Did this game destroy War of the Roses?



  • I am pretty sure that the answer is yes, but I just want to hear from people who know more about this competition.
    Chivalry is obviously better



  • War of the Roses destroyed itself. It was bad mechanic on top of bad mechanic, as well as a development team which didn’t listen to its community.



  • Agatha!



  • I noticed that they are offering a trial version now or some sort of free play for a limited time. I presume that’s because they’re struggling with the popularity of Chivalry.



  • WOTR was never competing with Chivalry.

    It was competing with M&B which is the true competition for Chivalry.

    Mount & Blade 2 is going to kill Chiv.



  • @MUSASHI:

    WOTR was never competing with Chivalry.

    It was competing with M&B which is the true competition for Chivalry.

    Mount & Blade 2 is going to kill Chiv.

    Never heard of it…. then again, I never heard about War of Roses either.

    … Then again, I never heard of Chivalry until recently.

    The only reason why I knew anything about War of Roses recently was because of buying Chivalry and hearing people talk about it in these forums. Checked some videos of the game and it doesn’t look like any fun at all.

    Regarding Mount & Blade 2… checks

    Nothing to really state whether it’ll be good or bad… checks first game

    Meh.



  • If anything “destroyed” War of the Roses, it’s probably Warband.



  • Yeah, any M&B gameplay I’ve ever seen looked like a snoozefest…

    To be honest, I hope there are some games that compete with Chivalry, because competition is good for the consumer. Maybe a new melee style combat game would be very good mechanic wise and play smoothly, but allow me the pink speedo I have always dreamed of battling in.



  • Mount and blade also has good singleplayer.



  • I’m a veteran of M&B & Chivalry, and I played Wotr for the first time earlier today. First thing I noticed was the lack of servers, and that they were all pretty laggy. Then read about how they’re denying dedicated support - that’s fail number one for any online community. Then I got into game, with a 120 ping (lowest possible), and was immediately turned off by the combat in about every way possible.

    There’s obvious elements there from M&B, such as the attack and block system and the way feints work, but it’s like an incredibly clunky execution of the same thing. The animations are slower and at the same time more sudden in transition, they don’t flow at all. There’s barely any kind of indication that you’ve even hit anyone when you do, some kind of tiny thud sound that’s stamped out by the hoard of ambient noise etc….

    Graphically the game looks nice, but when it comes to combat it isn’t as good as Warband or Chivalry, not even remotely. I’d say Wotr killed itself by just being bad, and having uninterested developers who don’t care about their community was just the final nail in the coffin.



  • Didn’t WotR die a few months ago?



  • I went from WotR to Chivalry in november.

    Of course both the natural decline over time and competition in the genre affects this game. Some might have went to chivalry, some back to Warband, and some just stopped.

    Actually i logget in to WotR yesterday to see the state of the game. Only found one populated server with less than 100 ping.

    WotR have some new content, and still have the most precise hitbox system to date in the genre. Angles and deflection of armor are taken into consideration. Its just too stiff to be fun.



  • I tried the WotR trial a while back, and it was pretty decent for an indie title, but obviously its little bit of polish was crushed underfoot by Chiv’s massive popularity.

    I asked around on Rose’s ingame chat which game people thought was better, and the unanimous response was, unsurprisingly, WotR. I don’t think the game is bad, it just caters to a different kind of player.



  • I can’t attest to any design or balance functions in War of the Roses, I only played it for 10 minutes. It just doesn’t hold a candle to the finesse you can apply in Chivarly. You’re the character, looking through his eyes, with direct control over your swings and footwork. Much more so than in War of the roses.

    It’s obviously more like Mount and Blade, but along the theme of medieval combat, I suppose Chivarly probably did have a major effect on its popularity. If Chivalry had not of been released, I’d probably be playing it instead because I wanted that fix the moment I saw TotalBiscuits first video on it. Only after did he mention Chivarly and start to do videos for it, that’s when I knew this was the game for me.



  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ylg93MCdGI

    It was aiming to fill the niche that Warband did while offering nothing better aside from visuals.

    Introduced shit mechanics etc.

    Warband is doing quite well still…M&B2 will do even better.



  • @Martin:

    War of the Roses destroyed itself. It was bad mechanic on top of bad mechanic, as well as a development team which didn’t listen to its community.

    Yep, the beta was gruesome. My only thought was; “How in the world can you build upon Mount & Blade multiplayer but manage to make it worse?”



  • @lemonater47:

    Mount and blade also has good singleplayer.

    I didnt play warband just the first one, not sure how the multi works on it.

    its a turned based game, with chiv type combat when you engage in battle, pretty slow multiplayer in its current form, great single player if I remember right bad bad combat mechanics or I failed idk, but a item system with stats and progression in the sense your items make you better and levels.

    Chiv is all about pure skill and not items, in midieval you level up troops, attain gold, raise a army, get better items, do quests, take turns. But the actual combat is chiv type combat with a bot army you raised.



  • Player graph over time. Blue is WotR, yellow is Chivalry. It looks like we are winning overall. Wotr probably had a bigsale recently when it spiked over us.



  • @BandOfTheHawk:

    @lemonater47:

    Mount and blade also has good singleplayer.

    I didnt play warband just the first one, not sure how the multi works on it.

    its a turned based game, with chiv type combat when you engage in battle, pretty slow multiplayer in its current form, great single player if I remember right bad bad combat mechanics or I failed idk, but a item system with stats and progression in the sense your items make you better and levels.

    Chiv is all about pure skill and not items, in midieval you level up troops, attain gold, raise a army, get better items, do quests, take turns. But the actual combat is chiv type combat with a bot army you raised.

    In warband its not turnbased. Its real time. So when you move your party across the campaign map everything else is moving around too. And the AI is way better than just normal mount and blade.



  • @MUSASHI:

    WOTR was never competing with Chivalry.

    It was competing with M&B which is the true competition for Chivalry.

    Precisely what I was thinking except I can’t help but feel like both Chiv and M&B are different genres and really should not be in direct competition.


Log in to reply