How is this game compared to WotR ?



  • I bought War of the Roses game a few hours ago, played it 20 minutes and i am now so extremely disappointed about the game. They got some cool stuff but how they have handled swordfighting and movement is just awful.

    Basicly only 4 ways to swing a sword which makes defending extremely easy, especially with a shield that blocks ANY angle. And coupled with slow movement makes it impossible to flank your opponent.

    Watched some videos of Chivalry and it actually looks pretty good. But has anyone tested both games ? I heard there is a combo system in this one ? How about map sizes ?



  • It’s very different. It’s not really fair to compare the games other then they have the same theme. Wotr is primarily a third person game. Chivalry is primarily a first person game. So it’s really not fair to compare them.

    Though here is a side by side comparison of the trailers.

    http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?video1=h … e+Trailers



  • I dont get what he means when he says that in WotR there are only 4 swings so it’s easy to defend?
    Isn’t 4 swings all the swings you can have anyway, they come from any direction, just like m&b.

    Maybe I’m missing something ;)



  • Yeah but they could have added a way for the moves to connect, like a combo system of sort. Right now you have left swing, right swing, upper swing and thrust with the sword. It really feels lacking and it looks weird on the battlefield as well. Everyone running around with the sword pointing clearly out what direction they are going to hit you at.



  • Oh alright, I get it now.

    And yea, there is a combo system here.



  • @Avean:

    How about map sizes ?

    all the maps are best suited for 16-24 players, although the server will be capped at 36 players.



  • I’m yet to test WotR. I played the Beta and it felt like a dumbed down version of M&B with some shiny graphics… everytime I watched gameplay material from there on it looked incredibly lame.

    Chivalry on the other hand looks extremely exciting and challenging. I think this will be my game.

    But, I shall give WotR a second chance now that it’s out.



  • @Vox:

    @Avean:

    How about map sizes ?

    all the maps are best suited for 16-24 players, although the server will be capped at 36 players.

    I think Hillside is the best map to play on a full server, personally. The starting objective makes both teams cross a wide, huge, open battlefield with lots of room for big clashes to get to the pyre, and the following objectives both have multiple points to attack so the defenders can’t turtle one area easily. I hope more of the objective maps end up being modified to be somewhat like Hillside in that respect. Darkforest is pretty close right now too, except for the cistern and some spawns - Stoneshill has very significant bottleneck issues - Battlegrounds is great except, again, for spawns (defense starts too far away on the ram portion and ends up way too close, the reverse being true for offense) and a little bit of bottlenecking.

    Also there are non-objective maps but who cares about those 8-)



  • @SlyGoat:

    Also there are non-objective maps but who cares about those 8-)

    Far too many people unfortunately. I wish they’d turn FFA into a minigame at the start of objective maps until the required number of players is reached. As it is it’s a bloody pain getting people to switch servers en masse.



  • @Avean:

    Yeah but they could have added a way for the moves to connect, like a combo system of sort. Right now you have left swing, right swing, upper swing and thrust with the sword. It really feels lacking and it looks weird on the battlefield as well. Everyone running around with the sword pointing clearly out what direction they are going to hit you at.

    You ever actually seen Western sword fighting? You don’t connect your thrusts. You put everything into one swing, and hope it connects. If it does, you go again, until they’re dead or you are. If it doesn’t work, neither do you.

    Eastern sword techniques are less about one offs and more for multiple connected swings, something which I’d love to see implemented somehow into this, with a new set of armies from Feudal Japan.



  • Hmm, in my experience Western sword fighting is all about switching stances, making it very easy possible to land successive attacks/parries.



  • Huh?

    Western Sword styles have always been about raw strength and aggression.



  • After playing the beta yesterday and having played the release of WotR i think i can answer my original question quite easily.

    Delete WotR, buy Chivalry and never look back. Everything about Chivalry is done better from combat to gameplay to animations to sounds and physics.
    What i love about this combat is that while you could find yourself in impossible situations in WotR where a guy would sit in a corner with his shield raised, or having a duel with a greatsword user where you would block then attack, block and then attack. It were no skill involved, it were no options to kick, feint attacks or dodge.

    In this game you can, you can feint attacks to trick your opponent to lower his guard, or kick a shield user or dodge as “Man of War”. Also that you can actually cut off limbs in this game is just awesome.

    In WotR you felt everyone was just running around killing, while in Chivalry you have actual objectives which are really fun. From trying to break down a castle wall to defending a village with peasants to protecting a king or vice versa.

    So WotR isnt in the same league i feel, Chivalry is just 10x better.
    So yesterday after playing this beta i managed to get WotR refunded and preordered this game instead. I would gladly pay 50 USD for this game, im so happy with it.



  • I wouldn’t say everything is done better, but the balance and gameplay sure is 100 times better.

    @Mkilbride:

    Western Sword styles have always been about raw strength and aggression.

    Where did you learn that, if I may ask?



  • @Avean:

    it were no options to kick, feint attacks or dodge.

    I believe you can feint just like in M&B by pressing right mouse button while swinging. But it seems to be more or less pointless as the attack with the longest preparation wins.

    So yesterday after playing this beta i managed to get WotR refunded and preordered this game instead. I would gladly pay 50 USD for this game, im so happy with it.

    Might be a matter of money… I’ll just buy them both simply because I want the industry to produce more games with a combat mechanic like this (and possibly make mmorpg with actual skill-based combat system). I’ll even bought every Mount&Blade addon while I never played anything other than Warband. ^^



  • @Pfheonix:

    … something which I’d love to see implemented somehow into this, with a new set of armies from Feudal Japan.

    Wut ?
    I hope this will never be done.
    Don’t get me wrong, if many people want it, then the devs should do it, but I hope people will share my opinion (which is by no mean superior, or cleverer, or any sillyness, it’s just mine).
    I think this will actually screw with the visual theme of the game (which is meant to feel like medieval Europe I dare to say)…
    I prefer knights fighting knights over knights fighting samurais.



  • @Jihell:

    Wut ?
    I hope this will never be done.
    Don’t get me wrong, if many people want it, then the devs should do it, but I hope people will share my opinion (which is by no mean superior, or cleverer, or any sillyness, it’s just mine).
    I think this will actually screw with the visual theme of the game (which is meant to feel like medieval Europe I dare to say)…
    I prefer knights fighting knights over knights fighting samurais.

    I’m with you on this. Samurai fighting style is very different to European knights and it’s very unlikely they would have ever met.

    I’m all for a melee fighting game with just Samurai. Combat would look more elegant and the whole atmosphere would be a total different one.



  • @Siegbert:

    @Jihell:

    Wut ?
    I hope this will never be done.
    Don’t get me wrong, if many people want it, then the devs should do it, but I hope people will share my opinion (which is by no mean superior, or cleverer, or any sillyness, it’s just mine).
    I think this will actually screw with the visual theme of the game (which is meant to feel like medieval Europe I dare to say)…
    I prefer knights fighting knights over knights fighting samurais.

    I’m with you on this. Samurai fighting style is very different to European knights and it’s very unlikely they would have ever met.

    I’m all for a melee fighting game with just Samurai. Combat would look more elegant and the whole atmosphere would be a total different one.

    In the real world, yes. Chivalry is a fictional world.

    I think it would be very interesting to have - not necessarily “Eastern vs. Western, Samurai vs. Knights” - but some kind of asymmetric third faction at some point, with a vastly different arsenal and style of play. It would be a tough thing to balance, obviously, and a lot of work (paid DLC quality for sure), but it would be an interesting way to mix things up. I remember in Battlefield 1942 some classes had very different guns depending on which side you were playing and I always enjoyed that; it seems like this kind of asymmetric balance has been entirely phased out from modern FPS in favor of Call of Duty style “No real sides or classes just mix and match weapons”.

    I’m probably biased towards asymmetric games because I have more of an RTS background before I ever got into FPS games, though.



  • For me I can put it this way, I really like(d) mount and blade, was hoping to see more depth or at least the same feel of m&b from wotr, what with them using the same stuff and all. I never played age of chivalry, so came into chiv with less personal interest in it. I really gave wotr a good go in alpha and beta, and at times in beta thought, ok, WOTR not chiv.

    Here we are with chiv about to release, and wotr in prerelease… I favor chiv by a land slide for fun factor. In my head I still think of m&b as a combat system I prefer and with more things I like going on, but that doesn’t make chiv any less fun for me or less interesting to learn.



  • @reapy:

    For me I can put it this way, I really like(d) mount and blade, was hoping to see more depth or at least the same feel of m&b from wotr, what with them using the same stuff and all. I never played age of chivalry, so came into chiv with less personal interest in it. I really gave wotr a good go in alpha and beta, and at times in beta thought, ok, WOTR not chiv.

    Here we are with chiv about to release, and wotr in prerelease… I favor chiv by a land slide for fun factor. In my head I still think of m&b as a combat system I prefer and with more things I like going on, but that doesn’t make chiv any less fun for me or less interesting to learn.

    Well, Mount&Blade 2: Bannerlords will probably be released early~mid next year. That will surely be exactly what M&B fans are looking for.


Log in to reply