in Mount&Blade.
And then, Chivalry? Well, haven't got my hands on that, but from the gameplay footage it reminds me mostly of Pirates, Vikings and Knights. Remember that Half-Life 1 mod, with bunny hopping, parrot shooting, circle-strafing pirates and... well, rest of the gang?
Yeah, it was fun when you were a teenager, but I think I require something a bit more tactical at this time in my life.
We?re all dead, just say it.
Never played chivalry, but war of the roses felt like a limited crappy floaty version of Mount & blade.
If you want either of these games, i suggest just waiting for Mount & blade 2 bannerlord, announced recently.
Having played both alot over the weekend heres my thoughts:
WotR -
Hard to understand, but rewarding once you learn it.
Deep Customization.
Battlefield-like gameplay
Deliciously brutal executions.
Sumilationist quality
Terrible tutorial, not much info online.
C: MW
Easy to learn.
Goofy, over-the-top gore.
Great objective modes
Tons of gametypes
Quake-like gameplay.
I prefer WotR myself. After playing for a few hours and starting to understand combat more, I really felt that when I died, I understood my mistake. Thats not something I felt with C:MW. In addition, I frlt a lack of "Oomph" to hits with C:MW. Like I was swinging a pool toy or something.
The real cincher for me was the executions. In WotR, after a player is defeated, there is a short time when they are vulnerable to being rezzed or executed. The execution takes place, for the victim, in the first person. Starting out as you stand over them and kill them. Once it happens to you, you know exactly what they are seeing. Nothing is so rewarding as performing that on a player that has been tormenting you, or killing you repeatedly.
Chivalry in a landslide. Just look at the Steam stats here:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Chivalry had 7378 peak players today while WotR didn't make the top 100 which today would have required at least 700 concurrent players.
At several points during the Steam sale, Chivalry shared the top 4 spots with Skyrim, Borderlands 2 and Dishonored. They were all at 50% off.
Chivalry 4975 Steam recommendations
WotR has 1800
This is a classic example of superior gameplay trumping superior graphics. Not that Chivalry is bad looking, I think it's perfectly fine.
I play both, but prefer Chivalry. The only thing that Roses beats Chivalry on is customization, and that's coming soon. Chivalry can get repetitive if you only play team death match or free for all, but the objective matches beat anything that Roses has, hands down. It always gets my heart pumping and has me yelling at my screen while leaning way back in my chair trying to avoid the sword coming for my throat.
My first experience with the objective match had us storming a small village, killing the filthy peasants, and burning down their houses while the other team tried to defend. Once all peasants were killed, we had to push a battering ram up to the gates of a castle while the defenders fired ballistas, streamed from archways we couldn't reach, and poured boiling oil on our heads to keep us from using the ram. Once the gates were beaten down, we stormed into the castle interior to kill the king, which the game chooses at random from the defending team, while the rest surround him or take defensive positions.
Next map started in a forrest, which completely changed the battle tactics. Having to fight around trees while escorting a cart filled with dead bodies to dump in the water supply of the defenders was awesome. There's three long scenarios that I can think of and one or two shorter ones, but I won't give them away in case you decide to play.
The only bad points of Chivalry for me, and they're not big issues, is the current lack of customization and only kills count towards your progress for opening new weapons. I wish there was a different experience system because I do hate batteling someone, doing all the work to lower their health, and then have someone else take the kill thereby gaining me nothing. I have run into no kill stealing however, it's simply the flow of battle.
I really think Chivalry has done the best job at letting you experience what a medieval battle must have been like. Hope you give it a try.