Forums » General Gaming

Chivalry or War of The Roses

    • 952 posts
    October 23, 2012 6:20 PM EDT

    I was recently thinking about buying War of The Roses as soon as I was done playing some other games I'm busy with now, I heard some complaints that the gameplay itself was a bit less enjoyable as expected but overall it looked like it was worth the money, but about an hour ago I randomly saw a video on youtube in the recommended bar, here you go.

    And it seems to me that this other game, Chivalry, just released a few days ago, and I've heard a lot of good things about it's free predecessor. So after watching this video I really doubt if I want War of The Roses anymore. Chivalry seems to have better gameplay and multiplayer (no singleplayer in either one of them) and even though War of The Roses has some in depth customising features and better graphics, also it has announced free content updates, I feel as if I'll enjoy Chivalry more, which has free content updates planned for the future as well.

    Anyone has an opinion that could change my mind towards one of the 2 games?

    War of The Roses

    Chivalry: Medieval Warfare

    • 708 posts
    October 23, 2012 6:29 PM EDT

    I've been playing War of the Roses quite a bit myself, I'm finding it great fun with the huge loadout customisation and all that. The class system is completely freeform, I could play a plate armor guy using a hunting bow, or a horseman with a crossbow that uses his horse to reposition, or pretty much anything you can think of. I haven't actually played Chivalry but from what I gather Chivalry seems to be more about skill - I can see myself getting easily stomped like back in my Warband days - while WotR is more accessible, with easy to grasp but difficult to master gameplay. They've finally finished balancing everything (last few months the claymore has been BROKEN as FUCK) but it's a pretty even playing field now. The free content updates are something I'm looking forward to, I'm a massive gear whore and the new maps and gamemodes should keep it fresh for quite awhile.

    I'd have to do some more research about Chivalry but I'll probably get it a bit later once all the bugs and balancing have been ironed out. It really depends what kind of experience you're looking for.

    • 952 posts
    October 23, 2012 6:33 PM EDT

    I'm looking for good actual gameplay, which at this moment I feel I can get more from Chivalry, since it had more multiplayer modes, cool objectives during the matches and less strafing combat. At the moment I'm really more turned towards Chivalry for the gameplay. The thing is that I also love to be able to customise, and War of The Roses really offers a lot of customisation, the only thing Chivalry offers is a couple of more weapons but nothing else.

    • 708 posts
    October 23, 2012 6:38 PM EDT

    You aren't wrong about the combat. 2 decent people with shields fighting or multiple people with plate armor and low penetration weapons can really bog down combat. Chivalry looks alot more fast-paced and brutal, in the videos I've seen heavy guys get cut down by like 2 swings, with the right perks and strategy in WotR a guy in full plate armor will be nearly invincible (though barely able to move and attack). I could do a video of a match or 2 I play on the weekend (I was going to make some Youtube videos for my loadouts anyway), alot of the stuff they say in the WotR vs Chivalry videos is utter rubbish, most youtubers seem very biased toward Chivalry

    • 952 posts
    October 23, 2012 6:48 PM EDT

    Well, what attracts me to Chivalry gameplay is the stamina system which makes it almost impossible to run and jump around swinging your weapon for 15 minutes but actually forces you to fight smart, and that people die easily is perfect for this type of combat, and a bit more realistic as well. Although I do like how there is some mounted combat in War of The Roses and the archery gameplay does look better, except for the crossbows in Chivalry where you can use a pavise.

  • October 23, 2012 7:14 PM EDT

    Alright, time for a little of my side of the argument 

    You've probably heard me say it a million times before, if you want War of The Roses style combat, get godamned Mount and Blade, the combat is definitely harder but it's so much better.

    In War of The Roses like Ponty said, it's ridiculous how much armor plated guys have and the combat is floaty, sluggish, and slower. In Mount and Blade it's all about the skill where it may be fast paced and not have the greatest visuals and animations etc. but the combat is amazing, it's very difficult and it takes awhile to get used to but the Singleplayer is really good and the Multiplayer is amazing.

    Mount and Blade is a extremely skill based game, while Shark-whoever dumbed down the combat system to make it 'more accessible' so that basically no one can really fight skillfully like in Mount and Blade.

    That's the basic gist of what I think of WoTR, though I will definately say that the Ranged Combat is fantastic in War of The Roses, if I did ever buy or get gifted that game I'd spend pretty much the entire time as a Crossbowman or Archer.

    As for Chivalry, it looks great. I am probably going to pick that up within the time between now or maybe I'll get it for Christmas. It's First Person, there's a stamina system, friendly fire matters other than WoTR where in my experience you don't do shit damage to teammates, it seems like it actually completely negates the hit the first time you hit them or something. Not quite sure, but yeah I like that where you're swinging matters. You can't just strafe around flailing your sword all over the damned place.

    So yeah, I'd go for Chivalry, if War of The Roses interests you just get M&B Warband, or get Chivalry and maybe M&B 2 will not be all shitty like WoTR, though I am not confident.

    There's my 2 cents. If you want an incredible skill-based competitive melee game, get M&B, if not get Chivalry as that seems really good as well.

    • 708 posts
    October 23, 2012 7:59 PM EDT

    When I first started playing I went with your typical longsword+shield+plate armor type guy, it was horrible - I couldn't really get anywhere fast. The great thing is you can make the game work the way you want to play - nowadays my two custom melee classes are light armor, hood, buckler and castillon sword - ridiculously fast but not too tough - and heavy armor, spear and mace for taking on others in heavy armor/horses. I play my light armor guy most of the time though.

    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 4:08 AM EDT

    Also Chivalry has cool objectives during multiplayer like kill the filthy peasants, ramsack the houses,... you get the point, it seems to have a mp mode which is objective based, something I can always enjoy. I think War of The Roses only has deathmatch style modes so that's something I would choose Chivalry for.

    • 708 posts
    October 24, 2012 4:10 AM EDT

    It does have a conquest mode (I really dislike TDM) though occasionally the majority of your team will just treat it like TDM.

    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 4:38 AM EDT

    Is this conquest mode like capture the flag or does it require a team to fullfill other criteria like reaching an objective in Chivalry do progress?

    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 5:00 AM EDT

    I found a great video showing some good gameplay, it's a bit long but it convinced me to buy this game.

    • 708 posts
    October 24, 2012 5:01 AM EDT

    It's basically just your classic Battlefield capture bases and spawn at them sort of thing, though only the points closest to the 'battle line' are able to be captured. Like say the battlefield has 5 points in a rough line (which it generally does) and each team has captured the 2 points closest to their respective spawns, only the middle one will be available for capture. If York then captures the middle point, they can do and capture Lancaster's next point and Lancaster's only options are to defend their point or capture the middle one. It basically just helps to direct the battle on larger maps and encourages people to defend instead of just rushing all over the place capturing and leaving.

    By the looks of Chivalry it does have more objective types but I still enjoy WotR quite alot. I'll probably end up getting Chivalry as well though.

    • 6 posts
    October 24, 2012 5:14 AM EDT
    There are some good gameplay videos of Chivalry on youtube by SideStrafe, I watched them all and now I can't wait till I get a good PC.
    • 57 posts
    October 24, 2012 7:58 AM EDT

    I'd recommend Mount & Blade. I think its much better than these games

    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 8:02 AM EDT

    Meh, I've played Mount&Blade games for a bit but didn't really like them, the combat itself is pretty good, but the graphics, and the multiplayer seem a bit... poor quality, with not much variation.

    • 57 posts
    October 24, 2012 10:30 AM EDT

    I think multiplayer is awesome especially in Napoleonic Wars and for me the graphics doesnt matter that much. But maybe its not everybody's taste 

    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 10:59 AM EDT

    Well, I just love long, goal driven mp matches, where you have a certain time limit but you have a lot of objectives, I was already so dissapointed that they didn't put Power Struggle mp mode in Crysis 2. I also would like to see something fresh when it comes to graphics, I just don't like the ones in M&B games, plus there is so gore or whatsoever in M&B.

    • 966 posts
    October 24, 2012 11:10 AM EDT

    I might actually buy this too. Wich is saying something since I don't play too many games like this.


    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 11:38 AM EDT

    Me neither, but War of The Roses, when I first heard of it showed me that there really are some of these games that can be good, but Chivalry seems to have even better actual gameplay so that's the one it'll probarly be for me.

    • 966 posts
    October 24, 2012 11:42 AM EDT

    Aye, I'll get it as soon as I have time. Maybe we can team up. *don't know how the system works on there*

    • 952 posts
    October 24, 2012 11:47 AM EDT

    Meh, I'm not going to buy it just yet, I have a lot of other games currently ready to be played and I'll wait around a bit to see what they will add to the game and wait for some patches. Maybe around Christmas or Sinterklaas or something, I dunno.

    • 966 posts
    October 24, 2012 11:49 AM EDT

    I'll have to see aswell, I might also have to wait untill christmas. Then I won't even have to buy it myself.

  • October 24, 2012 1:37 PM EDT

    +1 to this, though to me the Devs ruined Napoleonic when they gimped the fucking bayonets and made cav OP.

    Multiplayer is the best thing about Mount and Blade, the combat system is amazing and the way it flows and the speed is very, very hard to get good at but really, really fun.

    I absolutely loved Napoleonic until the patch where they slowed down the combat and made it more clunky. I'm really hoping that Mount and Blade 2 isn't like that or I may not buy it.

    • 966 posts
    October 25, 2012 6:31 AM EDT

    I just bought Chivalry. It's awesome!

    Vanguard FTW! I suggest everyone play this, maybe make a skyrimblog server if enough members play.

    • 952 posts
    October 25, 2012 6:49 AM EDT
    I was thinking about specialising in a polearm-stabbing-swinging-chopping vanguard, and a pavise crosbowman, thuse just seem like most fun.