User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 166 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 97 out of 166
  2. Negative: 27 out of 166

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 5, 2011
    7
    Great expansion to a great franchise. If you didn't like the previous entries this isn't probably going to change your mind. However, there are new juicy mechanics for fans of the series to sink their teeth into. There are a few glitches out the gate. But nothing game breaking yet. The AI is definitely harder to fight against this time around. It's far less suicidal than previous entries.Great expansion to a great franchise. If you didn't like the previous entries this isn't probably going to change your mind. However, there are new juicy mechanics for fans of the series to sink their teeth into. There are a few glitches out the gate. But nothing game breaking yet. The AI is definitely harder to fight against this time around. It's far less suicidal than previous entries. There's also been significant improvements to the early game experience. Interesting story missions give the game more focus to your actions (of course you can ignore these if you want and just do your own thing, it's still one of the most open ended games on the market) Expand
  2. May 23, 2011
    7
    Having played through Warband, I was excited to see what new improvements the next installment in this franchise would bring. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed and feel like I should have waited for a mod before buying. First off, the game's finances are WAY out of whack; decent quality equipment costs an exorbitant sum compared to what you can make doing quests, raiding villages, etc. IHaving played through Warband, I was excited to see what new improvements the next installment in this franchise would bring. Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed and feel like I should have waited for a mod before buying. First off, the game's finances are WAY out of whack; decent quality equipment costs an exorbitant sum compared to what you can make doing quests, raiding villages, etc. I figured that maybe I'd just have to try to become a powerful noble and save some cash, but then about 18 hours in I get a message saying I've been assassinated and the game's over. Really. Imagine playing Sim City for 20 hours and a message comes up saying that a meteorite blew everything up and you have to restart. That's pretty much what the devs INTENTIONALLY did here. Most of the time nobles give you quests that involve delivering letters, so a good chunk of the game is pretty much just running back and forth. Sweden is ridiculously overpowered, so try not to get on their bad side, but the res of the factions seem well-balanced. The campaign is fun and makes becoming powerful easier than in previous games, and the battles are still a hoot and firearms really do add a whole new dynamic to the game. The ability to customize your troops' armor and weapons is neat, but the fact that you have so little cash to go around makes it painful to do. All in all I hope someone addresses these issues, as a few minor tweaks could boost this game from a 7/10 to a 9/10 easily. Expand
  3. May 17, 2011
    7
    Guns are a great new addition, but like so many people have said they are rather overpowered in damage. Other elements are also not well balanced such as fortified camps. The story bit did not work for me, it hardly advanced at all and prevented me from becoming a vassal. There were also some serious bugs, though I'm sure these will be fixed not all have yet. I still had just as much funGuns are a great new addition, but like so many people have said they are rather overpowered in damage. Other elements are also not well balanced such as fortified camps. The story bit did not work for me, it hardly advanced at all and prevented me from becoming a vassal. There were also some serious bugs, though I'm sure these will be fixed not all have yet. I still had just as much fun campaigning with my side, and guns meant an interesting change in tactics (you still can and should charge in yourself you just have to play more defensively) . Hopefully the best elements will be incorporated into the next Mount and Blade. Expand
  4. May 19, 2011
    7
    Still probably worth buying for a mere 15 dollars, i believe it is certainly worth the money. The problem with this game is however is i feel they made it extremly budget (the price also shows this). I do wish the game was $30 and kept the same features from Warband and added their new features. It seemed they added cool features and left out others that made Warband an epic game. Don'tStill probably worth buying for a mere 15 dollars, i believe it is certainly worth the money. The problem with this game is however is i feel they made it extremly budget (the price also shows this). I do wish the game was $30 and kept the same features from Warband and added their new features. It seemed they added cool features and left out others that made Warband an epic game. Don't get me wrong, its certainly a good buy for $15, it's just i would have been willing to pay more if it was complete. Expand
  5. May 12, 2011
    7
    Not the worst, but certainly not the best either. As soon as you dig into MBFS, it feels like warband less a bunch of features and added with new ones that should have complemented on the original version. The original Mount and Blade was already half baked when it came out, Warband added new features with multiplayer capability, but this MBFS tries to revamp warband only to make us feelNot the worst, but certainly not the best either. As soon as you dig into MBFS, it feels like warband less a bunch of features and added with new ones that should have complemented on the original version. The original Mount and Blade was already half baked when it came out, Warband added new features with multiplayer capability, but this MBFS tries to revamp warband only to make us feel like it's a step back on certain features that made it more popular previously. The screen shakes as soon as you move away from the playing field on the campaign map, there are less features than it claims to have, certain quests are impossible to complete because for one way or another you simply cannot enter the city/town if you are an enemy to its owner. There is no option to get around that like trying to enter in the cover of night by climbing the walls or infiltrate its wall by subterfuge means like in warband. Still, the restrictions does not take away the element of fun with the introduction of gunfire and new units to the scene. The gameplay is certainly more appealing to more hardened gamers with its higher difficulty bar as without a good doc in your party you'll soon find out that there's no one left in your "warband". This requires more cunning and smarter planning on your part for the build up of your reign anyway. Overall, I'd give it a 7. Expand
  6. Oct 20, 2011
    6
    I disagree with lot of people when they say this is a 'fair game''. I feel as though its much harder to survive compared to warbands because of the guns. Don't get me wrong they implemented the gun feature well and they are super effective... but are they too effective? To me it seems as though its caused an imbalance and it makes the game much harder as they do super effective damageI disagree with lot of people when they say this is a 'fair game''. I feel as though its much harder to survive compared to warbands because of the guns. Don't get me wrong they implemented the gun feature well and they are super effective... but are they too effective? To me it seems as though its caused an imbalance and it makes the game much harder as they do super effective damage (compared to archery) and are more direct and accurate. There are a few other problems with it, but what I've described is my main concern. I think the game was a good idea but i don't think they put as much into it as they could have. Expand
  7. May 5, 2011
    6
    I'm a bit disappointed in Fire and sword. I think it's sad that they abandoned the story part where you can choose country and because of your story. Now you start "neutral" and not better in for example archery because of your life story. They have removed recruitment from villages and now you visit mercenary camps where you can buy soldiers. You can buy stuff for your soldier as forI'm a bit disappointed in Fire and sword. I think it's sad that they abandoned the story part where you can choose country and because of your story. Now you start "neutral" and not better in for example archery because of your life story. They have removed recruitment from villages and now you visit mercenary camps where you can buy soldiers. You can buy stuff for your soldier as for example better weapons and armors, which is a pretty good idea. However i'd like a combination of recruitment and buying gear for your army. The new guns are nice, but i see the bombs / grenades as a joke. Still a fair game. Expand
  8. May 20, 2011
    5
    Pros:
    Hmmm... I do like that the game kinda leans you toward a direction to go story wise, but still gives you the option of total sandbox. I love the inclusion of guns into the game, and leveling up your character to be good with firearms is just as exciting as doing it with swords and bows. Firearms also changes the entire face of battle, charging into groups will almost always spell
    Pros:
    Hmmm... I do like that the game kinda leans you toward a direction to go story wise, but still gives you the option of total sandbox. I love the inclusion of guns into the game, and leveling up your character to be good with firearms is just as exciting as doing it with swords and bows. Firearms also changes the entire face of battle, charging into groups will almost always spell death now, and battles take much less time (no more chasing after that guy on a horse with a bow for 15 minutes, just shoot him dead!).

    Cons:
    The game seems much more difficult for some reason. I'm always strapped for cash, and I can take out these massive loans, but am expected to repay them after a short amount of gameplay (with interest!). I hate that I can't recruit villagers anymore, you can now micro manage your army's equipment too, but it's really kind of overload especially since you have no money ever. I found the only way to really play this game is to take out a huge loan, hire a huge army, and just start raiding villages. It kind of takes away the good guy element that some players probably want to embrace. Ugh and the side quests are horrendous. I was asked to deliver some wine to a village within 7 days, and for some reason that alerts every bandit to your presence. You cant even make it halfway across the map before you are overwhelmed, captured by bandits and have all of your goods (that you're supposed to deliver) taken from you. I was asked to deliver a majestic horse to a prince or something in some castle. The quest itself had a trigger to have me ambushed and captured and the horse taken from me. Ugh another failed quest -.- and im broke have no weapons no horse no allies no army how can I even recover from this bankruptcy? Finally, got a small army up and received a quest to kill bandits. I was only able to find 3 groups of bandits so i was paid about 120 gold total. not enough to buy even a sh*tty pair of boots. Sooooo frustrating.
    Expand
  9. Jul 5, 2011
    6
    A game identical to the previous instalments, Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword offers more of the same. This used to be a free (Polish) modification for Mount & Blade, the developers turned it commercial and added some bells and whistles. The introduction of rifles and grenades to Mount & Blade makes for interesting gameplay and the interface has improved somewhat. You can now talkA game identical to the previous instalments, Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword offers more of the same. This used to be a free (Polish) modification for Mount & Blade, the developers turned it commercial and added some bells and whistles. The introduction of rifles and grenades to Mount & Blade makes for interesting gameplay and the interface has improved somewhat. You can now talk directly to Town elders and town majors instead of having to enter the towns to find them. However, this means that the player will be even less motivated to visit the towns and enjoy the scenery. Speaking of scenery, the graphics are outdated, surroundings are bland and the world map is highly monotonous. If you are new to the Mount & Blade series, I suggest that you start with Mount & Blade: Warband and not Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword as it will be a frustrating gaming experience with the one shot, one kill rifle addition. Expand
  10. Jul 20, 2011
    5
    Honestly I think I liked the other M&B games, personally the only big difference between this game and the others is a crappy storyline and guns, and the guns suck, which I could have gotten as a mod for the others anyway rather than paying for the same game again. It's just too similar to the other Mount & Blade games to make me think I'm getting something the others game didn't. WhatHonestly I think I liked the other M&B games, personally the only big difference between this game and the others is a crappy storyline and guns, and the guns suck, which I could have gotten as a mod for the others anyway rather than paying for the same game again. It's just too similar to the other Mount & Blade games to make me think I'm getting something the others game didn't. What I've done here is buy the same game twice, but this one has guns. Expand
  11. Feb 8, 2012
    6
    It's a good game. Not great but enjoyable, especially for a historical fan. The development team for the original Mount and Blade game was insanely small and even though it has grown the Fire and Sword team kept close to the original's roots, therefore the game lacks new-age graphics, voice acting, and complex writing and stories while it does offer unique game play and innovativeIt's a good game. Not great but enjoyable, especially for a historical fan. The development team for the original Mount and Blade game was insanely small and even though it has grown the Fire and Sword team kept close to the original's roots, therefore the game lacks new-age graphics, voice acting, and complex writing and stories while it does offer unique game play and innovative concepts. It does have a competent RPG systems, the most realistic first-person combat system for a medieval hack and slash, and a huge world. Unlike the previous two games Fire and Sword is in a historical setting, during the Northern Wars and it places the player in the middle of the conflict between the great Eastern Powers as they struggle for dominance over one another. Gunpowder weapons are the new big thing and they are very accurately depicted, slow to reload and unable to hit the broad-side of a barn. So the combat has slowed down a little but again, this is pretty damn close to how actual 17th century battles went. It forces the player to make tactical changes and spend more time leading troops as opposed to fighting and to the game's credit the AI system isn't too bad. Your troops listen to your commands and try to kill who they're supposed to and the opposition will try to defend key positions force you from your defensible positions. If there is an enemy commander they will get even more intelligent and make tactical decisions. That said there isn't much strategy besides that, artillery is non-existent and devastating historical tactics like flanking or Pike and Shot formations don't seem to make much of a difference.

    The missions are repetitive and boring, however they are the best way to level up and get money, and you will need that money and lots of it. The game's biggest fault is making you trek across the map several times to level up, doing the same 5 things. The interface leaves a lot to be desired, information is not readily available and difficult to come by. NPCs are difficult to find and sometimes offer annoyingly difficult quests while giving very little time to complete, this is made more annoying by the repetitive text and bad conversation interface. Oh and they will always offer the same 5 quests. But as the game progresses it gets easier and more exciting and it eventually progresses into a city-building sim. This is perhaps the most enjoyable part of the game and it is the only way get the best gear and soldiers but costs an insane amount of money which you will have to acquire through the repetitive quest grind.

    My biggest complaint: AUTOSAVE???? Where the hell is it? There is nothing more annoying than spending 3 hours grinding money, spending tons of cash on the best gear and training for your units, going into battle, getting one-shotted by a marksman from the other side of the map, and having your expensive soldiers die without you, and then having all your stuff taken. I think the Steam record of how much I have played could be half that if you subtract the hours I have wasted by forgetting to save.

    All in all it's a good game that is let down by the lack of resources in the development phase and poor interface choices. If you enjoyed the previous Mount and Blade games then you will probably like this one but if you are new to the genre you will have a hard time getting into it and an even harder time succeeding.
    Expand
  12. May 3, 2011
    6
    Fire and sword is a big disappointment, I mean the smarter AI and Guns are nice features but it removed all of the features that made the other Mount and Blade games fun, Mostly everything they added in Warband and recruiting peasants from villages to train into soldiers
  13. May 14, 2011
    6
    Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword was clearly designed as an attempt to bring the M&B series into the more current design. However, in it's attempt, it ends up ruining some of the things that made the original and Warband unique. WF&S implements firearms and grenades/bombs, these being extremely powerful items, usually one-hit kills. However, you are not the only person who is able to useMount & Blade: With Fire & Sword was clearly designed as an attempt to bring the M&B series into the more current design. However, in it's attempt, it ends up ruining some of the things that made the original and Warband unique. WF&S implements firearms and grenades/bombs, these being extremely powerful items, usually one-hit kills. However, you are not the only person who is able to use them. Because of that, you can no longer charge forward into battles with your men, as one or two shots will take you down. That ruins some of the excitement from the massive battles experience in Warbands, and forces the game to take on a more tactical approach to combat. But don't think that means you can shoot your way through everyone- the reload times can take up to ten seconds for a single bullet shot, but it can save your life in a combat situation. The game also manages to perk up the multiplayer, reducing respawn time to a mere five seconds or so and giving better battlefields. But WF&S drops quite a few things. These are like the options to get married, to recruit from villages, or even to make your main character female. Even worse, the game drops tournaments entirely, removing a massive source of revenue from Warband (In Warband a player could easily make 10-12 thousand denars from a tournament.). Overall, Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword tries to take the series a step further, but only takes it a step back. For M&B fans, sticking with Warband is a much better option, even if this game carries a mere 15 dollar price tag. Expand
  14. May 4, 2011
    6
    I really wanted to like this game, but from a combat perspective there are zero improvements over Warband, which honestly is a little clunky. The single player mode is extremely imbalanced; for example as a brand new character having completed a couple quests, on my way between cities I am often pounced upon by bands of Brigands or Raiders or Deserters who are far superior in number and myI really wanted to like this game, but from a combat perspective there are zero improvements over Warband, which honestly is a little clunky. The single player mode is extremely imbalanced; for example as a brand new character having completed a couple quests, on my way between cities I am often pounced upon by bands of Brigands or Raiders or Deserters who are far superior in number and my only choice is to fight and lose or give up my belongings. The Multiplayer seemed buggy, with that familiar-but-clunky combat working ok for Melee but for ranged combat the bows seemed far superior to guns because of the absurd reload time (which I realize is realistic, but come on - who bought this game to use bows?). The bugginess seemed to be in hits and blocks not registering even if it seemed like you timed them perfectly... perhaps that can be fixed later with patches, but for now I regret the purchase. Expand
  15. May 26, 2011
    5
    Do yourself a favor and stick to "Warband". It's a much tighter experience and you won't miss the mild graphical updates. One of the best thing about previous M&B titles was hacking your way through enemies- when the introduction of guns and spears, you literally spend most of your time reloading weapons from afar.
  16. Jul 3, 2011
    6
    If you are set on getting a Mount & Blade game, just get Warband. The only improvement in this installment is that Fire & Sword has guns, and that's pretty much it. (If it matters that much, you could download a mod anyway) The biggest issue I had with Fire & Sword was the map. It's all one giant grassy plain with some forests here and there. This might not matter to most, but I found itIf you are set on getting a Mount & Blade game, just get Warband. The only improvement in this installment is that Fire & Sword has guns, and that's pretty much it. (If it matters that much, you could download a mod anyway) The biggest issue I had with Fire & Sword was the map. It's all one giant grassy plain with some forests here and there. This might not matter to most, but I found it completely dull when compared to Warband's world, with deserts, mountains, and icy plains. Yeah, it doesn't sound that impressive but it worked. The world actually felt big, and it helped show where factions started and how they've grown, or lost territory. Now that aside, Fire & Sword is not bad. My recommendation, is just pay the extra $10 for Warband. (By the way, on steam, Fire & Sword (2011) is now cheaper than the original Mount & Blade from 2008 XD) Collapse
  17. Apr 18, 2012
    5
    About as good as warband (if you dont have warband) but usually half the price. Just as in warband, the melee combat feels unbalanced/unrealistic, but I'm a good sniper so can hold my own with the muskets which are quite realistic. What stands out for me is the sometimes huge multiplayer sieges. When the game came out there was always a siege server with 200 players! The scale was epic!About as good as warband (if you dont have warband) but usually half the price. Just as in warband, the melee combat feels unbalanced/unrealistic, but I'm a good sniper so can hold my own with the muskets which are quite realistic. What stands out for me is the sometimes huge multiplayer sieges. When the game came out there was always a siege server with 200 players! The scale was epic! With some luck you might find a server with half that today, still pretty good. Expand
  18. Jul 29, 2013
    5
    The great thing about the mount and blade series hasn't been the graphics or the story, its been the combat and With fire and sword gets that wrong. Charging at the enemy to be once shot knocked out is boring. Its also much harder to get decent troops which i found particularly annoying as it makes the start of the game much harder and frustrating.

    The game does try to introduce some
    The great thing about the mount and blade series hasn't been the graphics or the story, its been the combat and With fire and sword gets that wrong. Charging at the enemy to be once shot knocked out is boring. Its also much harder to get decent troops which i found particularly annoying as it makes the start of the game much harder and frustrating.

    The game does try to introduce some amount of story but i wasn't interested enough to keep playing.
    Expand
  19. May 17, 2011
    7
    I very much like Mount and blade but for me, there isnt enough different to make this title worth what I paid for it. I still play the previous 2 games in the series and enjoy them a great deal. I would love to see them updated and developed with more immersion and options to develop your lands and holdings etc etc.

    I am a bit perplexed with this one. I am not quite sure what to make of
    I very much like Mount and blade but for me, there isnt enough different to make this title worth what I paid for it. I still play the previous 2 games in the series and enjoy them a great deal. I would love to see them updated and developed with more immersion and options to develop your lands and holdings etc etc.

    I am a bit perplexed with this one. I am not quite sure what to make of it. I am very pleased that the AI is better. But many aspects of the original which I liked dont seem to be there. I like it alot but its not a natural progression of the series, just more of the same and in some ways a bit less of what I liked. I just cant quite work out the thinking behind this one. Wasnt really worth buying as I own the other 2 but nevermind. Hopefully the money will be used to fund development of a Mount and Blade 2. With better graphics, bigger battles, more control and lands etc etc etc.
    Expand
  20. Nov 20, 2014
    6
    Basically the same as Warband except there are firearms. They change the game a lot since they're usually 1-2 hit kills. The most disappointing part was the poorly utilized "main quests" which are full of bugs and you'll often find yourself having to reload old saves to progress them. Also, the map is bad. I know it's based on real life and the factions are real life factions as well. ButBasically the same as Warband except there are firearms. They change the game a lot since they're usually 1-2 hit kills. The most disappointing part was the poorly utilized "main quests" which are full of bugs and you'll often find yourself having to reload old saves to progress them. Also, the map is bad. I know it's based on real life and the factions are real life factions as well. But the map is super boring. It's just an open flat area with a few rivers and bodies of water on the north and south. It's not interesting and makes for a mess when enemies can just wander anywhere they want since there are very few choke points. Expand
  21. Aug 31, 2012
    7
    Ich finde das Spiel Sehr Sehr gut gelungen und ein einfacher mod ist es nicht es hat seine eigene gute Story und es ist um längen besser als Mount & Blade: Warband, allerdings und das finde ich bei allen teilen von Mount & Blade so, das spiel ist Trocknen nach einer weile macht man nur das selbe.
  22. Nov 15, 2012
    6
    Decent follow up to Warband with new factions and the major introduction of Guns to the game changing the gameplay and your tactics. However that is all it really offers that is different and Warband is still really a better game.
  23. Oct 29, 2014
    5
    With Fire & Sword is a version of the game Mount & Blade, the game that claims to be a mix of a role play game and a wargame. The most obvious changes are the replacement of crossbows with firearms, a new map and the 16th/17th century setting. This is the time that warfare gradually changed from melee based to firearm based.
    (A side note: the setting actually mixes aspects of the 16
    With Fire & Sword is a version of the game Mount & Blade, the game that claims to be a mix of a role play game and a wargame. The most obvious changes are the replacement of crossbows with firearms, a new map and the 16th/17th century setting. This is the time that warfare gradually changed from melee based to firearm based.
    (A side note: the setting actually mixes aspects of the 16 century setting with that of the 17th century. The halbediers belong more to the former century and the musketeers/cavalry more to the latter.)
    There some other changes. There seem to be more quests and the recruitment system has been overhauled. However, at the core the game is the same and as such has the same problems as the old game, such as a rudimentary battlefield mechanism, a nonexistent storyline, a simplistic dialogue tree, superficial boring personalities and tedious repetitive battles of which there are way too many. And these problems are now compounded by the introduction of firearms.
    With muskets you can kill an adversary from the other side of the map and what is more.. he can do the same. In fact the ai is actually better at shooting because it isn't bothered by the fact that from a distance avatars are so small that you can't make them out right.
    My first half hour was spend being shot to pieces. The only way to escape that fate is by moving in an unpredictable pattern so the enemy can't take aim properly. In the meantime you either have to try and kill them with your own firearm(while moving about in a random way!) or with your sidearm. Battles turn therefore into protracted hit and run activities in which standing still is an invite to be killed on the spot.
    The militia that you can recruit at the start is woefully inept to deal with anything better than looters and once you have enough of them to actually have a chance to win a fight, your army is so slow that you can't catch deserters, brigands and such because they are faster than you. So you either have to fight enemies who are superior to your inept troops.. or hope to corner a band of ruffians,which involves you in chasing them across the map hoping you won't loose sight of them when the night sets in or when they run into a wooded area.
    In fact the best thing to do is not to recruit any militia or infantry but to go from town to town to find and hire mercenary cavalry or heroes so you can overtake your enemies or have a chance to runaway from them when they are too strong.
    In any event the game seems to promise to become a protracted boring game, like the basic game was, but now you can use firearms and play on a map that represents eastern europe.
    The game is neither a good role play game nor a good wargame, because it doesn't implement either aspect well and it amazes me that people actually consider this game to be good.
    But I guess tastes differ..
    Expand
  24. Jul 5, 2014
    7
    First off iI was so Hyped up about thid game. So I felt so dissapointed when I realized it was a 5 times worse than I thought. There are soooo many bugs in this game and no one plays multiplayer for this game. Also the last update was in 2011. Its 2014 now. Not even 1 update to improve the game since then. It has some good features like you have have a caravan,there is also a academy whereFirst off iI was so Hyped up about thid game. So I felt so dissapointed when I realized it was a 5 times worse than I thought. There are soooo many bugs in this game and no one plays multiplayer for this game. Also the last update was in 2011. Its 2014 now. Not even 1 update to improve the game since then. It has some good features like you have have a caravan,there is also a academy where you can train your companions and you can fight in taverns for money. But they also took things out like tournaments and marraige. The graphics are also much better than warband. Expand
  25. Jul 3, 2011
    0
    If you are set on getting a Mount & Blade game, just get Warband. The only improvement in this installment is that Fire & Sword has guns, and that's pretty much it. (If it matters that much, you could download a mod anyway) The biggest issue I had with Fire & Sword was the map. It's all one giant grassy plain with some forests here and there. This might not matter to most, but I found itIf you are set on getting a Mount & Blade game, just get Warband. The only improvement in this installment is that Fire & Sword has guns, and that's pretty much it. (If it matters that much, you could download a mod anyway) The biggest issue I had with Fire & Sword was the map. It's all one giant grassy plain with some forests here and there. This might not matter to most, but I found it completely dull when compared to Warband's world, with deserts, mountains, and icy plains. Yeah, it doesn't sound that impressive but it worked. The world actually felt big, and it helped show where factions started and how they've grown, or lost territory. Now that aside, Fire & Sword is not bad. My recommendation, is just pay the extra $10 for Warband. (By the way, on steam, Fire & Sword (2011) is now cheaper than the original Mount & Blade from 2008 XD) Collapse
Metascore
68

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 24
  2. Negative: 1 out of 24
  1. Oct 19, 2011
    83
    Good real history setting, but feels too much like a mod. Game would needs stronger and more visible plot element to differ itself from basic M&M formula. [June 2011]
  2. Jul 29, 2011
    60
    An above-average game from a time period that's really hard to find in current games. It is defected by several unfortunate design decisions and by sticking too much to its literary original. However, Henryk Sienkiewicz's fans and those 17th century warfare lovers should not hesitate to try it.
  3. Jun 23, 2011
    60
    With Fire and Sword is an expansion that adds very little to the Mount&Blade experience. It's still a solid game, but one would expect more innovation. Still, the hectic battles on horseback leave the player with a brutal appreciation for medieval combat.