- Publisher: Paradox Interactive
- Release Date: Oct 2, 2012
User Score
5.9
out of 10
Mixed or average reviews- based on 193 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 98 out of 193
-
Mixed: 29 out of 193
-
Negative: 66 out of 193
Review this game
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
Oct 3, 20123
-
Oct 2, 20122
-
Oct 12, 20124The Good: Decent visuals, skill based combat, lots of customisation, developers do patch the game regularly.
The Bad: Very, very shallow gameplay modes, heavily exploited balance issues, surprising lack of gore, generally lacking polish, map design is quite poor.
The game is fun to pick up and play for about 10 minutes at a time, any longer and it will probably bother you. -
Oct 4, 20121
-
Oct 4, 20120Very bad game, worst money can buy, even don't reminde mount and blade, some kind of **** i am very disapointed.
Why they do it with the reputation of mount and blade? -
Oct 6, 20120The game is bogged down by technical issues--it crashes about one out of every three times I play. It still has potential, but probably should not have been released in its current state.
-
Oct 13, 20120I pre-purchased this game under the pretense that it would have a single player campaign. In half of the write-ups about the game, it even states that it does, when it in fact does not. Extremely disappointed.
-
Oct 3, 20124
-
Oct 8, 20123A great idea hindered by poor execution all across the board. Not only is the gameplay on a whole relatively shallow, it is also one of the most unbalanced games I have ever played. Save yourself the money, for similar yet better titles look towards the Mount and Blade Titles and steer clear of this title.
-
Oct 13, 20122
-
Oct 9, 20120
-
Oct 6, 20122
-
Oct 4, 20121
-
Oct 6, 20124This game is absulutely amazing , the combat , atmosphere graphics , they nailed pretty much all of it.
The real question is , is this game worth -
Oct 14, 20120
-
Oct 4, 20122The game is simplistic and worn out from the moment you first turn it on. Bottom line: something I wont be playing a few days from now. Granted its $30, but not worth even that.
-
Oct 4, 20123
-
Oct 27, 20122This game could have seriously used another year in development. Its buggy, bland environments, the combat is bland and quite unbalanced. There are a lot of different attack options, but you can simply horizontal swing spam your way into getting the most kills with a 2H sword.
-
Oct 15, 20122
-
Oct 17, 20120Buggy mixed with a crappy combat system = epic fail.
-
Oct 15, 20124
-
Jan 19, 20130Had great potential but when it actually released it turned out to be worse than a beta test as far as being able to play the thing. Rather than fixing the enormous amount of problems with this game, the developers would rather make it more fun for the few hundred or so who can play it as apposed to the thousands who bought it.
-
Jan 6, 20134
-
Nov 21, 20120
-
Jan 5, 20134
-
Jan 31, 20132
-
Nov 30, 20123
-
Feb 10, 20131To put it in a Nutshell, if u think u are going to take place in the game for just a few minutes. u gonna have a bad time. Because you don`t have a chance to do anything in the game except of keep falling to death. It really sucks if your are new to the game. If you want to play it and don`t want to spend a bit of time in it, you can forget it. But the Graphics are fine
-
Feb 5, 20130Great idea, absolutely pathetic execution. One of the worst games I have played EVER. Terrible combat mechanics, poor system performance on a high-end gaming system, terrible game all around.
Incredibly disappointed to have wasted the money on this steaming pile of garbage.
DON'T BOTHER WITH IT!!! -
Mar 2, 20132Complete disgrace of medieval games, broken combat system, not even good tutorial to help you, this is probably the worst game experiences ive yet had. Buy Chivarly rather than this broken piece of garbage.
-
Mar 4, 20132Nice graphics but awful gameplay and animations. Even though this was heavily discounted it still feels like a waste of money. Very much doubt I'll play again.
-
Mar 5, 20133This game actually sucks. Horrible combat system, max 30 fps on quite modern computer, graphic glitches in the main menu. The only plus of this game is graphics it looks quite good. But, seriously that's nearly not enough.
-
Jun 17, 20134
-
Jun 7, 20133It's not a bad game. It's just that I've seen other games with the same genre that are way better than this one. Despite how funny it can be to slash some foes at multiplayer, we can see some clear symptoms of laziness in this title, as if it was just not finished.
-
Apr 16, 20132As a veteran M&B player i was really interested of this, The idea of this game is great but not executed very well. Combat is clumsy and not working good and smooth like on Mount and blade series, graphics are nice but it doesn't matter when the gameplay is horribly bad It always feel like it would run on 20 fps or lagging like on 150 ping.
-
Apr 10, 20130
-
Jun 6, 20131
-
Dec 2, 201260The 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]
-
Nov 29, 201280An 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]
-
Nov 29, 201270A 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.