Totalbiscuit choses Chivalry over WotR.



  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q7FETIxZw

    So yea title says it.

    Although, a bit bullshit, how is wotr more realistic than chivalry, and chivalry is way more worth the money. But anyway, he choses chivalry so its all good.

    P.S. Who the fuck cares about customisation in an FPS…



  • Really?

    That’s surprising. He was in the beta for both and said he liked WoTR alot more, though Chivalry had it’s moments.

    Guess he changed his mind.

    Good for sales. Not one of his better videos though. Makes me want WoTR as well. :P

    He has a few issues though; he claims Chivalry does not have VOIP, and supports 32-players max and that it cannot be gotten around, which is not true.

    He also says Torn banner hasn’t announced any future content, and that Chivalry has support for mods, hence won’t have a long lasting community.

    These kinds of things hurt, when someone as poplar as him states them.



  • @Mkilbride:

    That’s surprising. He was in the beta for both and said he liked WoTR alot more, though Chivalry had it’s moments.

    Guess he changed his mind.

    Doesn’t surprise me at all. That was just his first impression of Chiv; a lot of people won’t like the game as much at first. I think it’s that way with highly skill based games in general. Getting your ass kicked isn’t fun, but once you start to get the idea of it, it completely sucks you in because you can just feel yourself getting better.

    Which is why Chivalry should’ve won for customization, because skill is the best kind of progression IMO ;)

    Anyway I thought he was going to give the win to WotR with them taking more “categories” - but in hindsight I suppose Chivalry winning on the absolute most key points (Multiplayer depth and melee combat) should’ve been a dead giveaway that it was the favored game. Also surprisingly found it hard to disagree with him on a lot of things, especially the criticisms to Chivalry’s ranged combat, which has been my biggest disappointment with the game, as much as I love the melee and the gameplay in general (although things like shooting through the visor for SUPER HEADSHOTS just strike me as too specific to be truly skill based).



  • I was linked this video earlier, and truth be told, I agree with 99% of the things he said.

    A little breakdown from my personal view too:

    • Chivalry melee combat is superior, you really feel like you’re in it and it’s personal. Third person melee combat can simply never capture that, it’s just not personal when you’re watching a guy on screen do things that you’re telling it to do.

    • Ranged combat is less satisfying that it is in both Age of Chivalry and WoTR. Chivalry has added Crosshairs to the game whilst having the accuracy of AoC/WoTR (there is no noticeable weapon spread with the exception of running with throwing weapons right now, making dynamic Crosshairs somewhat useless, for lack of a better word). This leaves you with a sub-par aiming system that is just completely and utterly better corrected by disabling Crosshairs altogether and manually adding a dot in the middle of your screen, be it a pen marker, sticker or bit of blue-tac. Personally, I’d love for a revamp of AoCs style, bring back weapon based aiming, that is with the Arrow/Bolt/Finger and this will be a winner. I don’t know a single person that has said Chivalry’s ranged weapon’s system triumphs AoCs/WoTRs.

    • Realism, well yeah, WoTR is based on the War of the Roses which is a real war. Chivalry is based on a fictional world. I’d be just wrong if WoTR added weapons/armour/customisation/models/maps that weren’t actually part of the war. The actual combat itself though, would go to Chivalry, but you have to take into account everything.

    • Brutality, obviously goes to Chivalry. Come on, decapitation and limb removal!

    • Presentation, well, Fatshark have the advantage of working in the gaming industry for many years, having developers that have worked on AAA titles before. In addition to that, they have Paradox on side. Torn Banner is indie, and despite not having what Fatshark have, they’re bloody close.

    • Customisation, yes it goes to WoTR, but again for the aforementioned reasons. Torn Banner don’t have the manpower to do what WoTR did, but give it a bit of time, and I’m sure the gap will be closed.

    • Multiplayer depth, definitely Chivalry. Can’t compete with Chivalry here at all, team objective triumphs over anything WoTR can throw at it. Not to mention Chivalry has far more game modes, with probably more to come.

    • Value for money, well he did say it was impossible to tell, but then mentioning a game not even part of the comparison was a little bit absurd. Chivalry is better value for money though, we all know that, huh? ;)

    • And then all in all, Chivalry is a much better game for me.



  • I think a immersion category makes more sense than realism, because it’s more important to the feel of the game. The cluttered UI, teleporting players, damage numbers, and overall gaminess of WotR loses in that category.



  • @Mkilbride:

    Really?
    He has a few issues though; he claims Chivalry does not have VOIP, and supports 32-players max and that it cannot be gotten around, which is not true.

    He also says Torn banner hasn’t announced any future content, and that Chivalry has support for mods, hence won’t have a long lasting community.

    These kinds of things hurt, when someone as poplar as him states them.

    VOIP he corrected with a caption (though the system currently is the worst one ever invented and devs have listed it as a fixing issue)

    32 Max is incorrect in a sense, the game is designed for best performance at 24 - 32 players, (models reduce fps like aoc) but 64 player servers can be played, you’d just need a decent pc lol.

    as for future content, siege engineer could be one of those added in, the designs etc were already there (possibly port over / implementable option), or a few other classes etc,

    New weapons will be coming in as time goes on like flail, fire arrows, Staff? Slingshot? stuff really in that Era.

    Emblem Customization too (for player use and Guild Use), Duel Mode for those who want to beat the living shit out of someone for bad mouthing them (couldn’t resist wording it that way)

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/171 … al-warfare

    list from the kickstarter goals (over 50k was aiming high though, especially without TotalBiscuit doing a vid) :(

    All really confirmed, the $60k new weapons he could of mentioned :p

    Torn Banner should try to contact Total Biscuit via his press manager for a Developer Interview, could benefit the game greatly :)



  • Oh, I forgot the “Value for money” thing. Probably the one point I wholly disagree with; Chivalry is cheaper and offers a better overall gameplay experience (even according to TB) - seems that should be enough to break the tie. There’s also no “pay to unlock” option, which is just a total suckerpunch to the entire progression idea - not that Chivalry would need a pay to unlock considering how long it takes to unlock things.



  • This is the most major external Chivalry “promotion” yet, already 4k+ likes on the video after 1 hour of him posting it.



  • @jerg:

    This is the most major external Chivalry “promotion” yet, already 4k+ likes on the video after 1 hour of him posting it.

    It’s Total Biscuit. He’s the Yahtzee of YouTube.



  • He brings it to the point for me, since he often mentioned that the decission is really hard and both game are really great and cheap. All the other points are just a taste of matter. He also let the review open, he mentioned, wich of the reasons made HIM happier with chivalry. For my taste there are soooo many things that are just different not better or worse. For example, I thought the archery in chivalry wouldn´t reach the really great and tactical feeling like wotr it does, however archery in chivalry feels so awesome! Not with the same tactical depth, but really awesome. Just different.



  • Have to pretty much agree with everything he has said. He was being quite diplomatic though, giving WoTR the victory on 4 categories, while giving Chivalry only 3, but in the end still choosing Chivalry over WoTR.

    Only one thing he missed in ranged combat… Arrowcam. Correct me if I’m wrong, I never played WoTR, but as far as I know it does not have arrowcam. And let’s be honest, whether you hit or not, that whistle sound is damn satisfying.



  • @Siegfried:

    Have to pretty much agree with everything he has said. He was being quite diplomatic though, giving WoTR the victory on 4 categories, while giving Chivalry only 3, but in the end still choosing Chivalry over WoTR.

    Only one thing he missed in ranged combat… Arrowcam. Correct me if I’m wrong, I never played WoTR, but as far as I know it does not have arrowcam. And let’s be honest, whether you hit or not, that whistle sound is damn satisfying.

    It is a better game. Although I love the setting of WOTR with its historical accuracy it still pains me to play the game. That is when it doesn’t crash on me every 10 min…

    Yes projectile camera view is awesome!



  • Most surprising is when he said that he thought WoTR looked better…I thought the complete opposite.



  • @-Slash-:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Q7FETIxZw

    So yea title says it.

    Although, a bit bullshit, how is wotr more realistic than chivalry, and chivalry is way more worth the money. But anyway, he choses chivalry so its all good.

    P.S. Who the fuck cares about customisation in an FPS…

    Lots of people



  • @DirtyHoudini:

    Most surprising is when he said that he thought WoTR looked better…I thought the complete opposite.

    Agreed. WoTR looks bland and colourless - you can even see it in his video footage he took. It looks…not amazing. On the other hand, some of Chivalry’s maps are some of the best looking I have seen in years. I think TB needs his eyes checked.

    The other point I don’t agree with his the realism part. WoTR is based off of a real event, yes, but it also has many catastrophic realism breaking things such as revives, squad spawns, and regenerating lances and ammo. (Whereas in Chivalry you need to get to a ammo box to get more goodies). Either way, I think it’s not fair to compare them in this way because Chivalry is not advertised as a combat realism game. It was designed to be Hollywood-esque, taking cues from stuff like 300 and Gladiator.

    You can’t mark a game down for not being something it never said it was trying to be.



  • As far as realism goes, WotR wins if you break everything down. The hit detection, armor glances, weapon reach and everything are all detailed and wonderfully done. But in my opinion their whole set-up went at the cost of gameplay, which has been nailed in Chivalry. Especially a few factors which make WotR FEEL infinitely less realistic than Chivalry are the incessant damage number pop-ups, executions and squad spawning. No matter how much realism you put into other aspects, those just completely break the immersion.



  • Congrats to Chivalry !

    This is all.



  • I just played this game and honestly the only thing its got over WOTR combat wise is feints.
    I don’t think the chivalry kicks add anything to the game we do not have in shield bash and push.

    Chivalry has some MAJOR combat flaws:
    (i) To slash left you first have to slash from the right. Its called a combo.
    (ii) You cannot hold swings… they auto attack once you press the mouse.
    (ii) Blocking is a one trick pony. There is no directional blocking. You can only block across your waist. That’s it. Again the block does not hold.
    (iii) while playing chivalry I never felt like their was weight behind my strikes
    (iv) Animations are very poor imho
    (v) The does not appear to be any real attempt at allowing the player to target specific points or hit boxes

    Graphically it is very very poor compared to WOTR. I have no idea how people can even compare the graphics.

    Chivalry still feels like a mod and a lot of things look abhorent. I saw viking ships for instance buzzing around the harbour like motor boats.

    The game modes though were fun. But I think WOTR’s upcoming siege mode will beat it.

    Historically chivalry is a complete mish mash. One side looking decidely eastern and the other european. But not. Its game of thrones NOT medieval I am sorry.
    Knights with throwing axes and such make this a “very light” loose loose loosley medieval game.
    Chivalry has a lot of very nice gimicks like knocking limbs and helmets off and some roaring.

    Tbh it reminds me of the pirates vikings and knights mod for halflife2. A bit of light hearted fun.

    I can say that WOTR will be my medieval game of choice still. But chivalry I may play occasionally for the game modes. It is great to have an alternative and I do though think chivalry is fun in a conan kinda way.

    I do agree WOTR has its problems though. Squad spawning being one of them.

    NOW to watch your video…

    EDIT: C’mon Total Biscuit, charging up attacks is one of the things that does make you aim more to make sure it counts. You don’t always have time to charge up either. So combat does vary and is hard hitting as befits a medieval period where heavy two handers prevailed to beat armour!!!



  • WotR is sucking major ass right now.
    Noob/counternoob flames: virtually unrepairable balance issues and spamming; gameplay ideas that are at once interesting and hair pulling, such as squad spawn; a rather myopic approach to customer issues and forum comments, then a heavy handed approach to addressing percieved issues in game by the devs. Aside from some cool blinding and gut stabbing animations WotR completely lacks in the brutal, medieval violence that the real War of the Roses was known for. It was addicting when it first came out, but the imbalances and general asshat exploitation gameplay has caused me to not return to it for several days. Plus the very few and only marginally interesting maps.

    Shield bash is a shitty excuse for combat in WotR. One numpty doing bonk-bonk-bonk for the whole fight. It’s used by players not interested in medieval combat, but could just as easily be spending their time knife throwing in CoD. Sub par players use it to save their worthless hides, and its virtually inexhaustable. Can’t stand shield bash in WotR.

    Chivalry is beating WotR in almost every department right now, with the exception of CTD stability, which can be fixed anyway. I see myself enjoying Chivalry a year from now, but WotR, I’m no so sure.



  • @Martin:

    I was linked this video earlier, and truth be told, I agree with 99% of the things he said.

    A little breakdown from my personal view too:

    • Chivalry melee combat is superior, you really feel like you’re in it and it’s personal. Third person melee combat can simply never capture that, it’s just not personal when you’re watching a guy on screen do things that you’re telling it to do.

    While I totally agree with Chivalry having the way more fun gameplay I find it odd people are pulling the 1st person vs 3rd person card. You can play Chivalry very well in 3rd person which is my prefered way to do it.

    @Destraex:

    I just played this game and honestly the only thing its got over WOTR combat wise is feints.

    I don’t see where WotR has a better combat system than any of its rival products (Chivalry or M&B). But that may be my personal preference and I’m totally cool with everyone having their game of choice now.
    Before I was just upset that nobody took notice of Chivalry while everybody kept talking about WotR (without even mentioning the game it borrowed its combat system from [M&B]).

    Chivalry has some MAJOR combat flaws:
    (i) To slash left you first have to slash from the right. Its called a combo.

    Agree. Left swing should be relative to your movement. Say: it you’re strafing right, you slash left.

    (ii) You cannot hold swings… they auto attack once you press the mouse.

    Pff… where is that a flaw? Swords tend to be heavy. It’s unrealistic to hold them in a steady pose and then strike all of a sudden like it’s a wooden stick.

    (ii) Blocking is a one trick pony. There is no directional blocking. You can only block across your waist. That’s it. Again the block does not hold.

    Sure there is directional block. That’s a great plus for Chivalry. You have to aim to where the attacking weapon comes from.

    (iii) while playing chivalry I never felt like their was weight behind my strikes

    while playing WotR I never felt like their was weight behind my strikes 8-)

    (iv) Animations are very poor imho

    In contrast to WotR’s sword swinging boxes? :o

    (v) The does not appear to be any real attempt at allowing the player to target specific points or hit boxes

    Sure you’re talking about Chivalry?

    Graphically it is very very poor compared to WOTR. I have no idea how people can even compare the graphics.

    Me neither (but in favor to Chivalry) :D

    Historically chivalry is a complete mish mash. One side looking decidely eastern and the other european. But not. Its game of thrones NOT medieval I am sorry.

    It’s medieval fantasy… So what…


Log in to reply