User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 268 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. Oct 31, 2012
    6
    I have been a mount & blade player since the first offline game game to be, so i was happy to hear the publisher of the game, with another studio started making something similar, during the beta it was fun, but lacking, thinking this probably will be fixed in the final version, i was wrong. What we now have is a game that is nothing but a blatant high res copy of the brilliant Mount & Blade Warband but without the awesome Siege mode. All you do is either just play deathmatch or capture the flag. The fighting system needs more work seeing its way to slow and most of the time you end up against 5 enemies hacking you to pieces. 1 on 1 fights are really rare. The game was allot better in the beta, i don't know what they did to it to make it so different.

    The game also offers a bleed out system, even though this realistic, it ruins the gameplay, mainly because i always get a bleed out when i finally am fighting a good fight for once versus 1 guy and not 5 and just drop dead after 10 seconds. Also squad members spawning on each other is something just something straight out of Battlefield, something that is not needed in this game. Just when you are about to kill a guy, his buddies magically spawn around you and you are dead. But the game has a future if the developer listens to its community and fixes bugs and other annoyances, i am hope for a Siege mode!
    Expand
  2. Jul 1, 2014
    8
    This game is hard at first, because the fighting system is more refined than simple button-mashing. Some reviewers call it "broken" or "clunky", simply because they do not understand how it works, as it truly is neither. It is definitely NOT pay2win as some people state, given that the starting classes sport some of the top equipment, perks and everything else in the game. But you need to know HOW to use them, and that means a learning curve.

    The graphics and sounds are really great. Performance-wise, however, the game is fairly demanding, although some work on optimization has already lessened some of the early problems in that department.

    I have over 250 hours in this game. It's a lot of fun, provided you know what you are doing. The fighting system is the same as in Mount & Blade: Warband and its predecessor. Warband was released in 2010 and 4 years later it's still among the 25 most played games on steam. So, same fighting system, better graphics, more customization, better maps... It is a lot of fun, if you can manage the learning curve.

    About customization, this is a great aspect of this game. Unlike Chivalry, you can build whatever you want in this game. You want an archer in full plate? Go ahead. You want a light-armored soldier with a huge battle axe? Do it. You want the battle axe handle to be made of harder wood? Do that. You want another edge grind on your weapon? Change it. Not to mention all the armor and shield colors.

    Now given all this customization, it also means you will be meeting people who have been tweaking their builds for a long time, who are extremely proficient with the combat mechanics. Yes, those guys are almost unstoppable, because the skill ceiling in this game is so very high.

    If you decide to take up this game, make sure you give it long enough that you can learn how things work before saying it's broken, clunky or whatever. Because that's just the noob in you talking, especially now that all the cheaters are gone.
    Expand
  3. CBZ
    Oct 4, 2012
    8
    Excellent game that takes the essence of the multiplayer Mount and Blade to medieval England, with much better graphics and new weapons. Lots of fun to play although it lacks variety. I hope they come up with new weapons, maps and armors. Its also 29.99$. I really dont like the spawning system, since you could be dueling 1v1 and 3 enemies suddenly spawn on your enemy and you are outnumbered all of a sudden.
    I hope they do allow mods since it has a lot of unexploited potential.
    Expand
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. Oct 2, 2012
    6
    The idea of this game is great but not executed very well. Although they say it takes skill and to some degree it does, most of the time it doesn't. All it boils down to is a bunch of people fighting in a concealed area. That leads to most of the time you die it is because you got gangbanged 3 on 1. About 1 in every 4 fights is an even match and comes down to skill. There is no way to sprint or way to get away so you always lose if ganged up on. The swinging mechanic is original but poorly performed. You have to move your mouse in the way you want to swing, but most of the time I would move it forward and it would swing left. You barely every swing where you want to. Also if you fight a higher level guy you automatically die if he is heavily armored. That is because he can only be hurt in the face and you can be hit anywhere and be hurt. With the attack system and the fact that the only way to hurt him is a jab to the face you can do nothing but die. The single player is just a few random battles to get you practicing but it literally explains nothing about fighting, game controls, or any tips to play. Also you are usually left to try and take points by yourself as your team AI doesn't know how to follow you. Most of the points you have to attack have multiple enemies and some respawn, which means you have to keep killing them as they all gang up and then respawn. I quit it after 15 minutes. A good idea but most of the execution and gameplay falls very short of the lofty aspirations. Apparently you have to play mount and blade games prior to playing this to appreciate it. I was super excited and then completely let down. Expand
  7. Apr 2, 2014
    7
    I really did want to love this game, ever from the trailers being released, but I was left unfulfilled with this title. This game as you already know is a team-based "FPS"-styled game themed on Medieval England. You can unlock new weapons and armor through an XP system, XP is earned by killing and winning games online. Graphically, the game does a good job by using the Unreal engine. Controls are tight and do well as they should. Players are plentiful, so finding a game in progress is no problem.

    Unfortunately, the one thing that really lets this title down is the balance issue when it comes to them frigging horses.

    It's not unusual to get into a server where the opposition spams with horses. It is fairly obvious that these should be limited to x amount per team. A recent game that manages to pull this off successfully is Natural Selection 2, where the more powerful items appear near the end game.

    There is a "tutorial" system which was fine until it bugged out for me half way through.

    Online there is always the question, "Chivalry or War of the Roses" ? - I dont really care for the question, but what WOTR does very well is with archery. It feels great to get a hit in and there is a sense of instant gratification. Ahhhh! If you prefer to stick swords into the enemy- WITHOUT being annoyed by horses, then I'd lean more towards Chivalry.

    Pros

    + Good, well tested Unreal engine

    + Archery

    + XP system

    + Horses (if you know how to use them)

    Cons

    - Balance Issues

    - Horses (Unbalanced)

    - Hitting with swords feels a little disconnected
    Expand
  8. Dec 6, 2012
    5
    War of the Roses has some beautiful graphics and awesome customization, both of equipment and cosmetics. The process of unlocking both is also quite interesting. Unfortunately, this is the best that I can say for this game. While I found archery to be satisfying in this medieval game, melee feels incredibly floaty and I oftentimes do not know why I insta-kill somebody even after hours of playing; things just do not connect sometimes and I have found that that attack spammers with heavy armor often win the melee field. For a medieval game focused on melee combat, you are going to be frustrated when fully charged attacks to an opponents head do no damage when it appears perfectly aimed and timed. Once you learn the power of heavy armor, not wearing it is more of a challenge than a trade-off. Then there is the fact that not that many people play this now. On top of this, the number of play modes are limited. Conquest and Team DM are basically what you are looking at, plus a DM with no respawns even fewer people play. In short: it is a limited experience and everything that it does, I feel other games have done better: Chivalry, in melee, and Mount & Blade, in horse and game modes. It's a 5, in my opinion, because it is average and Mount & Blade -- an older game -- outperforms it, even though WOR looks nice. Expand
  9. 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
  10. 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. Expand
  11. Jul 27, 2013
    9
    I have logged 10 hours of play after purchasing WOTR: Kingmaker on Steam. I did not find the learning curve to be too high, and I have never played a multiplayer medieval game like this before. The default classes are not bad and I quickly earned gold with which to purchase custom classes and equipment. Sure, I can't afford good armor yet but I am doing fine without it. The battle mechanics are great and dueling is really fun. All the weapons are realistic. If you are using an axe or spear you must hit with the top of the weapon or it will not count. Its a great feeling when you successfully decapitate someone, get a headshot with a longbow, or knock someone off their mount.

    I tried Chivalry recently and found it to be basic, boring, unrealistic, and very unpolished. I went straight back to WOTR. It feels much more refined and satisfying. Its not too easy and its not too hard, and with some skill you can earn enough gold to buy new stuff very quickly. Its really a great game and I plan to log many more hours.
    Expand
  12. Oct 3, 2012
    10
    As with all good things in life this little game takes some practice. But when you master it, its quite a joy! I started as a bowman and learnt the tactics. After a couple of hours played i had money enough to costumize my medieval answer to Mr Swarznegger. But even the most well equipped soldiers in this game has its weaknesses i learnt when getting stabbed down by a peasant.
  13. Mar 4, 2013
    8
    not a bad game at all, definitely worth the price. People feel so entitled to a AAA standards in games. If every game was polished and made to AAA standards, they would all be 60 bucks. I picked this up for 5 bucks, and it is going to replace Battlefield 3 for me for a few weeks at least... Having a great time. Also you can't spawn on teammates if they are in combat, it's a pretty good system. All in all, I would pay 20 bucks for it, instead I got 4 copies for my friends for 20 bucks due to a sale, BONUS! Love the customization too! Expand
  14. Nov 8, 2012
    7
    I gave very negative score a month ago, but now after many tweaks and patches the game is a good title, but i have to give not the maximum because of singleplayer thing (it is very ridicolous and ugly) and no dedicated server thing, if you want to host your own, you can't and this is very bad
  15. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    Noidea why the low scores, seems to be too hard for some people lol - if u can't work out the combat try keyboard attack/block much more effective then mouse attack/block.

    Combat and directx11 graphics rock just needs more game modes which this and new content has already been announced.
  16. Sep 26, 2013
    5
    There's a good game here somewhere, perhaps best found in a single-player campaign a la Mount & Blade. WotR is poorly balanced and not very fun. In typical MP style new players are given a target to run around in and left to die 50 times before they can unlock something that can stand up to enemy players. Has a very poor tutorial that explained nothing. Combat is unresponsive, frustrating and clunky, matches are annoying, basically capture the flag with knights. Expand
  17. 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.
  18. Oct 5, 2012
    9
    If you enjoyed mount and blade you will enjoy this game. It is much more fast pased and combat based compared to it. The individual battles take a significant amount longer to the larger amount of health that you have. They also have included a class creation system that spans from game to game which is similair to the c-rpg mod that was present on M&B Warband. Overall it's a very good game and I can't wait to see where it goes in the future. Expand
  19. 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
  20. Jul 13, 2014
    3
    Horrible game. A lack of goals, tactics and fun. Its just a big hack and slash chaos, and, if you were wondering, nothing like Mount and Blade. Don't waste harddisk space for this!
  21. Oct 4, 2012
    10
    Brilliant game. The most fun I've had in online multiplayer in a long time and where success or failure is entirely down to the skill level of the player. Surprisingly deep and very nuanced gameplay. Highly recommended
  22. Oct 4, 2012
    8
    First of all I put so many hours on M&B Warband, this game is comparable to it. There are a lot of pluses in this game, and developers did a great job overall, the hit detection in small area between two plat armor is amazing, the type of damages and the armor piercing, this mechanism is the highlight of the game to be honest, it is a advanced and surprised me, when I encounter any enemy I have to look into his weapon, armor and his style, to plan how to knock him down, and the nice things there are many weapons, armors and even some additional accessories like neck protection, all those can make your style played differently against each of opponent. I wont talk about graphics and sounds as they are perfect, I gave the game 8 cause the feeling, I usually give my score based on how the overall factor of fun, M&B got 9 for me, even that most of things in WOTR is superior, but M&B has this feeling of enjoyment that I am not getting in WOTR for some reason, and I guess it lacks of game-mode such a siege battle. Finally, I would recommend this game for M&B fans, but I have to mention that there is a better medieval slasher game on the way which is Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, so if you have only one choice go with the later, and it is a totally another story. Expand
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Nov 11, 2012
    9
    If you read through all the reviews, you'll notice stark contrasts between what people think. This is, mostly, I feel because of the skill level required to truly play this game well. On the surface it looks simple but it is, actually quite complex.
    Many different weapons all which have a different feel along with armor types. That, along with different customization, allows one to create
    custom classes that fit ones style. That along with a very interesting attack and parry system, make for a really great combination.
    All in all, I really am enjoying this game.
    However, there are two issues I have a problem with. One is the fact that the game servers were sold out to only one company, Multiplay, with no way of setting up one's own server. This has made renting servers very expensive and some areas where no servers are located. The other is a squad spawning system that doesn't suite this game. However, this latter problem, like other issues this game has had, will probably be handled by the developers (they've already begun to change it).
    I'd highly recommend this game to anyone looking for a fun and complex medieval FPS. However, it won't appeal to the masses due to the high learning curve required to actually get good at this game.
    Expand
  26. 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
  27. EmX
    Dec 16, 2012
    8
    Overall it's a really fun combat game. The action is fantastic and there are a lot of fun classes and perks. There are 4 maps, all different and challenging, and demand specific tactics for each one. The developers are also really generous with content, releasing a free weapon update within the past month. The biggest rub with this game, which I feel would make it a 9.5 is the connectivity/latency issues. They can be quite severe and also maddeningly consistent, so there are times where you just have to wait it out until things get corrected again. Of course, this is an issue the developers are working on getting fixed, and it's not so pervasive where it is a deal breaker if you're deciding on getting it. I would recommend buying this game, there is a steep learning curve but it is worth it-very enjoyable once you get the tactics down. Expand
  28. Jun 4, 2013
    6
    War of the Roses is a good concept. The novelty of wielding a sword instead of a shotgun is a refreshing change. Unfortunately, the game was incredibly buggy on release and while some steps have been made in fixing it, it might be too little, too late.
  29. Oct 19, 2012
    8
    War of the Roses is a rather enjoyable game due to the good mechanics,the way it follows 15th century England to the very smallest of details and thousands of customization options for your weapons and armor(you can even choose what metal your weapon is made of).The game supports up to 64 people on one server so it actually feels like two army's are clashing against each other and the maps are absolutely gorgeous.The only minus i found was the spawn system due to the fact that an enemy can spawn right next to you in the middle of the map and stick a bloody blade through you. Expand
  30. Oct 17, 2012
    0
    Buggy mixed with a crappy combat system = epic fail.
  31. Mar 18, 2013
    5
    The combat is certainly challenging and it takes a good deal of getting use to. The controls are basic and the fighting is typically, well, hack and slash. The gameplay is quite basic as well; you can either do team deathmatch or capture the flag. Overall, this game is really a "meh", I wouldn't pay for it if I were you.
  32. Oct 3, 2012
    7
    This game is released too early. Paradox should add another month of beta testing and listen more carefully to what have been written on beta testing forum but it is apparently their habit to release unfinished game, which is a real shame as their games are usually great after polishing. With this one they will need to polish the crankiness of duels and add some more depth to the weaponary. The fighting system, general feeling and level of satisfaction from kill is great though. If you can wait, wait another month and buy it when it will be cheaper and really finished. I couldn't wait :). Expand
  33. Oct 3, 2012
    5
    Bought it with MB warband discount on steam, expecting combat to be even better as in MB. Could I be more wrong... It's all very clunky an unintuative. It just doesn't feel right its just far too slow. Even though the hitting system is very precise it's very hard to actually aim for something from 3rd person as you cannot see dept. There is also no single player to get used to the controls, instead only mutliplayer were you either get gangbanged or be owned by somebody with a lot of upgrades. I wouldnt recommend this game. Only for diehards... Expand
  34. Mar 2, 2013
    7
    I bought this game for $5.00 on Steam during a sale, and I have to say, it's one of the better games I've played. The game play is fun and fast-paced, and the class customization is very in-depth, going so far as to letting you choose your fighting style and how your blade is sharpened. There are a few downsides however. When you start, you'll probably get frustrated because of the players with full plate armor and two-hit swords, but when you unlock some good armor and a good weapon, it's really not a problem. Then there's the matter of nothing cheaper than 1,000 coins. What the developers did was put high prices on things that you unlock at level 5 so you'll buy in game coins for real money, on top of buying the game. I can understand doing that if it was a free-to-play game, but seeing as how it's regularly $30, I think it's ridiculous. On the upside, the coins aren't that much, so if you're having trouble with fully armored foes, there's a way past it. Honestly, the option of being able to buy coins made me want to unlock everything manually, and that feeling you get when you save up enough hard-earned coins to buy an armored horse or a perfectly balanced sword is exhilarating and it makes all the time you spent, winning or losing, well worth it. This game also rewards you for playing as a team and helping out your buddies. You get 200 points for an execution on a fallen teammate, but you get 250 points for bandaging your friends wounds, and 300 points for helping up a downed teammate. It encourages people to work together and travel in groups, and punishes those that walk around by themselves with a group of enemies around the corner or an arrow in the face. Overall, I think is a good buy for anyone that enjoyed Mount Blade or Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and in the end, buying coins can be easily avoided if you're willing to put the time into the game. Expand
  35. 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.
  36. Oct 14, 2012
    10
    [READ MY REVIEW] Newest as of Oct. 14, 2012 AD. Everyone checking out War of the Roses should feel pretty shocked at seeing these scores. This is an extremely underrated game and I have absolutely no idea why. I was about 2 weeks late in buying this game, but as I see most of these negative reviews are from it's original release date. There are NO bugs, I've been playing this game all day. There are a few minor issues with frame rates sometimes, but that doesn't take away from the game. Despite all these negative reviews, the player base is massive. The combat mechanics are easy to pick up, unlike Mount and Blade, which I love just as much. This game is just easier to play, than Mount and Blade. It looks better, too. It's historically accurate, so I feel like I'm learning on top of everything. There's so many perks, armors, weapons, and customization options, that there are hundreds of ways your characters stands out from every other. The sounds are sharp and music is very epic. There is no reason any fan of Mount and Blade should have a hard time picking this game up and fall in love with this new addition. Those who have never played Mount and Blade are about to experience one hell of a blast from a new style of game. It's well worth my $30, so it should be well worth yours as well. Expand
  37. 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
  38. Oct 7, 2012
    9
    Let me start of by saying that you can not give this game a bad review based on the lag! This game sold thousands, if not millions of copies since it's recent release. And it is a very PC consuming game. The lag is just the amount of people trying to get on their servers. So if you gave the game a bad review based on that, and I rarely say this, you are flat out WRONG! As an avid mount and blade player, I am used to the mechanics and I can understand that they can be difficult to adjust to. I mean it is a huge step upwards from you standard spam the left mouse button (i.e. Minecraft, Terraria, and Elder Scrolls game except Morrowind, etc.) so its gonna take a little adjusting, but wouldn't you rather have a sophisticated combat system then have everybody going around spamming left mouse button and dying left and right. Also, the mechanic where if you're too close to someone and you swing at them, you just hit them with a wooden pole, is genius. There have been so many games where I've been standing right up against something and slamming on top of it with a spear and it did significant damage. I'm whacking them with a padded handle and its cutting like a blade! Why does that make since. War of the Roses is a great step away from today's competitive games whether it be FPSs, Mobas, or Dota styles, cause lets face it, those are the only real online competitive games these days, and brings in a whole new genre (or rather builds on it) I like to call, Medieval Competitive Combat. I'd also consider Mount and Blade and Chivalry in this category. If anyone asks, I coined that term. Solid 9 out of 10. Expand
  39. Oct 5, 2012
    10
    This is a very under-rated game. I wish the user score was a little closer to the critic score but I guess that's what you get when just anyone can vote. It's definitely worth it's price tag!
  40. Oct 2, 2012
    7
    Great fun, for a while. However, the exp and gold nerfs were too hard. The game turned into a grind fest. While you did get a lot of exp and gold per kill, it still takes a very long time to level due to how much exp is required to level. The game feels chaotic at times, but at other times the combat is frustrating due to the difficult to get use to controls and the awkward feel of using a weapon. Good game. Worth a pickup, especially if you're a fan of Mount and Blade. Expand
  41. Oct 2, 2012
    5
    I think the idea is great, and the game is kinda fun to play... for 20 minutes. Then it's just the same thing over and over again. In other words, it's a game which you grow tired of really quickly. And the graphics aren't that great. worth 29 euros? no :( Might be worth to buy if it's on a discount on steam.
  42. 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
  43. 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 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
    Expand
  44. Oct 2, 2012
    9
    OUCH - the sword / mace / arrow / higher lvl player kills you outright and wtf??? - but no more than any sniper action in any other given multi - player online game. There is a certain slash..slash...slash to the game that can seem repetitive and unskilled to the initiate, but actually, on the contrary - the immediate simpleness belies the deeper subtleties within. To strike effectively each attack must be angled and aimed and each weapon (many choices) has it's own benefits or drawbacks. For example, some can pierce / break armour or weapons effectively, but are slow or ungainly to wield. Downed players can be put to death for MONDO xp, but at the risk of a nail bitingly slow cut-scene when, in my experience, your protagonist seems to randomly sprout arrows and gushes of blood from the neck / head. The resulting battlefield can feel sometimes chaotic but mostly deeply fulfilling and incredibly compelling. Expand
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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 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.
    Expand
  49. Oct 3, 2012
    8
    This is the first time I have reviewed anything on Metacritic, but I felt the need to to help the longevity of this classic game. Yes, it does have problems: the first day servers kept crashing (but this was fixed by the morning); there are only two modes (but more have been promised for free), and it is not very well optimised (but I turned off shadows and now my frame rate is good). But the great things far outweigh these negatives. Firstly, it's great to have something new multiplayer-wise, rather than FPS games. Secondly, this is is just pure, unadulterated fun. Nothing more. It is, in fact, hilarious. What other recent games do you get to charge at people with a sword or be on the receiving end and shoot them with a crossbow just as they reach you? Or where a guy on a horse with a lance is charging at you and you shoot the horse so he flies off it as it collapses? Battles can be messy (like I imagine they were in medieval times) and they can also be sparse. You can play how you want - close quarters, long-range, horseback, quickly in for a kill then run away, or a mixture. I like the crossbow then going in for some sword-fighting. It is hard. There is a steep learning curve. You have to give it time and learn how to play. People say it's unbalanced, but it's not. if you want to kill a guy with heavy armour you really have to use a hammer. If you only have a sword, then hopefully you have little armour so you can move more quickly and escape or run circles around him. This game actually requires thought and skill. It also requires teamwork to win. The only thing I fear is people won't try it because other people say it's unbalanced, but, in actuality, they haven't taken the time to learn how it plays. This is definitely worth picking up, especially as free DLC content has been promises in the form of maps and game modes. Hopefully they will make a siege mode, as the genre calls for it. And hopefully they will allow servers other than Multiplay. All-in-all, great game if you give it time to learn it. Expand
  50. Oct 3, 2012
    5
    First of all i should inform you, that i came to this game after 3000+ hours in Moubt&Blade Warband. So i comparing WotR mainly versus Warband. WotR nice sides: nice graphics some rpg elements some kind of armor|weapon crafting some battle inventions like strike by shield and so on WotR bad sides: no single - frustrating battle system is far from being comfortable - it's hard to see when u hit someone or u was striked by someone
    animations - awful, all players move like they have smthng in their ass, and battle with more then 4 guys turn in total chaotic mess


    So for me personally - WotR is a big dissapointment, and i will continue to play Warband.
    After a month or so I will try WotR again to see how it goes after patches, but i dont expect much now...
    Collapse
  51. Oct 3, 2012
    10
    A great game with some real historical accuracy and attention to detail. The graphics are AAA quality with amazing ambient sounds that give the game real depth and makes you feel as if you are on the battlefield. Buy it and you wont be disappointed!
  52. Oct 4, 2012
    10
    Love this game! coming from Arma 2 and BF3 after COD started my career, I'm surprised how much fun this was straight out of the blocks! I was wheezing with laughter the first two days, mainly due to my own incompetence and the tragic results for my teammates! Huge scope for skill in the combats, which are perfectly resolved in my view, the animation, sound and results of my swings and jabs have been 100% pixel perfect and rock solid again since the start. The only problem for me has been server disconnects which now seem 95% fixed (two days after launch) . Can't wait to get back into the fight. Fending off multiple attacks by parrying with your shield and backing away is my favourite! Brilliant game, am sure the likers will stay satisfied with the good news about the franchise. Well done Paradox! Expand
  53. 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
  54. Oct 5, 2012
    6
    Doesn't live to expectations and its lacking many things, that being said it isn't a bad game, just not as polished as I would have liked it to be. My only worry is that the game has been ruined by its slow combat, medieval warfare is a fast and brutal affair but war of the roses is far from it.
  55. 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
  56. 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?
  57. Oct 8, 2012
    8
    Ok, there have been some negative reviews surrounding this game. Some of them are legitimate, most are not. Let's sort out the facts on WOTR. First off, let me say I am a veteran Mount & Blade player. As a player who has been around the M&B community for a very long time, I can tell you no matter what product WOTR is or turns out to be, most M&B players will hate it because it is in direct competition with their game and threatens to damage their already dwindling community. In other words, take M&B players' reviews of this game with a grain of salt. Second, WOTR should be reviewed for what it is. It is essentially a multiplayer only game that currently sells for $30. It is a difficult game to play with a hard learning curve, but this is what draws people to a game like this (skill). This game has so much potential, and there are already many things I like about it. There are also some things that need immediate fixing. PROS: Great price, great concept, great graphics, great audio, great potential, decent customization, decent interface, decent gameplay mechanics CONS: Lack of game modes (There is not a hardcore mode where players do not respawn after death and without the ability to bandage or be revived.), lack of good levels (The sunrise and sunset levels need to be axed. The lighting is bad in these, stick to mid-day and night levels.), lack of stat tracking, lack of in-game clan creation, squad spawning problems, there is no drawback to wearing heavy armor with every loadout, cavalry is too hard to take down NEEDS FIXING: Game mechanics need some smoothing, more game modes, better level selection, a good stat tracking interface needs to be added, squad spawning issues must be fixed, balance issues need to be addressed VERDICT: This game could be a really great one if the mandatory improvements are taken care of. I advise that people check this game out! Expand
  58. 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
  59. 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.
  60. Oct 7, 2012
    9
    Fantastic gameplay and amazing visuals. A lot of help and support from the developers and a lot of nice features to come. I would definitely recommend this game to anyone who enjoys the Mount and Blade series. Some issues with servers and gameplay. Other than that an amazing game. 9/10
  61. Oct 7, 2012
    5
    Well, after having to sign up for an account, confirming my email, changing browsers because this text box does not work with Chrome (Good job MetaCritic, no one really cares that this box is resizeable when you shun an entire browser away) I am finally here to give a review of War of the Roses.

    First, I've played every single Mount and Blade that has ever been. The multiplayer has
    always been off balance and this game is no exception. In fact, the balance is worse. It is so bad that unless you are a high enough level to use heavy armor and two-handed sword then you might as well be an Archer. Fighting an enemy with heavy armor? You'd have to jab through the hole in his visor while he is strafing and spam bashing you with a massive sword that does 40x the damage yours does. LUCKILY that is the worst part. We all know the bugs of the previous M&B games that made them unplayable unless you exploited the bugs for TEH LULZ, well I'm glad this game does not have those glitches that I have seen yet. There are people that will run into your spawn and kill everyone constantly. They will one shot you to the head with a mace, then do it over again and over again and over again. I was really hoping that MAYBE they would have come to a balance in this game after releasing SO MANY bugged games over the last several years. I thought for a very long time before deciding to purchase this game and in the end I regret it. If your ideal game is getting raped constantly the second you spawn and watching a level 35 chop your head off with a shield once every 15 seconds, then go for it. Also in the "single player aka "how to get aimbotted by NPC archers until you ragequit" sounds like fun, then go for it. If you aren't an archer or a lvl 15+ then prepare for the rage. If they lowered the health and made some kind of knockback for attacking 50x a second by spammers, then maybe this game could involve skill, but as it is it's a bashfest. You won't be able to block 3 attacks per second and even if you do there is no reason why it matters. A parry doesn't knock them off balance like it would it any other game. The only "skill" involved is to stay in-game long enough without breaking your computer so that you can finally get heavy armor and a two-handed weapon to pwn nubs like everyone else. Expand
  62. Oct 8, 2012
    9
    If you are looking for a great medieval multiplayer only game for a great price, then try War of the Roses. If you haven't played Mount & Blade before, it will be a learning process as this game rewards skilled players. Don't mind the negative scores on the user reviews. Many of them ripped the game because the servers struggled the first few days. With new game modes, levels, weapons, and armor coming in the first major update as announced, this game is a must-have for any pc multiplayer enthusiast! Expand
  63. 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.
  64. Oct 9, 2012
    9
    A great and fun experience, Try to look at this game as a whats to come instead of what we got now, this game as it stands has its issues but are easily fixed with updates, content for this game should be endless and be exciting for everyone a fan of the era, the hack and slash or just fast paced fun.
    I highly recommend this for anyone interested in a pure fun game and soon to be one of
    the best released games in a long time! Expand
  65. Oct 10, 2012
    5
    War of the CRASH CITY. Crashes at the start, crashes during the game, crashes between matches. Gameplay is not bad but I'd go with the new competitor game instead. This feels like it was rushed out to beat the competitor's release date.
  66. 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.
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. Oct 14, 2012
    9
    This is a fantastic execution of a 15th century. I closely relate it a hybrid of battlefront and battlefield. New maps, New equipment, and new game styles are still being developed by the devs. (Who i have had great response from) You will play this game finding some things missing (like saved overall stats are non-existent) THERE IS NO SINGLE-PLAYER- only single tutorial training missions. Overall I give it 9/10. I have thoroughly enjoyed it and I trust these Dev's with bringing it up to my standards. Expand
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Nov 20, 2012
    9
    This game has a steep learning curve and will not appeal to those who like to be good at a game without putting in any effort. However if you are able to self-coach and enjoy a challenge, the depth of the gameplay soon becomes apparent. There is a lot of customization available and all choices have involve a risk/reward balance which will depend on your own gameplay style.

    The maps
    are beautiful and so big that battles are very different depending on which area of the map the players go for. The two available modes (TDM and conquest) are a lot of fun but the real prize is the pitched battle mode which is currently in open beta. Join a clan, learn to play and have fun! Expand
  73. 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.
  74. Oct 28, 2012
    10
    This is a brilliant game. It has it's flaws but all in all an excellent game. There are alot of naysayers to this game. But that is mainly due to it's somewhat steep learning curve for a game of this type and the amount of skill required. This requires some amount of tactics and strategy the correct balancing of your perks along with the execution in order to be successful. Which is what alot of the naysayers have failed to do! alot of the negative feedback from this come from within a days play....I have been playing this for weeks and have now only just fully understood the game and am now in full stride having ALOT fun and doing well in most games! To begin with the game can be very stressfull and definately had me swearing all sorts. But in the end, its the skill required and the challenge that kept me playing and reward you get from killing someone, It's an achievement whereas to compare it to chivalry the feeling of achievement and skill...for me is extremely low. In a few words WOTR is very skill based. Chivalry is your Call of duty, very casual. Both fun in their own merit. Pick your poison..... I'd choose War of the Roses. Every time! Expand
  75. Nov 29, 2012
    7
    A solid medieval fighter with enjoyable combat and lovely environment to play in. Lacks a little bit of depth in certain areas and can be hard for new players against people with higher levels and better gear.
  76. 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
  77. 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.
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Dec 8, 2012
    8
    A fun combat game for the casual gamer. The combat system forces you to be more tactical in how you approach each engagement, not just a hack and slash free-for-all. Some may like this for a quick 20 minute battle, others will enjoy the long term customisation as you progress with your character. Overall a good attempt at on-line medieval combat, but still a long way to go to be great.
  81. Dec 30, 2013
    8
    I am a veteran chiv:medieval warfare player with 700 hours. War of roses is definately slower paced. The hit boxes in this game are pretty solid, minus some of the broken weapons. Guys complaining about the 2h swords don't know the basic mechanics otherwise they would be saying the pitchfork is massively OP as the hit boxes on it are so broken (it just hits everything including the handle). Heavy armor can be ONE shot with a warhammer. So armor choices basically let you know what weapons will give you trouble.

    The real trouble lies in no auto-balance, respawn timers that are shorter for lancaster than for york (clear advantage when lancaster can spawn 3 times for yorks 1), hackers (easy to spot, except for archers), and the fact that most capture the point maps are also setup to make it easier for the lancaster side, and a solid grind with a lack of content. With all this negative I still enjoy taking heads off or winning a 5v1(easy to do if u know how to dance and face hug enemies to make them hit you with the weapon handle instead of the sharp part).

    All in all this game is a lot of fun once you find a custom load out you rape face with. Plus the graphics are F**king amazing. Flaming arrows and guns anyone?
    Expand
  82. Jan 4, 2013
    6
    This game is really one missed opportunity after another, and also another example to add to the list of failed attempts at it's genre. You'd think with so many "almost their" examples SOMEONE would be able to get this right, but it hasn't happened yet that I've seen. It's a shame because the "melee shooter" for lack of a better term has so much potential, but no one can seem to nail the formula. Either they make it so realistic it's unappealing to the majority or so arcade that all skill is lost and it just feels like a shooter with longer range knives... (See Chivalry Medieval Warfare for an example of this) War of the Roses was close... SO close to striking a middle ground of complexity and fun that really could have made it the first out and out "good" example I've seen, but it just couldn't get there. It ends up being mediocre, but frustratingly so because sometimes when playing you can catch glimmers of what could have been a really fun diversion from the flood of shooters on the market. The core problem with the game pretty much boils down to its combat system. To sum it up: -The aiming system is clunky the mouse option throws off aim and the keyboard option forces unwanted movement. They should have just assigned the attacks (overhand, thrust, slash) to bindable keys. -Compounding the poor aiming system the hit boxes and windows on the weapons are far too small for their own good and you Expand
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. Mar 3, 2013
    9
    Alright first off, this is not a simple point and click game. And the Skill reference on the trailers is 100% true. If you got zero patience to learn how to fight, instead of blindly click well your better off not trying to play or review a game that tries to simulate combat. This game attempts to simulate the historical War of the Roses battles, so the weapons, armor, even the battle areas are hand picked out of history and get quite a bit of effort put in to feel as close to real as they can.

    That being said, this is not some mindless FPS even though it may get put into its category some times by people who don't know where to put it. Armor makes you move slow, sprinting in it will have you hunched over unable to put up a fight after a min of stop and go sprints. In this type of armor with these weapons you move at a general pace. These are meant to be soldiers, so they are expected to not simply fight for 20 mins and call it a day, these men are expected to be at the read 15 hours or more out of the day. That seems to be the biggest hurdle for players, the realization the weight of the armor. A modern chain shirt using much lighter steel can weigh over 50 lbs. The default armor is a chain shirt, a coif which is about 1/4 the weight, with leather sleeves/pants, and a breast plate that weighs quite a bit. There is a big reason this armor went out of fashion after a gun was invented. It was physically demanding, expensive to make, and restricted movement.

    I personally wore a bit of modern armor made out of a garage metal shop for competition fighting. This armor was lighter and actually weighed in competition to scale with the real stuff for point purposes. Fighting in it required moving slowly and adjusting everything, the simple act of swinging a sword with metal or chain armor on changes dramatically because of the weight and the restrictions it places on you.

    They don't just tamper with melee combat making armor slow down sword strikes, or blocks, it messes up your reload with a ranged weapon as well. And unlike your standard FPS every time you aim your weapon it wobbles because that's how it is in real life, you either time the shot with the breath or hold it even when not looking down a scope.

    Now that I got that out of the way the games combat is brilliantly fun, or annoying to the new player who would just as easily be put off by head shots. It uses a 3 S system, slash, stab, smash. Each damage type has pros and cons, and the starter kit for level 0 shows it the best, the one handed swords slash has no chance at all of doing more then scratching the paint of a set of full plate, thrusting the point in which takes more skill and practice however can actually pierce the once unstoppable plate.

    It also has a very detailed hit box system, so that even in my full plate set, an archer can use painful arrows meant for soft targets by shooting me in the narrow slit in my helm, or the fave spot last night my arm pit which has cloth padding since metal there would make it impossible for me to move my arms. The catch to this is the neck is almost always got mail, cloth or nothing, and face covering helmets impar your vision enabling blind spots. A popular melee move is to use a 2 handed ax that can cut into chainmail to cut off a players head, or if your not that good at aiming like me I swing wildly at the helmet with a 2 handed sword if I see a visor up, hoping for that satisfying slash across my enemies face. With ranged shooting the neck is insane, so legs were shields cant reach or faces with no armor make tempting targets.

    To conclude this game is the most fun I have had in a multiplayer only game in ages, and I own all the latest shooters, and a few other team deathmatch games. The thrill of slapping players in the face when their visors are up, or landing that lucky blow on a plate wearer's flesh or padding is far greater then any other deathmatch experience I have had to date. Even if I die to an arrow to the back of my knee, or armpit every now and then.
    Expand
  87. 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!!!
  88. Mar 1, 2013
    5
    I regret buying this game. It lacks in balance. The lance/horse combo needs to get taken down a notch, and the combat system is so silly. Let's show people what direction to block! It defeats the whole point of the system, if you show what direction to block. Also, the whole server system is a bunch of individually owned servers it looks like because I got kicked from a game for "not dueling". I'm sorry, but when there are people shooting arrows at you, then it's on. All in all, this game isn't even worth the 5 bucks I paid on Steam for it. Go play Chivalry if this is your thing. Expand
  89. Mar 2, 2013
    6
    War of the Roses is a third person game where you play in medieval times and compete against other players. It is multiplayer only and has no story of any kind. At first, you start off with a default class which is really hard to play with as you are constantly being killed by more advanced players. But over time you gain experience so you can level up and buy better weapons, armor, perks, etc. The graphics are good, not spectacular, but good. It is a step above the one-button combat, which I like. But fighting with another player can be awkward. After you kill someone, they fall down and you can preform an execution move which is pretty cool, but after you see the same move over and over, it gets pretty boring. Progression can take a while so most of the time you will be stuck on the bottom of the scoreboard because everyone else is better equipped that you. There aren't a whole lot of multiplayer modes which is unfortunate. Character customization is also pretty weak with only 4 heads to choose from, including only one female head. It isn't a great game, but it gets such a good score because it is only 20 dollars. Expand
  90. Nov 2, 2013
    8
    This is a great game, but not for the faint of heart. It's hard. Really hard. That's because it simulates the combat so well. It's definitely frustrating at times, but once you know what you're doing it's a very satisfying experience. Every knockdown feels so good, because it was hard earned and won with cunning, not button-mashing.

    A lot has changed since this game debuted, early on
    there were no tutorials, which made the learning curve even steeper if you didn't have a friend who could help you out with it. There were a lot of balancing issues some weapons were overly powerful, bleed was a lot more annoying (although it still sucks, it doesn't happen quite as easily now). Both bleed and squad spawning are pretty annoying mechanics, but without squad spawning it would be annoying to have to traverse the map all the time.

    If you're new to the game, the best piece of advice I can give is to put $5 into your steam wallet and spend it on coins. Coins can be earned through xp, but it's very slow and while the game isn't really pay-to-win it will become a lot more enjoyable once you have some custom loadout slots and your own weapon and armor choices.

    As long as the servers stay full, I have no problem with this game receiving tepid or even bad reviews. I understand where you're coming from, but I think most probably played it in beta and did not really give it a chance to shine.
    Expand
  91. 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.
  92. 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
  93. Aug 16, 2013
    8
    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.
  94. Jun 23, 2013
    10
    THIS GAME IS DIFFICULT. Expect to get killed a lot in your first few games. While at first this game may seem very lame, it just keeps getting better and better the more you play it!
  95. 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.
  96. 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
  97. 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.
  98. 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
  99. 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.
  100. Jul 9, 2013
    7
    I enjoy playing this game very much. It is very easy to pick up and begin playing. I believe the combat system is unique but is sometimes frustrating. Squad spawn also is annoying and is almost useless. However, I still recommend this game highly as I already have 30+ hours logged in, and plan to have many more.
  101. Oct 3, 2012
    0
    First of all i should inform you, that i came to this game after 3000+ hours in Moubt&Blade Warband. So i comparing WotR mainly versus Warband. WotR nice sides: nice graphics some rpg elements some kind of armor|weapon crafting some battle inventions like strike by shield and so on WotR bad sides: no single - frustrating battle system is far from being comfortable - it's hard to see when u hit someone or u was striked by someone
    animations - awful, all players move like they have smthng in their ass, and battle with more then 4 guys turn in total chaotic mess


    So for me personally - WotR is a big dissapointment, and i will continue to play Warband.
    After a month or so I will try WotR again to see how it goes after patches, but i dont expect much now...
    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.