Chivalry Medieval Warfare: Multiple Personality Disorder



  • Part 1 of a stream of consciousness evaluation/I ask myself what the fuck this game is trying to be. Will not be the most composed post obviously.

    “You have a sword and you want to hurt some people.”

    • Basic concept of the game.

    The game is skill-based and controls like a FPS, but instead of guns and grenades, players are given swords, shields, maces, battleaxes and longbows. Set in a fictional yet gritty and realistic world, players will fight in fast paced online battles besieging castles, raiding medieval villages and fighting for glory in the arena with up to 32 players.

    It’s about time we reached the crossroads where we have to ask ourselves what Chivalry is really trying to be. During the post-release period there has been more and more talk about making the game realistic. Making the game conform to the actual rules of real life combat.

    Wait…wait a minute.

    Lets look at this quote here.

    We wanted to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield. To accomplish this we drew on our inspiration from epic swordfighting movies such as 300, Gladiator and Braveheart. We seek to bring the chaos, intensity and epicness that those movies deliver to the hands of a gamer.

    I don’t know whether Torn Banner has no clue what game they made or is just trying to type flavorful text to move copies. Just look at the following design contradiction pertaining to the special ability of the Man-At-Arms class.

    Special ability
    Elusive – Can perform dodges.

    Right. Let’s also think of the term Man-At-Arms which if we were conforming to the rules of actual real life medieval combat would be what professional knights are called. Hang on what about the numerous other contradictions like firepots not instantly killing anybody that is set aflame. Carts that move by themselves while you stand near them. No wind and easy archery. Polearms registering hits for full damage with the wooden shafts. Stupid stamina regeneration rates making stamina usage brainless and a useless mechanic as of now. Sprinting not using stamina. No mounted knights. We could really go on and on with the list.

    Here’s my personal favorite contradiction and outright lie on their site though.

    We were also disappointed with melee in other games. We didn’t want to be locked in to a canned animation

    Hahaha. You have 3 preset attacks which can be comboed into preset combos. I really can’t believe they typed this.

    Let me make this clear, the point I am trying to make is that Chivalry is not and was never intended to be in any way realistic. You could make the point that it is a stylized presentation of medieval combat which it does very well. Here’s the thing when I look at Chivalry I see a divided game almost like the spirit of the game is just not there yet for some reason.

    For a clear example look at the divide between the playstyles of the three core melee roles. The MAA is a class with a strong vision of what it wants to be. A glass cannon that relies on positioning speed and precision akin to the Scout of TF2. Cool now what do we have next?

    Here’s where it takes a dive straight downhill. No one knows quite where the Vanguard sits. His name implies that he wants to be in the front lines using his class specific polearms abusing reach advantage against knights. Wrong since this tactic is negated by Archers(vangaurds cannot wield shields) and shields themselves. The vanguards special ability is simply a sprint attack which could of easily been an attack all classes had. How completely uninspiring.

    And for Knight let me read you this quote on the official Chivalry about page.

    The most powerful, tank melee unit on the battlefield. His damage output and armour levels are offset by his lack of agility and generally slower weapons.

    So he’s the heavy of TF2 with access to other classes’ weapon trees. Also HIS CLASS specific weapons are slower yet he has access to the MAA’s 1h weapons which can be used with the best shield in the game. Not to mention the ability to wield a 1.5h with Shield. The class is the de facto face to face combat class. I really can’t say anything other than it does it’s job well. The design is boring though.

    To sum up you have one class with a solid special ability that dictates the way the class is played. One with a lackluster/underpowered attack that could of been another type of attack, and the third’s is being a really strong guy. What went wrong? Why didn’t Chivalry stick to the trend of over-the-top abilities?

    Where Chivalry really shines is Team Based Objective combat. I think the game needs to be steered away from making it an indepth 1v1 game to asking ourselves how to make team gameplay more varied/interesting. I myself have played a lot of Blade Symphony/Fighting Games and I know when a game has the potential BASED ON the core mechanics to truly be a good 1v1 experience. Unfortunately Chivalry already failed when it decided to be class based.



  • I’m going to be dead honest with you. I didn’t read any of your OP.

    I just liked the title. 8-)



  • Op. So you would prefer this game stays fantasy like.
    The alternatives are wotr and m&b.

    The next big thing being another fantasy game in m&b2.

    What do you want from a slashers combat mechanics?



  • The problem with your “stream of consciousness” post is I don’t think anyone really knows what you’re trying to say or suggesting.



  • The game has no clear vision. People suggesting mechanics to bring the game closer to realism are completely missing the point. So are the people who want deeper 1v1 interaction from a system for whatever reason is not DEEP enough. (The amount of actions you can take is disgustingly low) Like warband there will be a time where people have trained enough to these stimuli that blocking feints will become so easy that you will need to speed up the game to make it a challenge again. Coincidentally another problrm with Chivalry is that the game’s overall speed is a tad slow.

    Coupled with the schizophrenic belief that metagame techniques like the combo-feint needs to be immediately patched effectively eliminating another action a player could make to get ahead is mind numbingly hypocritical. It’s so clear that after reading forum topics about the combat system the game is still in beta.

    The community itself doesn’t know what the fuck it thinks.

    The point of this post was not to prove a point or present one. I just wanted people to think about what Torn Banner has presented on their site as what THEY BELIEVE the game to be and the reality. And also how schizophrenic this community is though representing the minority of chivalry players.



  • To be honest I don’t see contradictions where you see them and thus I come to the conclusion it does have its own place and it knows perfectly well where it stands.

    1.
    “We wanted to capture the experience of truly being on a medieval battlefield. To accomplish this we drew on our inspiration from epic swordfighting movies such as 300, Gladiator and Braveheart. We seek to bring the chaos, intensity and epicness that those movies deliver to the hands of a gamer.”

    OP mentions this statement is not true since the MAA can perform dodges… To be honest I am at a loss about what your reasoning is here and what you are trying to say.
    As far as I see in the game it sets the theme of a gritty medieval movie like 300 pretty well. Nice and gory, cool objectives and even a sea battle in the background of the map.

    So for point 1 I see no contradiction and an accurate description of the setting of the game.

    2.
    You continued the post with talk about the man-at-arms in reality being a knight, firepots not killing people instantly and carts moving when you stand next to them. I am really curious what you are trying to say with that piece of text.
    It really sounds like you expected the game to be extremely realistic (wind, wooden shafts do not hit) while the firepot thing is something which probably has something to do with the gritty movie statement.
    Yopu state these things are contradictionary… which could very well be, but I cannot determine to what point you are comparing them to.

    3.
    “We were also disappointed with melee in other games. We didn’t want to be locked in to a canned animation”

    The point you raise here is valid, however TBS means this sentence in a broader way (I think). Yes it are three animations, but you can steer them in real-time while the animation plays.
    They mean that this is far better than simply pressing LMB and it all unfolds automatically (like in Assassin’s creed or Splinter cell) when you press the button at the correct time.
    So in this way it is not just an animation but a ‘real’ blade you can steer after you initiated it.
    –-----------------------------------------
    4.
    You claim that chivalry is in no way realistic, but as far as I know this was never claimed to be a simulation but just a nice realistic touch in the style of a gritty war movie.
    Although some people in the forums want some more realistic touches, I don’t see why it is such a surprise that Chivalry is not that realistic, that was known from the start.
    –-----------------------------------------
    5.
    I am not going into details of your last section about it being teambased and it’s class system, mainly because I don’t really see the point you make apart from the obvious ‘the classes are unbalanced’ notion you make (at least that’s what I understand of the last bit).
    Which I disagree upon, but that’s a discussion worthy of being discussed in the balance thread.
    –-------------------------------------

    TL:DR
    In essence I just don’t see the contradictions in the summary of the game to what it is. It is exactly the epic warmovie game with a more controllable melee-system TBS claimed it to be.
    But that’s just my opinion.



  • So MUSASHI, ur saying the games not what it says to be.
    &the people on the forms are very ignorant, lol. (Speaking Bluntly)

    Sounds legit/honest to me, u just blew my fuking mind MUSASHI 10/10 cookies4u ;)



  • @MUSASHI:

    The point of this post was not to prove a point or present one. I just wanted people to think about what Torn Banner has presented on their site as what THEY BELIEVE the game to be and the reality. And also how schizophrenic this community is though representing the minority of chivalry players.

    We represent the minority of players that care. The forums are for posting thoughts and communicating how each individual feels about the game and it should be treated as such. The majority of players join games lmb spam and Wow this is Amazing. In a week or two they leave to maybe come back again.

    I agree with Musashi though. Games cant be real because there not real. They should be balanced and balanced games are the farthest from real because real life isn’t fair at all.

    RL exsample :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWxlZ52O0rI



  • OP mentions this statement is not true since the MAA can perform dodges… To be honest I am at a loss about what your reasoning is here and what you are trying to say.
    As far as I see in the game it sets the theme of a gritty medieval movie like 300 pretty well. Nice and gory, cool objectives and even a sea battle in the background of the map.

    The MAA’s dodge animation which is basically him moving so fast that it blurs the air around him directly contrasts with the games attempt at gritty/over-the-top realism(a term that doesn’t even make sense to begin with).

    Think about it like this a new player loads up the game and the first opponent he faces is an MAA who uses dodge effectively. It looks silly to be frank with you. Name one hollywood movie that depicts the MAA’s dodge . It belongs in an anime.

    So for point 1 I see no contradiction and an accurate description of the setting of the game.

    The description is falsified but I have no problem because they did it to sell their game better.

    You continued the post with talk about the man-at-arms in reality being a knight, firepots not killing people instantly and carts moving when you stand next to them. I am really curious what you are trying to say with that piece of text.

    All those things DIRECTLY contrasts with the idea that Chivalry is a game largely based on reality. I call this the Call of Duty/Counterstrike effect.

    It really sounds like you expected the game to be extremely realistic (wind, wooden shafts do not hit) while the firepot thing is something which probably has something to do with the gritty movie statement.

    I watched the game developer vlog about it and thats how long it took me to realize that this game would not be in any case realistic. I simply brought up those things to make a point that the realism of the game should not be what is emphasized and developed. The game should of moved torward a TF2 esque apporach.

    Yopu state these things are contradictionary… which could very well be, but I cannot determine to what point you are comparing them to.

    Huh? I am directly comparing them to Torn Banner’s falsified description of their game as directly quoted from their site.

    You claim that chivalry is in no way realistic, but as far as I know this was never claimed to be a simulation but just a nice realistic touch in the style of a gritty war movie.
    Although some people in the forums want some more realistic touches, I don’t see why it is such a surprise that Chivalry is not that realistic, that was known from the start.

    Why is the word realistic even being used in this case then?

    I am not going into details of your last section about it being teambased and it’s class system, mainly because I don’t really see the point you make apart from the obvious ‘the classes are unbalanced’ notion you make (at least that’s what I understand of the last bit).
    Which I disagree upon, but that’s a discussion worthy of being discussed in the balance thread.

    My point wasn’t that the classes were imbalanced, but that there is a disconnect between the design philosophies(for what ever reason) of the three.



  • hehe, I’v just forgotten what I was about to say/type ops.
    Was this an attack of this fine Game Chivalry or a compliment?
    medication time nurse rachett , chief you can talk!



  • Well at the most I was simply saying that most people tend to overlook the grander scale a la bringing more variety to teamplay/Making TO not a clusterfuck of lazily designed mechanics and seem to focus on imaginary 1v1 Skill Ceilings aka (living out their wet dreams) which we have found out is pretty low since the game was designed around…who would of thought TO itself.

    Another part of it was trying to figure out if the idea of 1v1 duels and thinking that Chivalry was intended on being a realistic sword fight simulator was connected. I think it is. Please note that I spend a lot of time on DUEL servers myself but I know where the true priorities should lie.



  • I am a clanless, clueless rank 27 lazy knight.Its the only class I have played.
    often in the village for some jack scrumpy, with my friends the peasants, hehe.
    not sure what you are about atm. although the sword is very sharp, does it have history?
    save it for that battle.



  • OP, I think you have somewhat missed the point.

    The game FEELS real, and the rest can be damned. I agree that more options would be more fun, but the part of the community clamoring for duel servers is trying to get the game to do something it was not intended for. Sure, the capability is there, but focusing on dueling mechanics would take away from the core gameplay that is the savage melee.

    It’s Counter-Strike with swords. All the rest is just noise.



  • play mortalonline
    http://www.mortalonline.com



  • Sneaky devil Keurk.
    bann him, the lowest I’d say.



  • @loin:

    Sneaky devil Keurk.
    bann him, the lowest I’d say.

    ? why? MO is the most awesome medieval fantasy sandbox MMORPG yet.



  • The game FEELS real, and the rest can be damned. I agree that more options would be more fun, but the part of the community clamoring for duel servers is trying to get the game to do something it was not intended for. Sure, the capability is there, but focusing on dueling mechanics would take away from the core gameplay that is the savage melee.

    It’s Counter-Strike with swords. All the rest is just noise.

    You realize besides the first sentence that’s basically what I’ve been saying?

    Mortal Online is bad lol.



  • Yeah, I know that’s what you’ve been saying. I threw that out to support my argument. Plus I was high. =p



  • @MUSASHI:

    My point wasn’t that the classes were imbalanced, but that there is a disconnect between the design philosophies(for what ever reason) of the three.

    So you presume to know the design philosophies and what the devs intended for the classes and the game in general? Seems to me they delivered exactly what they said they would. The reference to movies clearly shows the focus was epicness and not realism.

    It’s the same way that ninja games in no way resemble historically accurate ninja operations or tools because they’re idealized, romanticized and made to be epic and entertaining.



  • From the looks of this OP, there have been a lot of things said already
    but I’mma just put this here

    Chivalry ain’t about realism, it’s about a medieval based cinematic experience,
    it’s a fun hack em up with depth beneath the surface

    You seem to look down on it because it’s doesn’t have a sole vision or purpose to be
    yet you put that argument forward against a straw man

    I’mma use a different example
    you could say Call of Duty is “Point, shoot” or "Get gun to kill peeps to get gun repeat"
    but saying that doesn’t take into account the situation and map awareness, knowledge of equipment and reflexes needed to in that game

    I’m not saying CoD is a smart game, it isn’t
    but I’m also not gonna say it has no depth at all despite being simple

    Having classes means that you can do things others can’t but are also unable to do things that others can, the system is intended to enhance the concept of teamwork and cohesion that you seem to admire, while the melee system itself allows for a greater one on one experience Within the concept of teamwork,
    yeah the classes could use work, but the game is from a small indie developer, they aren’t going to put this down and say “Yep, that’s that, no more folks this is the end of the road, buhbye”

    To sum up
    Are you sure this is where you want to be throwing your opinion around?
    Don’t you have a blog or something?