User Score
5.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 260 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 99 out of 260

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. Jun 24, 2013
    3
    Combat is incredibly clunky and slow, and victory one on one is always, ALWAYS given to the player with the higher level. I'm a level one obviously since i just bought the game, and you cant even penetrate level 30 players armor to do any damage. Its usually turns into one team running around a spawn slaughtering players without any fear of being injured. Out of the 6 games i played i only enjoyed one as everyone in that game was an equal level (1-5) I cant recommend this game to anyone except people who have been their since day one and are higher levels, which is a pretty worthless recommendation. Fun when it works, but it hardly ever does. Expand
  2. Mar 9, 2014
    1
    Brilliant. Fat Shark announced a new anti cheat system. No ETA, No bans of existing hackers resulting in the game now being unplayable without hacks as all those people that purchased hacks want to make the most of it. Glad I paid for a game that is unplayable. This company made a game that should have sold itself and then somehow still screwed it up. It is a disaster. A great game made uttertly unplayable by hacking and the inactivity of the developer. Why they bothered with a beta I dont know as the exploits from beta are all still there. These days most hackers dont even bother with subtetly.

    What to expect. A beautiful game with great locations and a nice feel to the weapons on offer. A great array of weapons.

    Spamming the same weapon all day long. 2H sword point dragging works well (Also meant to have been fixed patches ago but still there) Being forced to go archer because you have at least a chance of hitting a hacker with it occasionally even with speed increases. Going bald because your spending your time scratching your head wondering just why the hell someone would release a game like this and allow the hackers to ruin it while doing nothing about it. One assumes this game cost money to make but it feels abandoned .

    People in heavy armour with heavy weapons speed hacking so they are faster than an olympic sprinter in his underwear.

    Blocks which do not block because of an exploit that allows you to avoid blocks.

    Archers using the horse dismount exploit to enter the map scenery usually inaccessible and firing out with impunity.

    and too many other hacks and exploits to list most of which have been there since launch.

    I have persevered with this game since launch but this game is too broken to be fixed by this developer. They were lazy in testing, created another game which also doesnt work instead and is actually a terrible game even without the hacking and now they are just discussing putting in an anti cheat system which might work but no timeline.

    Avoid anything from this company like the plague. One of the very few (only) companies which make EA look customer focused.

    Waiting for a long long time before you can actually play the game. Until the anti cheat patch there is no point logging in as everyone that purchased hacks is trying to get value for money before the mythical anti cheat release.

    On a server without hacking and exploiting (you find one perhaps once every couple of weeks) the game is a joy to play. It isnt perfect at all but it is satisfying addictive and fun with very detailed combat mechanics which mean that combat is more than just clicking furiously. Combat involves many choices and options when all things are equal. Do not expect realism but a great game with combat that feels like your level of skill and timing matters. This may or may not be possible again for the foreseeable future while they dither and blunder around wondering what to do about hacking and at present things will get worse before they get better.
    Expand
  3. Mar 2, 2013
    2
    Complete 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.
  4. Feb 26, 2014
    2
    A very solid medieval brawler that unfortunately gets bulldozered by pay-2-win elements (real money for in-game gold), constant and game-breaking design choices (handgonnes, 99% armor penetration on blunt weapons, fire arrows, faceroll halberds). I could bring up on how the game fights any and all kinds of modding or how they're dilluting the game into the call of duty mindset but that would just be beating a dead horse at this point. Expand
  5. Jan 24, 2014
    4
    This game is a multiplayer only, medieval third person action game set in 15th century England. For many of you, if you see this game on steam, this might look quite appealing. Unfortunately it is a huge waste of 10 GB and the graphics are fuzzy and not as I would have hoped. The actual playing is decent, but the frame rate goes at a dismal 10-40 FPS. It is really impossible to play unless you have patience. Anyway, save the 10 GB, don't get this game. Plus this game is infested with horrible bugs Expand
  6. Jan 6, 2013
    4
    This game shows promise but fails horribly. The melee combat is almost completely broken. Most of the time you get someone attacking you over and over with the same basic attack and can randomly kill you even if you have a shield. So very little skill is involved in this game. Other players say you need skill but don't listen to them. Very little skill is really needed since there is no stamina or negative draw back from spam attacking someone. Since the game is meant to be a melee combat game, having it so broken seems like a total failure on behalf of the developer. However, the graphics are good. Gore is alright. If you need gore to sell you a game you should probably get your head examined anyway. Archery is pretty fun and always great feeling getting a headshot. Maps are decent but only a few are actually fun. Overall, pass on this title. Don't bother wasting your money. Although there is fun aspects to the game, most of the time you'll be pulling your hair out when your spam attacked or when you hit an opponent but it fails to register. However, if the developer fixes the basic mistakes they made then this title might be worth checking out. But in it's current state, don't bother. Expand
  7. Jun 7, 2013
    3
    It'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.
  8. Oct 4, 2012
    3
    I can only speak for the Multiplayer. And i try to keep it short:

    Call of Duty with swords. anyone who confused this, with a sequel to the amazing Mount&Blade franchise, you are mistaken. The gameplay seems random and stiff. There is no first person, which makes it even more arcadelooking. I was really disappointed, and i wonder why i should play this, and not switch to the more than
    capable competition. Chivalery i think it is called. Expand
  9. Dec 4, 2013
    2
    Where to start why NOT to play this game. I think the two most important things are AIM BOTS and PAY2WIN.

    AIM BOTS... Well, how about a player standing at the other side of the map, you can't even see him at all and he 1-shots you with a perfect headshot over and over again. Kinda lame that there's always cheaters in games like these just for the e-peen charts :(

    PAY2WIN... As it
    says. Drop real money in the game to get in-game money and buy weapons & upgrades. Without those you close to have no chance to win a battle in this game.

    Then there's also the animations and combat.
    Combat feels slow, but that's how it should be you can't easily swing huge 2-handed sword in a matter of a second. But it's the mechanics around the slow combat system makes combat weird. You can't really aim very well how you want to hit and you just have to hope for the best results.
    And animations, well, they are kinda choppy. It feels like the animations are still in development and only the rough sketches of them were released.
    Expand
  10. Oct 9, 2012
    0
    1) Completely lacks balance. Anyone with armor is basically invulnerable to the only starting soldier that a new player can have. Most players already have armor, so if you've just started, you are effed. Armor and shields do not deteriorate
    2) No single player campaign
    3) Performance is horrible even on good systems. The game is not optimized to use your GPU properly, utilizing only
    about 40% of it.
    4) Extremely simplistic and boring gameplay.

    DO NOT PURCHASE THIS GAME!!!
    Expand
  11. Nov 15, 2013
    0
    I purchased this thinking it would be similar to Mount & Blade, a game I love, but it isn't.

    It's basically a fast paced FPS in medieval times. Claustrophobic maps. Scripted A. I. Constant respawning. Horrible bows. Worthless combat. Crappy settings. Not at all fun.

    This is probably the worst game I have ever purchased. Yet again I have to remind myself to read reviews before I buy a
    game. *sigh* Silly me.

    I return to Mount & Blade (heavily modded....).
    Expand
  12. Oct 2, 2013
    2
    It looks beautiful, it sounds that way, too. Who doesn't want to swing a sword? Well, not in this game, because swords are actually peasant weapon here. Just farm through your pathetic free frag season, equip plate armour and warhammer/crossbow to even have a chance versus other plate+warhammer players. The melee combat is a mess, an absolute clusterf***, not explained and even if you finally know what's what, it simply doesn't work as it should. I guess that a clusterf*** defines a "refined" novadays, but don't get fooled there's not a single thing that's "refined" here.
    It's a good spamhammer simulator, though.
    Expand
  13. Sep 7, 2013
    2
    I played Chivalry before this and found it fun, but buggy and not worth the price tag for what still felt like a mod. Fast forward to now, I decided to try War of the Roses what a mistake. This game is full of people who have spent far too much time unlocking skins and weapon upgrades so you basically have no chance. Most of the players in the game kill you no matter what you do. I've tried all the tactics, faking attacks, parrying enemy attacks, it's just so badly done. The hitboxes are small and random, so you can't reliably hit someone just because your mace or sword just hit them. The third person perspective sucks for immersion and makes it hard to aim given the game has such small hitboxes. I unlocked plate armor and thought I'd try it assuming I'd be much harder to kill NOPE. Plate armor is useless, the latest patch must have rebalanced because people fussed about plate armor being OP. Now I get murdered by guys with swords and axes with my visor down. Somehow slashing a guy in plate armor just murders him.

    The realism in this game is just totally missing. No stamina, so that means everyone just spams attacks. There's no real different feel between the armor types they just look different. Honestly this game makes me think of Call of Duty far more than Chivalry did. This has ranks, crests which are like the banner thing in CoD (I have no idea what it's called anymore), ridiculous things that look stupid (Big antlers on a guy's head, really authentic there), and ridiculous skins for some of the armors and unlockable weapons. Chivalry had unlockable weapons, but at least required a player to be really good with them to get the better ones and didn't have terrible ones for starter weapons. It's hard to believe the same people who made Mount & Blade made this abomination, as M&B is a good and fun game. This is nothing like it. Avoid at all costs. Any small redeeming factors in this game get totally overshadowed by terrible balance, ridiculous learning curve, and it just feels too arcade to me.
    Expand
  14. Oct 4, 2012
    2
    The 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.
  15. Oct 17, 2012
    0
    Buggy mixed with a crappy combat system = epic fail.
  16. Nov 21, 2012
    0
    This game was made with the lead and gold engine, any melee game should be built from the ground up and not use a FPS engine modified a little. Due to it using the lead and gold engine it is clunky, glitchy, and extremely awkward feeling. I have played mount & blade for 2 years and this game was marketed to me, I even got a discount. Fatshark are trying to appeal to the casual gamers on this one. DO NOT BUY THIS! One thing that is funny is that when using a horse you can either A) move extremely fast and uncontrollable, or B) move extremely slow and trot. Expand
  17. Jun 6, 2013
    0
    I played "War of the Roses" straight from the beginning, I even did preorder it. It started off as a fairly enjoyable game, not great but fun and enteraining for a while. Every single patch since then has made the game buggier. The balance is completely up since the early beta-days, because the Devs decided to listen to every single complaint about a weapon being over-powered. It has less than 300 players a day (according to steam), so I really have to hate myself because I bought this steaming pile of donkey instead of the much, much better Age of Chivalry (which has ofc its own problems, but WotR dwarfs them in comparison). Avoid this stinking pile of garbage at any cost. Again: Less than 300 players a day cant be wrong. Expand
  18. Aug 31, 2013
    2
    Don't get me wrong, the customization is what this game managed to put forward in this genre, however the game falls incredibly short in terms of genuine content and gameplay.
    As an avid fan of Mount and Blade: Warband, this game is just appalling in terms of gameplay, weapons seem to have no weight, fighting is incredibly slow (and whatever critic said it was fast paced is deemed
    retarded in my books), awful animations and it just feels floaty as oppose to how battles back then really were.
    Graphics wise it's fairly good
    Music's nice
    But I would not recommend this game to anyone, if you want a proper medieval type action/RPG get Mount and Blade: Warband, or play this and then that.
    Expand
  19. Sep 12, 2013
    1
    Oh dear god, where to begin? At first glance War of the Roses looks attractive. When I first started up the game I had the expectation that I would be experiencing some fun game play, sword fighting with other players from across the world and upgrading my character etc. Now I have a pretty good PC, i can run the new Tomb Raider on High settings but War of the Roses barely runs properly on medium! In fact in only runs smoothly on low! And even then there is pop-up and some damn bad textures. There is so little to do in this game, there is no single player and the maps are frankly rubbish! Everything about the game play is boring and sluggish, you move at a snails pace, your character is awkward to look at and control and the sword fighting... it seems like a great idea, allowing you to swing your sword in different directions and give yourself more control but it is executed SO badly! It takes a depressing amount of time and effort to land a single blow on an enemy. Also you will find that it is hard to tell who is your enemy and who isn't since there is no indication as to who your enemy is, you just have to look for whoever is trying to kill you. I could go on for ages about how bad this game is. Usually when I see users rating a game a low score I assume the user is just being too harsh but this is NOT the case with this game, don't be tempted by any positive reviews, this game is BAD! I'm just glad I got it in the humble origin deal for a low price otherwise I would be fuming by now. Avoid like AIDS. Expand
  20. Oct 14, 2012
    0
    At start I want to say - this game is really OK. When it works. The main problem is that 90% of the time it does not work at all. Either these are: 1. Problems with refereshing server list (not able to play for couple of hours, occurs every day)
    2. Crashes to desktop without a reason
    3. Low FPS due to tragic game code - gpu is not utilised AT ALL (30-35% - 2012 AD it is. Joke.) 4. Kicks
    out to menu right before the end of the battle. Why? Because. So summing it up the game is not worth even a dime. If the problems would be fixed, for the game itself I would give strong 8. But how can You review something which stopped to work after the patches were released? In my opinion Paradox just rips people off on this, gathering money to make some other game. This is a frustrating product - some may ask why don't You play single player? Because there is none. So I give this so called "game" a strong 0. Collapse
  21. Oct 12, 2012
    4
    The 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.
  22. Oct 6, 2012
    2
    Remember STALKER? Any Paradox game? Or any other awesome single player game that had multiplayer put in *just so it was there* and nobody really cared for multiplayer.

    Well, War of the the Roses is opposite: It's just a crappy multiplayer piece of what could be really awesome single player game. The setting, the historic texts, it all point to something really great... which isn't
    there.

    It's fun to whack people with sword, but as everyone said, for 20 minutes. Then it gets extremely dull. Opening Tech tree needs more grinding than completing whole game of WoW and differences in options are costly and too subtle to matter: Even with deadliest weapon and armor, you quickly get creamed by few enemy archers, but have advantage of only 1-2 hits less needed to kill an enemy, so there's no point in investing hours and hours in getting those.

    Disappointment, that's what it is.
    Expand
  23. Oct 3, 2012
    4
    I really wanted to like this game. It looks pretty good, but the fighting feels and looks very awkward. Its not very immersive, and its presentation is very arcadey. The hud is overwhelming, the VO is uninspired- it just feels very generic. The game modes are not exciting and there isn't much to inspire teamwork. The commander spawn in system is awful- you will be in a duel with a guy for a minute and suddenly 3 people blink into existence behind him and kill you. Players who want a melee grindfest and playing dress-up with knights might enjoy it but I don't see it having much long lasting appeal for many. Expand
  24. Oct 27, 2012
    2
    This 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.
  25. Oct 13, 2012
    0
    I 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.
  26. Apr 16, 2013
    2
    As 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.
  27. Oct 20, 2013
    0
    Terrible game, you will probably be kicked from a server for killing someone, hits don't count half the time. Floaty, spammy combat. Griding for new classes. All around boring game. Don't waste money on it.
  28. Oct 6, 2012
    4
    This game is absulutely amazing , the combat , atmosphere graphics , they nailed pretty much all of it.
    The real question is , is this game worth
  29. Sep 19, 2013
    2
    The game is massively unbalanced; One large example would be that the first class that is unlocked when you start the game does extremely minimal to no damage to two of the other classes. Once the other classes are unlocked the game basically becomes a "Who can insta-kill the other other first", which I personally don't find fun. The graphics are decent, but the game suffers from poor optimization. Like any free game, if you think you might like the game try it out for yourself, but many will be disappointed in doing so. Expand
  30. Oct 4, 2012
    1
    This game is a let down, graphics and sound are ok, some customizations are plain retarded (see helms), animations are clunky and unnatural. The biggest problem is core gameplay, squad respawn is the worst thing they could have done (thank GVanDick and his BF3 mechanics for that), team play is non existent, skill basically means slash & pray (except archer that's not too bad). Got tired of it after a day. Expand
  31. Oct 13, 2012
    2
    Coming from a Huge fan of Mount and Blade Warband i thought this game would have a similiar type Style of playing. So i decided to give it a try and to my extreme disappointment This games battle fighting is not even up to mount and blades, it is reptative with a guy more often than not falling to the ground holding his stomach??? I'd say they need to go back and analyze the fighting from mount and blade warband and give it a slight twist and go for a re-do as sadly this game in my opionion will be one of those fall by the wayside $9.99 titles that we see way to often already. Such a shame as it had the potential to be so much more :( Expand
  32. Oct 15, 2012
    4
    I have to say this is a huge disappointment. The concept is great ! The execution is only average but what really lets this down is the lack of content. Delivering this as an online only experience with no single player worth talking about fails to justify the price tag. In fact there are free games with more distance in them that this poor excuse.
    The possibilities were endless and more
    development time, game design would have work wonders.
    A terrible shame.
    Expand
  33. Mar 4, 2013
    2
    Nice 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.
  34. Sep 7, 2013
    0
    Ok, where do I start? For starters, the swinging system feels backwards. Swinging the mouse to the right makes you swing left, and vise versa. The archery, while seemingly sophisticated, is too complicated for serious use. The game requires you to reach level 20 to make your own classes. Until then, you are stuck with classes that are objectively inferior to these created classes, causing you to get your butt handed to you over and over again and destroying any sense of enjoyment until level 20. The spawn and revival systems feel incredibly wonky and confusing, as well. But the worst part of the game, by far, is the campaign missions. You run into glitch after glitch after glitch, in which either your kills aren't registered, the AI has snipers for archers, or you just die on the spot for no reason. In these cases, you don't even get a death animation, you are just sent back to your spawn point. The AI is constantly stealing your kills, yet never has your back when you need them the most. The campaign is definitely the worst aspect. Even disregarding the campaign, this game feels broken and only half finished. I honestly cannot name a single positive thing about this game. If you are looking for a medieval combat game, I would instead recommend Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. Expand
  35. Sep 14, 2013
    0
    Rated 0 for a game that isn't worth your money and time at all for the following reasons: 1. Pay to win. 2. Horrible balance in weapons & armour, only very few weapons and customisations are viable 3. Poor community (for a multiplayer game), inactive forums, foul mouthed players ingame. Even Dota 2's community is better and its a F2P without Pay To Win. 4. Poor game development direction and track record (read their forums) You need about 20USD to buy the gears (after grinding up the levels to unlock them) to gain a level playing field. With the 4 stock classes available, with the exception of the Foot Knight, you will be mercilessly massacred non-stop by players with OP weapons, which means you can't help your team win, meaning you level very slowly and painfully and have no equipment. The current state of the game 1.8 is highly unbalanced and the development direction isn't good. Multi player consists of: 1. Ninjas in cloth armour and overpowered weapons running around, dodging hits and 1-hitting people 2. Players using overpowered weapons (Pollaxe, Long Axe, Warhammer) in Medium/Heavy armour killing everything in 1 2 hits. 3. Snipers with Crossbows sniping with high precision across the battlefield. Simply try the F2P version if you want to see how bad it is. Forget about trying anything "historical". They don't work. List of useless game features (or why the game is terrible): 1. Heavy Armour Blunt weapons ignore armour. The 2 OP weapons commonly used are Pollaxe (Foot Knight stock class has it) and Warhammer. No knight in shining armour for you. 2. Any Medium/Heavy Helmet other than Bascinet Pollaxe 1-hit kills if it hits your head regardless of Helmet type. The neck attachments to the helmets DO NOT WORK (Bevors, Mail Coif) but they still slow your character down. Bascinet is the only viable competitive helmet because of its protection to weight ratio as well as the vision restriction. The lack of neck protection also means that people can simply use a faster weapon and spam an attack to your head repeatedly hoping for a lucky hit to your neck (which happens rather frequently). 3a. Any sword that isn't Imperial Style, Hollow Grind, Balanced These settings increases the damage of your weapon, penetration against heavy armour and swing speed. The majority of your opponents online wear Medium to Heavy Armour. Without Hollow Grind (which gives armour penetration buff), your sword is useless. b. That being said, majority of the swords are useless because they either don't attack fast enough, or don't deal enough damage. c. You will notice an option to pick Common Style, Imperial Style or Milanese Style of fighting with any weapon. Anything except from Imperial style, is non-competitive. You're welcome to try and frustrate yourself. 4. Bows They take time to charge up, can only hold maximum charge for a few seconds and are difficult to shoot with. Compare this with Crossbows which can be reloaded within 4 seconds with pin point sniper accuracy and potential 1-hit headshot kills. Again, this requires you to buy all the correct unlocks. 5. Perks Majority of the perks are uncompetitive and useless. You will only use some perks for the entire time because they are the ONLY VIABLE perks. This reduces the "options" by about 75% 6. Majority of other weapons No matter what weapon combination you pick, if you go up against players using Medium/Heavy Armour Warhammer you will not win. Even if you're mastered the game by training in duelling scenarios non-stop, your team mates will not be as good as you and the players using OP weapons know this. They will kill them and they will drop like flies. Then you will be mobbed by a party, beaten to death and your corpse teabagged. Some players may say, use a Shield! Guess what? All axes in this game deals extra damage to shield (breaks them faster). Add an Offensive Perk called Shield Breaker, add Imperial Style (Extra Damage) and Convex blade (Extra Damage) your shield goes down in 2 fully charged hits. If he is a competent cloth ninja with long axe, good luck trying to hit him with anything shorter than the long axe. === === The Good Bits === === If you've read all that, you're undeterred you still want to play the game... Here's what's good about the game. (Aside from all the technical problems as well) 1. Combat system is fundamentally sound If no OP customisations are used, a fight goes down to skill and very little luck. There is also a significant difference between winning duels (1v1) and winning battles (Group Fighting & Objective Game Modes). 2. Armour Customisations They are quite nice, if you're willing to accept massive penalties to performing well in game. 3. Graphics It's pretty good looking. Expand
  36. Oct 2, 2012
    2
    I was looking forward to a single player but after launching the game, learned that there wasn't. disappointing... Still, I decided to jump into multiplayer. I played for about 15 minutes, I killed one or two guys. One guy I fought for maybe five minutes. We both had shields and were swinging - blocking - swinging again - blocking again. It wasn't the most thrilling thing in the world. It ended when I got killed by a guy running up behind me. After that 15 minutes, I lost connection to the server and my list of servers was gone. I give up on this game. The 15 minutes of gameplay I experienced was barely mediocre. Expand
  37. 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 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.
    Expand
  38. Oct 4, 2012
    1
    Wow, Mount and Blade, best game ever. I looked on Steam saw there was a new version. Read the description, looks like a cool story line, interesting backstory. Awesome, multiplayer, I'll be able to meet up with my friends, they can help me take a castle or two. Maybe we can even get into a tournament together. This looks fantastic. Buy it, install it, log in... No story line at all? They turned Mount and Blade into Call of Duty? Really? There is no single player experience, no storyline, nothing at all? The twelve minutes that I played of it, I can say that the graphics are good, the game play feels sorta like battles in Mount and Blade. I would have simply not bought or reviewed this game if the advertisement would have warned me that it is a FPS and there is No Single player. Expand
  39. Oct 4, 2012
    0
    Very 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?
  40. Oct 6, 2012
    0
    The 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.
  41. Oct 8, 2012
    3
    A 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.
  42. Oct 15, 2012
    2
    This game had some massive potential, when I saw the original trailer I was hooked. Unfortunately, I was incredibly disappointed when I finally got to play it. It seems that the majority of players play as heavily armored archers or heavily armored two-handed swordsmen. Since I was getting cut up by these swordsmen, I decided that as soon as I reached the required level I would buy the plate armor and use a sword myself. It seemed to work, but the swordsmen were still cutting through my armor as if it were made of glass. I tried carrying a shield, this time they poked through my armor until I started bleeding. Tried using riposte to parry the blows so I could get a shot in, still no dice. No matter what I tried as an infantryman, I could not swing a sword as fast as these other players. My next bet was to try playing as an archer, pretty much the same thing happened except I seemed to be more of a target this time around. I feel that I gave the game a fair chance, already playing over 24 hours worth, maybe I'm just not good at it but there definitely needs to be a drawback on swinging a two-handed sword around wildly, otherwise you run through a gauntlet to find out who's got the sharpest blade then wait for the new players to swoop in and poke your eyes out with a dagger. Item wise, this game does not offer much. Everyone gets the same armors, the only customization available is color change. There's three bow choices, one two-handed sword choice, two dagger choices, and a couple of other one handed weapons and pole-arms. I know it's a multiplayer game, but some item variety would be nice, I don't expect over 100 different choices but I'd like to maintain some level of individuality.

    Crashes seem to happen to me a lot, mostly CTD. I've had instances where I would gain entry to a server, only to be met with just a background and no menu choices. In those cases, you'll be using ALT+Tab to get to the desktop and force close the game. I still feel like there's a lot of potential for War of the Roses, I think once some rebalancing and bug-fixing is done it will be more playable for me, but as of right now, I'm hanging up my sword.
    Expand
  43. Jan 19, 2013
    0
    Had 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.
  44. Nov 30, 2012
    3
    This game is horrible, it says that it was made by the makers of mount and blade, but thats just a lie. They took the mount and blade combat system and violated it, worse than you can imagine. The game tries to appeal to the masses with its "customization" but all that leads to is the perks getting in the way of actual game play. The spammers are also unstoppable, the swords are overpowered and everything else either wont penetrate armor or has the worst hit detection. And for the execution system, its dull and annoying to watch in a first person view someone do a stale execution on you, its aggravating and gets in the way of gameplay. The game is full of lag, has a poor development team which just fix's one or two things every month, and occasionally gives a few of the same weapons out. The graphics are the only redeeming thing about this game, besides that, the game has 0 love or actual effort put into it. Expand
  45. Jan 5, 2013
    4
    War of the Roses on paper looks very interesting, and very polished. The truth is a whole other story. When you get into the game you will however start to realize this is not the perfect medieval game you wanted. The game lets you level up, and give you gold so you can unlock newa armor and better weapons and such. This means that you will in the first couple of levels (where you are forced to used their default classes, since you cannot create your own) you will get slaughtered by higher leveled people. Sure skill is somewhat part of the game. Until some huge knight with a two handed sword comes running with full plate armor. I have trying almost everything, and I am not exaggerating, to bring a person in full plate down. I even had a friend of mine just stand still while I began to chop at him, and there was only one place he could get harmed. We then duelled and my friend just kept blocking that spot so I couldn't even hurt him.
    The good: good graphics, polished. The bad: Higher leveled people have access to better weapons, armor, etc. Most of the time people will just form a huge mass in middle of map, lack of game modes.

    Buy mount and blade instead it's cheaper and way more fun.
    Expand
  46. Feb 10, 2013
    1
    To 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
  47. Jan 31, 2013
    2
    Hardly any servers up, only 32 player support (I haven't seen one 64 player game), coupled with shoddy controls and the most frustrating tutorial I've ever played, which is saying a lot. There is also NO single player content besides that awful tutorial, and there's only 7 maps with 2 game modes... I'm very glad I only bought it at paradox's half-price sale, because I truly regret buying this game, it's a joke as far as I'm concerned Expand
  48. Feb 5, 2013
    0
    Great 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!!!
  49. Mar 5, 2013
    3
    This 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.
  50. Apr 10, 2013
    0
    After loving Mount and Blade Warband which is probably one of my favorite or my favorite game, this is the only game I've ever regretted buying, the multiplayer was completely god awful, so many holes with the gameplay, it just came down to how many friends the enemy had with him and how much more armor they had, truly truly disappointing. I could forgive some of it if it had some kind of singleplayer which it also doesn't include, unless you count this really frustrating tutorials. Just wow, and to think i was looking forward to this game. Expand
  51. Sep 24, 2013
    1
    Strangely, this game is extremely unbalanced. and completely un-policed against hacking. Strange because official servers claim "ANTI-CHEAT: ON"

    Avoid this game as it is a micro-transaction black-hole rivaling the best scams of EA.
  52. Jun 25, 2013
    1
    Dear customers;
    The worst medieval game I played.First, this game hasn't got campaign or single player.Second, too few unlockables.You find a match and join it. there is four classes you can chose.you played game.match finished and you unlocked custom class 1. you want edit it and you click it.""what the h,,l ""you cant edit it if you dont buy coins.everything requires level 6,7,8 or
    5.000 10.000 and 100.000 coins. THİS İS A GAME FOR AIMLESS PEOPLES Expand
  53. Jul 17, 2013
    4
    First of all, let me start by saying that I have been following the Mount & Blade saga since the first beta. I was hooked immediately. With that said, I hate this game. Mount & Blade is a great game. It has great gameplay and some very solid gameplay mechanics. I will even say that the combat and movement are fluid. War of the Roses is all but that. The feel of the old M&B games is gone and replaced by a slow and clunky game experience.

    There is no single player campaign at all (which is to be expected and doesn't come as a surprise).

    The multiplayer is very niche and hardcore. You know how some servers in the original M&B had some bad mods that allowed you to have money? You remember how you hated it? Well, War of the Roses is a standalone version of those servers.

    This is not a game for the M&B fans. (Check out that other game instead.)
    Expand
  54. Sep 18, 2013
    3
    This game is a wasted potential. It looks fun at first, but the more you play the more you become aware of its issues. The biggest flaw with this game is weapon balance. There is a huge variety of weapons yet you're limited to 3 main weapons and 2-3 sidearms. Even the community is getting angry at devs not being willing to reduce strength of certain weapons that dominate the game. Those weapons either are both fast and strong or just have broken hitbox that you can't really avoid, since you will get hit by part of the weapon that's invisible.
    Melee combat is never trying to properly punish people who spam their attacks since the weapon's speed will always put you back in advantage over enemy, even if you get hit, so perhaps if you block once or twice that's enough. Feinting doesn't help either since your enemy will ignore it and just spam attacks mindlessly.
    One of the specially annoying things are shield bashes that stun you for a brief moment so the enemy always gets a hit on you, but that wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't for the fact you can do that all the time without any sort of cool down. The only way you can counter it is if you're out of enemy's reach, but then if he notices that, he can do 180 degree turn and slide away from you.

    Arrows are broken in this game as well. 1 arrow type becomes part of metagame due to its versatility. In the past that was swallow tail, which would penetrate every type of armor without any problem. That makes me wonder what armor piercing arrows are meant for. If you take certain type of arrows they should excel in the combat aspect they are meant for and lack in other aspects. That was meant to be fixed in latest patch, but it just made the early mentioned type of arrows replaced by a new one that does almost exact same thing.

    Game is lacking in game modes. Mostly it's team deathmatch or conquest (along with those there are assault and pitched battle that are almost never played). Team deathmatch is mindless killing without any tactics. Conquest is slightly better, but the fact the teams have to advance one flag at the time is really stupid. You end up fighting for the flag in the middle so there's barely any flanking or anything since enemy knows where to expect you. Lets also not forget about the fact that devs don't want to include duel mode, while duels are actually quite enjoyable.

    Reviving and execution mechanic is pretty irritating and while you could say you can avoid it and not suffer irritation, you will always need money as a beginner and that's the biggest income of gold for you. When you get good at the game you can avoid that and get just as much gold as the newbies who stop to revive or execute. I don't really see any other reason to revive teammate or execute enemy since you risk your life by doing so and it's not even properly rewarded.

    Oh, yes. I almost forgot to mention that the game has almost no protection against cheaters, so you will run into many people who will be speedhacking and some of them will be very subtle about it. The only way to deal with it is to make sure that the person is a cheater and vote kick him. However just getting his ID to kick him and write it all down is a painful process, so most of the time you will be like, "Ahh, it!" and will leave the match.

    Only positive thing I can think of is that devs release new content in their patches instead of making it a DLC. However game has a system where you buy coins with real money. Luckily most of the things are fairly cheap so you can obtain your imbalanced weapons just by playing 2-3 matches.

    Game could be fairly fun if it gets properly balanced, but since it's been so long without any proper balance update I'm afraid it will stay like this.

    Buy only if discounted and if you're okay with spending some money for a couple of hours of fun.
    Expand
  55. Oct 19, 2013
    0
    The game already happening limit stick, now that he is free to play and I've paid for it, I have a lil taste of in my mouth when I think (I'm totally scammed me) Personally, I would not advice for several reasons. The game is not terribly fluid and lagg and camera shots in the third person is more than doubtful. So even free, I will not play more and i have paid for that!

    I want my
    money back! Serious Expand
  56. Oct 14, 2012
    0
    At start I want to say - this game is really OK. When it works. The main problem is that 90% of the time it does not work at all. Either these are: 1. Problems with refereshing server list (not able to play for couple of hours, occurs every day)
    2. Crashes to desktop without a reason
    3. Low FPS due to tragic game code - gpu is not utilised AT ALL (30-35% - 2012 AD it is. Joke.) 4. Kicks
    out to menu right before the end of the battle. Why? Because. So summing it up the game is not worth even a dime. If the problems would be fixed, for the game itself I would give strong 8. But how can You review something which stopped to work after the patches were released? In my opinion Paradox just rips people off on this, gathering money to make some other game. This is a frustrating product - some may ask why don't You play single player? Because there is none. So I give this so called "game" a strong 0. Collapse
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. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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.