Metascore
73

Mixed or average reviews - based on 28 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 28
  2. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. Oct 8, 2012
    79
    Set in the Middle Ages, War of the Roses is a very innovative and addictive multiplayer action game. Clearly inspired by Mount & Blade, its combat system is fast-paced and the customization is addictive.
  2. Oct 25, 2012
    60
    War of the Roses is what happens when you cross medieval weaponry with the Battlefield-franchise. It is motivating to fight for your next level up and the spoils that come with it, but nonetheless this game feels like it is released prematurely.
  3. Nov 9, 2012
    65
    War of the Roses is a good base to build upon in future installments, but until then, Mount & Blade has nothing to worry about.
  4. Nov 29, 2012
    80
    An interesting medieval action game with a very good combat system (except for a rather primitive mounted combat) which is more refined than its counterpart in Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. [CD-Action 13/2012, p.62]
  5. Oct 11, 2012
    80
    Right now, it's a lot of fun, and while lacking in some key areas, it also has the potential to grow into something that will keep players slaughtering each other for a long time to come. It's competitive, skill-based, I suck at it, and I know I'll be playing it tonight.
  6. Oct 1, 2012
    80
    War of the Roses is modest and pared-down, then - but it offers a challenging, chaotic and sometimes comic take on multiplayer. It's an innovative game and I'd like to see it succeed, I'd like to see it grow and, quite honestly, I'd like to see it turn into an eSport.
  7. Oct 25, 2012
    60
    War of the Roses still has the potential to become a real jewel of a game. Coming patches and updates will determine if it'll go under in the storming sea of middling arena action titles – or if it will become an exotic insiders' tip that'll win a devoted following apart from renaissance fair enthusiasts.
  8. Oct 22, 2012
    80
    War of the Roses takes on the genre of multiplayer war-games with a new and exciting setting. The game manages to capture frantic melee-battles of the 15th century very well and the combat feels solid and deep. Lots of weapons and armor make up for a lack of game modes and maps, but hopefully there will be more content added to this already interesting title.
  9. Oct 27, 2012
    73
    War of the Roses, thanks to its genuine feeling and its peculiar gameplay mechanics, is one of the best combat simulations on PC.
  10. Nov 11, 2012
    75
    War of the Roses attempts to make you feel like an actual knight who takes part in enormous battles in the middle-ages. Once you master the gameplay you can become the hero of the battlefield, if your timing was correct and you're not lacking any tactical insight. War of the Roses rewards you well for these traits, but that doesn't make it a great game.
  11. Oct 27, 2012
    80
    War of the Roses is a highly enjoyable multiplayer experience set in medieval England. It offers a challenging combat system, deep class customization and an authentic feel, but can at times be unpolished in terms of gameplay.
  12. Nov 25, 2012
    62
    There are no single player components for when the lag gets the better of you. [Christmas 2012, p.94]
  13. Nov 29, 2012
    70
    A complicated game mechanics title that's obviously suited for gamers in love with medieval battles. If it is your love, you will clench your teeth and the gameplay will reward you with a fantastic atmosphere and a rich experience. The game's variations are few, so it is basically two groups of fighters slitting each others throats. Nonetheless, expanding the gameplay experience is a likelihood.
  14. Oct 6, 2012
    75
    Limited though it may be, War of the Roses delivers a grisly, realistic take on third-person medieval combat that hits most of the right notes.
  15. Oct 9, 2012
    60
    War of the Roses is a game I desperately want to like more than I do. It's the end product of so many high-quality pieces, but unfortunately it fails to really pull everything together.
  16. Sep 25, 2012
    80
    War of the Roses is an online experience unlike the vast majority of competitive war games out there. After you get over the initial clunkiness of the controls, wading into battle with a massive two-handed sword and bringing it down on some poor soldier's head is even more exhilarating than getting a multikill in most online shooters. The combat is fast-paced and the customization is addictive.
  17. Oct 15, 2012
    80
    Quotation forthcoming.
  18. Sep 26, 2012
    80
    It's definitely going to be punishing to casual players or people who simply aren't that good, but if you do manage to get to grips with it, it's very rewarding. It can sometimes feel a little grindy, especially early on as you're trying to save up money to perfect your first load out, but other than that this is one good looking and well-made man stabber.
  19. Oct 9, 2012
    70
    Some will like this game, some won't. Fans of Warband will be excited by the multiplayer, but sandbox lovers won't find anything here. Mount & Blade players will appreciate much better graphics, but others won't be impressed. Ethusiasts of intuitive swordfights will welcome the simple fighting system, but slasher veterans will most likely be bored. The key thing is the future - the amount of active players will decide about the game's success or failure. The biggest problem is lack of free-to-play gaming model, but still there's some potential and I quite like it.
  20. Nov 14, 2012
    60
    If more maps and game modes are released, War of the Roses could turn into quite a niche time sink. Whether such hope is worth gambling $29.99 US on is up to you. [Dec 2012]
  21. Oct 3, 2012
    73
    War of the Roses isn't quite Mount and Blade or Battlefield, but it manages to walk a fine line between the two models to produce an innovative and enjoyable experience.
  22. Oct 4, 2012
    80
    War of the Roses is a fresh and addictive title that uses a setting rarely exploited in the genre. Except some modification for FPS and the obvious similarity to Mount & Blade, there aren't so many games that have explored the existing market for this combination of setting and genre. The result is more than good and any lover of the Middle Ages will find himself spending too many hours in front of the screen, while handling his sword and putting down enemies with arrows.
  23. Oct 3, 2012
    75
    War of the Roses is a solid multiplayer experience blessed by fresh and funny combat system and doomed by lack of multiplayer modes. There is a single player too, but it's so thin that it's almost invisible.
  24. Oct 7, 2012
    77
    A slight but fun third-person medieval melee game. It's definitely different, but needs more bulking out.
  25. Dec 2, 2012
    60
    The foundation for a sophisticated swordplayer is here, but War of the Roses misses the jugular by forgetting to include the rest. [Dec 2012, p.74]
  26. Nov 15, 2012
    79
    A good start, but needs more levels and a 1st person view. And some lessons from Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. [Nov 2012]
  27. Oct 9, 2012
    70
    War of the Roses tries to recreate the historical period of Medio Evo as it really was, but the poor game modes limit the experience.
  28. Oct 11, 2012
    70
    War of the Roses is shallow and unrefined, but if you want what it's got then you'll have a great time with it.
User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 274 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 46 out of 122
  2. Negative: 59 out of 122
  1. Oct 3, 2012
    3
    I could see how this game might appeal to any newbies of the genre but the facts stand that FatShark have managed to butcher what could haveI could see how this game might appeal to any newbies of the genre but the facts stand that FatShark have managed to butcher what could have been an awesome game in an awful attempt to make the game appeal to the masses. The funny thing about this is that even my "casual" friends can see through the terrible gimmicks and truly retarded choices that the developers have made in accordance to the game.

    Let's break the negative and positives points of this game down; NEGATIVE: 1. **** progression system designed to hide the bland gameplay and increase the eventual short lifespan of the game. (summer flick) 2. Slow and cumbersome combat system. Two veterans will literally duel each other for upwards of 10 minutes simply because there's a very low "skill height level" compared to that of other games in the genre such as Mount & Blade.
    3. Developer is rejecting the fundamental aspects that make up PC gaming - they're refusing to post in topics asking them to release dedicated server files (even unranked files) and the devs have no plan to include mod support
    4. To rub the soreness of the lack of dedicated server files in further, the developers have decided to team up with Multiplay (Whom host **** servers, the only reason they're "big" is because they spend tonnes on marketing) to provide EXCLUSIVE server hosting. So the only way you can run a server is if you rent it. 5. Squad spawning system is so bad that I simply don't know how to sum it up in words. They might work in games such as Call Of Duty and Battlefield but THEY DON'T WORK IN THIS GENRE! 6. Game is riddled with bugs and connectivity issues, despite players warning FatShark that this was going to happen in alpha/beta.
    7. I could keep on talking about the negative aspects but why rehash content which you can find all over the 'net. The only positive aspects about this game is the graphics and excellent archer mechanics. Bascially, this game is simply an arcade game which should be priced around the $10 mark as it's really only good for wasting an hour or two on when you're completely bored. I might be being overly harsh with my review score, but FatShark have broken so many promises with this game that it's astounding that people are still defending them. I don't have any hopes for much after-release support considering FatShark's has a reputation (or lack thefore) for not creating updates for their products after launch.
    Full Review »
  2. Oct 2, 2012
    10
    This is an excellent game, with a steep learning curve. If you are more used to slower-paced games, this game will throw you off. If you areThis is an excellent game, with a steep learning curve. If you are more used to slower-paced games, this game will throw you off. If you are used to games that require little in terms of practice and skill, this game will throw you off. This is not your average multiplayer game, this is something unique and different.

    Some claim that the controls are clunky and awkward and, you know what, they are. The point is that it's not something that takes away from the game; rather, it is just another element that you have to learn, adapt to and then master. We are all noobs to begin with and this game makes that painfully clear.

    If you're a terribad, you're going to hate this game, because no matter what you do, others will seem to instantly kill you from miles away with a crossbow, mow you down with a horse and lance, crush your face with a hammer coming down on your helmet like the wrath of a severely irked deity... but if you decide to lift yourself above the masses and actually learn the mechanics, learn when to use the dagger, when to use the poleaxe, how the arrows drop off... then you will eventually be rewarded ten-fold, when you snipe that pesky mounted knight right off his horse at 200 yards.

    This game rewards skill and, unfortunately for some, skill is not an unlock.

    The graphics quality is top-of-the-line and with all settings cranked to the max, it looks as good as any triple-A title on the market. It has some work to do in the optimization/performance department, but those are just details, minor cracks in an otherwise superb presentation. If you don't own a beastly machine, turn shadows off, and your framerate will skyrocket.

    Overall, this game is definitely worth the
    Full Review »
  3. Oct 3, 2012
    5
    Great idea done badly. The melee combat is terrible. Players squad spawn on each other so combat basically amounts to people popping out ofGreat idea done badly. The melee combat is terrible. Players squad spawn on each other so combat basically amounts to people popping out of thin air until one side has enough to win, then repeat. Strategy zero, skill zero, tactics zero, zerg everything. Hand to hand combat is of the 'mount and blade' style. Run slowly forwards with your arm raised in one direction. Release, spin mouse about as you run about in a little circle, repeat. Weapons seem to pass ghost like through other players.

    Ranged combat works better, but not good enough to save this pretty, but empty game. Customization exists but you probably won't care by the time you've played enough to unlock them.
    Full Review »