User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 267 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
    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!
  2. Jul 1, 2014
    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.
  3. CBZ
    Oct 4, 2012
    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.
  4. Mar 9, 2014
    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.
  5. Jun 7, 2013
    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
    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
    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.


    + Good, well tested Unreal engine

    + Archery

    + XP system

    + Horses (if you know how to use them)


    - Balance Issues

    - Horses (Unbalanced)

    - Hitting with swords feels a little disconnected
  8. Dec 6, 2012
    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
    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
    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
    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.
  12. Oct 3, 2012
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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.

  20. Jul 13, 2014
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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.
  25. Nov 11, 2012
    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.
  26. Oct 4, 2012
    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
    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
    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
    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
    Buggy mixed with a crappy combat system = epic fail.

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
    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
    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
    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.