User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 141 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 81 out of 141
  2. Negative: 27 out of 141

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. 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 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
  2. 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
    amount of story but i wasn't interested enough to keep playing. Expand
  3. Jul 12, 2013
    7
    Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword is a very fun game and addictive game too. I really like the use of firearms in this sequel. And the single player game is great. The game's historical setting is very realistic. There are many features that I like from this sequel. But there are many bugs that are very annoying. And there isn't much plot in the game. I really hope TaleWorlds will fix this bug.
  4. Jun 27, 2013
    8
    I recently got this game when it's on sale, and have already spent many hours on it. It is a great sandbox game where you can play in whatever way you like. You can make money through trading, combat, robbery or doing quests. You can battle it all alone (thus you run faster on the map) or hire a lot of soldiers to help you out. You can fight with a sword, a lance, a bow, or a firearm. You can befriend a faction or even joining it by helping its men in battle, or anger a faction by attacking its men. In all, how to play the game is absolutely your choice. However, the only problem (so far as I've only played for hours) is that leveling up is too slow. If you are fine with cheats, it won't be a problem for you, but I'm not, so I'm kinda losing enthusiasm. Maybe it's not a game that I should spend ten hours in one day to get a lot of achievements. But anyway, I like this game, I'm enjoying it, and I think I'll spend some time on it every day. Expand
  5. Mar 26, 2013
    9
    This game is great, the graphics are a bit on the low side because the series started out as an indie game and went on t be successful. Anyways, the game modes are fun especially Captain CO-OP and Siege. The people on here are fun and very skilled so be careful! Buy on Steam and Enjoy.
  6. Mar 2, 2013
    8
    With Fire and Sword is highly underrated. At first, I had bought this game, along with the entire series, and at first thought, thought that With Fire and Sword was the worst of the series. However, the one day I actually downloaded and played it, I had a blast literally! With Fire and Sword isn't the best of the series, but not by far. With Fire and Sword dominates Skirmish combat, making the player plan out a strategy, instead of just charging straight-on like the player might have done in Warband. If the player would charge, he or she would be shot down and end up losing men. Here you could take your cavalry and flank the enemy while the player's main forces are in a gunfight. However, I feel that fortress combat lacks heavily, and is in DESPERATE need of improvement. In fortress combat, you don't have full access to your structure and you can't attack from all sides. The storyline itself is intense, good minor history lesson to those who know nothing of 17th century Poland. Lastly, this game has so many minor improvements that could make Warband a better game, and so many minor improvements from Warband were left out. So, both Warband and With Fire and Sword feel incomplete to me. Expand
  7. Dec 30, 2012
    2
    This game was a huge disappointment. what a flaming piece of crap. I felt as if I were playing a game from the late 90's, not one released in 09'. Clunky game play, horrible graphics, and it's just weak all around. Even the tutorial was terrible.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Aug 8, 2012
    0
    I got Mount and Blade in a Steam sale, and it was so bad and so unplayable that it prompted me to come here and sign up just to say how bad it is. Now I like Strategy, RPG and 4x games as much as the next person, and plan to make my own one day (hence the purchase), but right from the start, this game is so unpolished, and the graphics are so bad that it really puts me off. But despite this I struggle through to find the good Sandbox Strategy gameplay that I've heard about..
    I enter a battle and can either look for them or run away cause enemies are miles away (but somehow upon leaving I still must surrender to them???); so I re-enter and eventually find them. I gallop towards them firing off one arrow then my crossbow stops working - literally nothing is happening when I'm pressing fire (the arrow hits the ground several meters below the targeting reticule anyway), so I run them down with my horse which does 0 damage, and they beat the crap out of me, meanwhile I'm trying desperately to turn my horse or run through them; anything (nothing is happening of course as the controls are unresponsive to say the least). I die and immediately uninstall the game.

    The game is beyond poor.

    Ignoring the poor graphics, abysmal animation, terrible controls, and complete lack of a decent tutorial, underneath it all.. the game is just plain bad.
    Expand
  11. 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! With some luck you might find a server with half that today, still pretty good. Expand
  12. Mar 12, 2012
    1
    GUTTED FISH. Ideas/efforts were decent, but in the end, frustration. If you played M&B Warband, you will just become frustrated and not like this game, because as Warband was an "onion" with layers and layers of game play and multiple aspects to enjoy overlapping each other, relevant to the 'big picture', With Fire and Sword removes those layers and becomes only a core, a rotten one. Warband had A LOT of potential, many things could've been added additionally to that type of game (and the map)... Bandit chasing/killing could've been improved and expanded on.... more quests could've been added.... the romance/dating options expanded.... etc.... This is what people expected with the next Mount and Blade game... instead they backtracked and gutted it all out, focused on 'guns' and new multiple tiers of junk gear and loot with mostly all COSMETIC features. The 17th Century theme of the game is fun to play and the new clothes and whatnot look snazzy... the guns and bombs can be fun, but without these loved aspects of the game that MADE, Mount and Blade, what is it? No character customization at the beginning or self-created story... you get a premade character to start with... which is acceptable (but why?) and the FOCUS seems to be trying to inject you into Feudal Combat or "Vassalage" as soon as possible. It seems to be the main focus, as other aspects of what it's predecessor was, arenâ Expand
  13. 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 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
  14. Dec 27, 2011
    0
    **** game's boring that I cant tell how this game's good.Gamecube-like graphics, repeditive gameplay,this & that.Don't play this.
  15. Dec 6, 2011
    10
    Very fun, multiplayer modes siege, battle, and captain-coop are quite entertaining. The guns make it different from the previous mount and blades....
  16. Nov 8, 2011
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I gave this game 100 because i really enjoed it just to let every one know i have played all other mount and blade games and this one has good and bad things now 1st its not empire total war this game goes like this u fire one shot and then go in to hand to hand combat like in warband i did piss me off alitle bit wen i saw the reviews so low no other game can bring you the experience that mount and blade does this game is warbad but it has guns witch are accurate and take forever to reload so like i said you will shoot ones then you go and fight one bad thing i need to mention is in warband wen u become a lord of your own nation you can pick a name for it here you can not it just says ure a rebel country and other is that you can not have vassals (companions fighting with you) in warband you could offer a fief to your companion and then they will raise an army and fight with you and you can not do that here a big let down but thats the bigger change in this game besides the guns, so are there any good things? yes 1st now in every village you can talk to the elder you dont have to go into the city and look for him no more, and i think thats all for the changes. This game is cheep defiantly worth it and by the way the graphics are slightly better enjoy XD Expand
  17. 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 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
  18. Oct 15, 2011
    2
    this is a huge disappointment. yes, the guns and bomb is fun to play but but the AI is terrible, without you, your troops can barely manage to survives even odds. Even worse, suspicious your best troops start dying out of proportion in your absence. the strategic side of the game is also TERRIBLE. Varied terrain and cultures are gone, Social life is gone, Businesses is gone. what's left? banking system? it's broken any way. Your money is tied to the city it is deposited in, you'd better just haul around your money in case something bad happen. Final words, this is not a rewarding experience, warband mods are better than this crap. Expand
  19. Sep 4, 2011
    2
    After playing this game i have to say i am deeply disappointed. Because of the fact that this more or less than MB:Warband with them combining most of the mods and just put in an average title. So if you think you want buy this game then i ask you to think about this and other of the negative reviews. So if you want to buy it then don't just grab Warband and and install the latest firearms mod.
  20. Aug 31, 2011
    3
    Great Concept, Convoluted mess, shoddy release and bug ridden. While a very unique game concept and a very original idea that is few and far in the industry nowadays. The game suffers from poor execution and design. Like the Mona Lisa, but giving it to a three year old to go ahead and paint it. The combat controls are insufferable and the so called steep learning curve is just poor design decisions that makes you reload, again and again. This latest iteration introduces firearms. Look we all know if someone shoots you in the face, you're not getting up in Real Life. But this translates poorly to a game. When your 'hero' is shot, the battle is pretty much over, since it's usually an auto loss when your hero goes down. Since tactical combat is a joke, combat is a series of endless reloads and an exercise in frustration. There are of course players who are into this sort of thing, and if you're one of them, this is the game for you. Expand
  21. Aug 2, 2011
    9
    With Fire and Sword It's a fun game, multi-player is strong with a good campaign. Worth the price and definitely worthy of the mount and blade name. Firearms definitely adds a new play mechanic.
  22. Jul 22, 2011
    9
    This review is about multiplayer - im not a fan of single player games, so i hoped into multiplayer right in the first day. Single player is for civilians!

    I was bit sceptic about this game. Even after buying it on sale, i didnt run it for several days cause i have other games to play. After playing it however i felt in love and got addicted to it - Long time i havent spend whole days
    and nights with a game and feeling the hunger for more. At begining game might be frustrating, cause it takes day or two to feel the combat mechanics, but after you do that, you will also love this game. Combat system is epic and very skill-rewarding. Mounted combat is just awesome, just grab your sabre, sword, pike, pistol, bow or whatever you like and slash, pierce, chop or shoot your way trough enemies in game up to 64 players (not including troops players command in "captain" game modes).

    Gunpowder weapons adds to the athmoshpere covering battlefields with smoke. They are not very accurate tho and takes some time to reload.

    Melee combat is awesome. Its all about 3-4 directions of swings/thrusts and 4 direction parries + optional shield block. Very easy to learn, but hard to master. For example when you see enemy player raising weapon left, you can parry left, and the fencing begins :) If only parries-counterattacks and kick ability would be more rewarding in foot, melee combat i would give this game 10.

    I also expected some mediocre graphics at best and i was positively suprised. Game looks great. Animations are fluid. Seems they made them all with motion capture system so they are very natural. Also there is a ragdoll system which adds to the satisfaction when you put someone else's horse on your pike or slash a throat of enemy while galloping on your horse and then see him falling from his horse spouting blood.

    If you like skill-based, fast-paced multiplayer combat with mounts, swords and guns you must definitely try this game, you wont regret. So far i have had much more fun from this game than from any 50-Euro-League's games. And i have played a lot.

    p.s.
    There is also co-op mode. I have seen plenty of servers running "Captain Co-op" where players build their squads and command them, defending against waves of AI controlled armies.
    Expand
  23. 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. What I've done here is buy the same game twice, but this one has guns. Expand
  24. Jul 7, 2011
    8
    Great game for all fans of big sandbox games! Great multiplayer also, like Ð
  25. Jul 6, 2011
    10
    Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword. This game (and the series) is a MUST HAVE game for any one that likes to see armies clash against each other with whatever weapons they got, this time with GUNS! and the best part, you get to be actually be inside the battle unlike the Total War series. Unfortunatly, the Visuals still will not impress anyone and a small percentage of players may notice there are some parts in the battlefield that looks slightly inferior then Warband which is never a good. But to be honest, you'll be so addicted and som immersed to this game you would'nt even notice. The gameplay itself is fairly the same as Warband though will the introduction of Muskets and pistols, you're strategy and the way you think will differ; both good and bad. The negative side about having guns is it can be quite boring sense it takes very long to reload. And unlike Warband, the player cannot charge into a rank of enemies and hack n' slash, killing 20 people all because a volley of Musket fire will devastate you. The positive side however is it gives a bit more diversity to the game and can make it very enjoyable once you have mastered the aiming of the Musket.
    The multiplayer is also very enjoyable. The feeling of being in the midst of a 50-man line all firing muskets simultaneously is just plain epic, no exaggeration there are all. Basic modifications of Trades, Recruitment etc has also made the game less complicated and awkward. Overall I give this wonderful game a 9/10. It is truely awesome and I recommend this game to anyone that is big into massive armies, medieval history or just want a faster-paced Total War game. +Addictive campaign
    +Great Multiplayer
    +Less-awkward management
    -Guns prevents you from being a 'hero'
    -Outdated graphics
    Expand
  26. 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 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
  27. Jul 4, 2011
    10
    after all the patches they did and continue to make, this game deserves a better rating. the muskets are a great addition and make the combat more thrilling. this game is a great buy, you really cant go wrong for $15
  28. 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 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) Expand
  29. Jul 2, 2011
    9
    Disregard the bad reviews for the game. It seems a lot of "critics" are basing the game off of looks and not mechanics or its actual fun factor. With well over 100 hours of gameplay on both Mount and Blade:Warband and With Fire & Sword combined, I have seen the ins and outs and bugs (which they fix). A lot of players will complain that its hard. It is not a cakewalk nor is it an easy button game. "WF&S is like an ugly person who is awesome to hang out with". With the new "horde" mode added in for multiplayer, I enjoy it even more. Ignore the bad reviews again, just pay attention to the good ones. Expand
  30. Jun 25, 2011
    4
    Bit of a let down, maybe the polish has worn off a little because i played Mount & Blade: Warband (and thought it was great !!), but this seems to have moved backwards. I really don't get it. The game doesn't improve on the concept, it simply ads in firearms, moves the battle field to a different era but doesn't improve one bit on the game play, if anything it's worse.
    You felt more in
    control in the previous game, you could recruit villagers and train them etc, where as now your restricted to buying them. Options have been removed, the whole graphic interface hasn't improved at all, less depth to character design and the storyline feels weak.
    It's like someone said, "Hey this game worked really well, how fast can we get something else out", shame on you Paradox, this is not what I expect from your label, you guys are about developing improvements and depth to your games. This is a really crap reversion.
    Expand
  31. Jun 19, 2011
    4
    I have played Mount & Blade Warband for hundreds of hours and loved it. With Fire & Sword is not even close to Warband, it has less options, less atmosphere, less everything.
  32. Jun 6, 2011
    8
    Ill start by saying i am a mount and blade fanatic. i first bought warband and was instantly hooked, and now i have more than 260 hours, but whos counting (appearently steam). I seen WFS for sale @ $15, and figured, what the heck, cant hurt. i played it and just got done playing it and though i cant say im crazy about it, i can say it is awesome for a $15 stand alone add on- which means you dont have to buy warband (a $30 game) so for all of the idiots comparing it-dont. and even at that the idiot below complaining about how it is too hard to make money, there is a million and one ways to make a few bucks. you can become a merchant and send caravans (an awesome bonus feature not in warband) that do not get attacked. you may be crying about how you lost money on a caravan- you lazy bastard, send it to moscow. the farther you send it, generally, the more moneyyou make. and you could even start with $200 (which can be made in 5 minutes)- go buy silk for $120 and flip it for $1200. i especially like how i can buy hundreds of troops at a time, which takes the annoying part out of training troops- in warband you had to go, city by city, collecting 3 or 4 men at a time, around your whole country. one thing i will say though is that it is laggy on a slow processor (requires 2.1ghz) but it runs fine on my 2.0ghz laptop. all in all- good game, cheap price, go for it : ) Expand
  33. Jun 4, 2011
    8
    the worst thing you can say about it is its alot like warband but harder because of the guns and a bit more complex because you can only recruit from villages if you have joined that faction. however given that most felt warband could be a bit to easy and ranged weapons needed a buff its ok. however warband is still the best in the series because the setting feels better for this kind of game and its gotten to far with the difficulty at the start of the game (to many very fast bandit units with firearms near your spawn)
    however its dirt cheap and if you want a very unique game with amazing gameplay though poor graphics its well worth it, in fact its well worth no matter what you like because mount and blade is such a good series
    Expand
  34. 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.
  35. 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. 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
  36. 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
    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
  37. 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'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
  38. 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
    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
  39. May 17, 2011
    10
    Fire and Sword is great and a heck of an addictive game, although it is little similar to older mount and blades but i am still enjoying it. Bring of firearms in action has increased a lot of gameplay, Rifles and muskets really makes the scenario more challenging, just one shot and you are dead. the Grenades are probably the most fun part of the game, Although i would appreciate if we could hold more than 12 of them. The storyline is neither great nor bad. Although the reason i am giving this game a 10 is because of the multiplayer. which is extremely fun to play....Its just awsome, and because of the new items in the game, the multiplayer just gets better and better Expand
  40. 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 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
  41. 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 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
  42. 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 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
  43. May 6, 2011
    2
    Eh, where to start. I've played Mount + Blade: Warband prior to this game, and thouroughly enjoyed it. I'm not sure why I didn't get the same feeling with WFS, possibly becuase the whole game just feels half-assed. I think the first failing was in character creation. Unlike the first game, they had noticably chopped out everything that answered to generate your character. You were simply given a rifle, and an axe. That's it. Let's ignore the fact i've placed all my skills in Bows + Arrows. Oh well, looks avoidable, so i'll go buy a bow. No, looks like it's ridiculously out of budget. Another massive failing in this game is the effort and time it requires to make the smallest amounts of money. This means that all the other aspects of the game are held up, becuase they all hinge on you having the money to buy men, or to buy supplies, etc. etc. It was just, really, really stupid and I expected so much better from the creators of Warband.
    (And all of this is while playing on easy difficulty, I dread to think what sort of lengths you have to on harder settings.)

    To be honest, I hated it. I really did. I recomend Warband over this any day. I rated it a 2 becuase i'm sure it's possible the multiplayer could be enjoyable, but the campaign is just appalling.
    Expand
  44. 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 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
  45. May 5, 2011
    9
    This game fills a huge gap which Total War series left open. If you know sequel, this is not a big improvement but there are not many games which presents medieval fps warfare while you still can use macro advancements like recruiting mercenaries to build an army and so on. Price is absolutely a bargain, but I should say I prefer some stunning graphics with a more expensive price tag.
    Only
    missing thing is achievements and multiplayer leveling, which I suppose will have a negative effect on the total online play hours. In the following days game will release a Turkish patch to satisfy its local players, maybe we can expect an online experience/ladder system, or at least some achievements. Expand
  46. 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. 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
  47. 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 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
  48. May 3, 2011
    9
    Fire and Sword is a unique take in the series, it could be considered the "Empire Total War" of the Mount and Blade Series, the introduction of Firearms drastically changes the gameplay, players can't charge headlong into musket/rifle fire, as bullets/musket balls can pierce all armor save the most expensive ones yet slow to reload. This forces the player to have a nice army composition, and plan out how to defeat the enemy. Castle and city Sieges/Defenses have been revolutionized. Players now have a wide range of actions he/she can do in order to capture a city they can bribe the guards to gain control of the gates, poison the water supply, blow a hole in the walls, and other particular actions. yet despite these advantages combat will mostly favor the defender as the range damage would instantly kill any heavily armored unit. The political intrigue of 17th century Eastern Europe provides a unique and interesting back story to players who read the Fire and Sword series, and the general historical events will enjoy trying to recreating history and appreciate the unique "What if" scenarios that the game creates. The only downside of the game that i am experiencing is difficulty curve when fighting range units, as a well placed musket shot can and will knock you out instantly in the beginning of the game, money "Talents" are much harder to get then the previous games, players will have to take on more quests and side jobs in order to pay for their armies, as Tournaments no longer exist (or i have yet to discover them). Armies are also harder to recruit, as the player can only recruit mercenaries via Taverns, and Mercenaries camps until they join a particular fraction. then they can recruit units traditionally, which is more historically accurate. Aside from That, I would recommend this to fans of previous games and those that are interested in 17th century eastern Europe. Expand
  49. 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
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.