Did anybody see the review in PC Gamer magazine?

    Kick your friends into pits in Chivalry: Medieval Warfare by T.J. Hafer

    Chivalry is a melee-focused, team-based meatgrinder set in a fictional world where the Agatha Knights and the Mason Order battle it out for supremacy. Taking control of one of four classes (light, medium, heavy-armored sword-swinging guy, and archer), you’ll spend most of any given match running around, yelling loudly, and separating enemy limbs from torsos.

    What distinguishes Chivalry from it’s main rival, Paradox’s War of the Roses, is the deadliness of it’s combat. Even the heaviest armor won’t keep you alive for more than a few seconds against a dedicated attack.

    Chivalry’s best trait is it’s exemplary map design. Although it’s battlefields sacrifice natural aesthetics for balance, having well-tuned attack lanes and flaking paths makes each match flow nicely. Many levels allow you to shove enemies into pits of spikes or impale them on wall-mounted blades.

    Also laudable is the variety of game modes, from the no-respawn Last Team Standing to staged objective modes. One asymmetrical objective map I love tasks one team with pillaging a town, battering down a castle gate, and killing a member of the royal family. On the other hand, Chivalry lacks functional armor customization and mounted combat. The arrow physics don’t feel particularly realistic, and your moment-to-moment options in melee are limited by less fine control over attack and block direction than in WotR.

    Chivalry is Quake to War of the Roses’ Battlefield, and those seeking a faster-paced bloodier experience will undoubtedly prefer Chivalry’s type of steel" Score: 81/100

    I am convinced this guy didn’t spend more than a few hours on the game.

  • He’s a game reviewer so… no probably not.

  • I don’t see any real problem with it. This game is brutal, fast paced, have great level design and plenty of game modes to play. It’s combat system isn’t as complex as War of the Roses, but it offers a very tight and versatile one. This game does indeed not have mounted combat, but that’s a decision made by the developers because it wouldn’t really fit this game. The games ascetics isn’t as pretty and grand as War of the Roses, but it’s more gritty for a reason. I’ve noticed that the arrows feel very different too, but it’s not bad by any stretch. The armor customization is indeed lacking. A lot. The only thing we have now are Veteran Helmets.

    So, yeah. It’s a pretty fair review as far I can see.

  • As much as it irks me sometimes when an Archer kills me, I think that anyone who says that the archery physics and hit detection feels wrong hasn’t played this game long enough.

    I’ve found the hit detection for arrows is bloody spot on, hit boxes are excellent in regards to that.

  • Not a bad score. It’s around the same as other review sites. I’d say its a positive thing.

  • I am convinced this guy didn’t spend more than a few hours on the game.

    nobody believes and cares about game media’s review in these day.
    their review is worthless.

  • I suppose its a good score under normal circumstances as games go, but in context, remember these are the a–holes who give games like mass effect 3 a 91 or gears of war a 90… ie games with no concept of gameplay whatsoever that have no real buisness being on the PC.

    Here we have a game that has a true pc control scheme and realy utilizes the keyboard and mouse for the epic precision it requires. And to boot, not only do they update the game (for real, not just a pointless patch that makes the game run choppy), but they provided a through settings menue and the game is well optimised… a pc game through and through is rare, and console whores like PC gamer could give less than a sh-- about one of the few games to actualy fit the medium in years.

  • Still hasn’t been posted to their website I don’t believe. I love PC Gamer, and in their comment section I would routinely ask why Chivalry wasn’t getting more attention. I actually got a response that it was published in the hard copy mag, but that’s been the only mention of the game on their website since the game came out (AFAIK). Given the large number of stories on WoTR (and other Paradox games), I think PC Gamer is covering this game only tepidly so as not to damage their obviously cozy relationship with Paradox.

    I usually don’t accuse publications of that sort of thing and think it’s silly when people accuse Engadget of being paid off by Apple or something (I don’t think Paradox is paying PCG), but in this case it seems reasonable. This game really took the wind out of WoTR sails. I played it quite a bit, but I bought this game on launch day and haven’t thought about WoTR since, nor told anyone about it. Chivalry is easily one of the top 5 games of 2012 (objectively - I personally think it is the best game in many years), so it is really suspect how little coverage it gets on the premier PC Gaming website - one which often relishes coverage of Indie success stories such as this.

    The reviewer mentions WoTR almost as much as Chivalry in that review, and he has the nerve to complain about arrows! Who cares! No talk about the excellent melee, which is utterly revolutionary IMO?

Log in to reply