War of the Roses

 PC
Metascore
73

Mixed or average reviews - based on 28 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 28
  2. Mixed: 13 out of 28
  3. Negative: 0 out of 28
  1. Everyeye.it
    Oct 27, 2012
    73
    War of the Roses, thanks to its genuine feeling and its peculiar gameplay mechanics, is one of the best combat simulations on PC.
  2. IGN
    Oct 3, 2012
    73
    War of the Roses isn't quite Mount and Blade or Battlefield, but it manages to walk a fine line between the two models to produce an innovative and enjoyable experience.
  3. Games.cz
    Nov 29, 2012
    70
    A complicated game mechanics title that's obviously suited for gamers in love with medieval battles. If it is your love, you will clench your teeth and the gameplay will reward you with a fantastic atmosphere and a rich experience. The game's variations are few, so it is basically two groups of fighters slitting each others throats. Nonetheless, expanding the gameplay experience is a likelihood.
  5. The Escapist
    Oct 11, 2012
    70
    War of the Roses is shallow and unrefined, but if you want what it's got then you'll have a great time with it.
  6. SpazioGames
    Oct 9, 2012
    70
    War of the Roses tries to recreate the historical period of Medio Evo as it really was, but the poor game modes limit the experience.
  7. GRYOnline.pl
    Oct 9, 2012
    70
    Some will like this game, some won't. Fans of Warband will be excited by the multiplayer, but sandbox lovers won't find anything here. Mount & Blade players will appreciate much better graphics, but others won't be impressed. Ethusiasts of intuitive swordfights will welcome the simple fighting system, but slasher veterans will most likely be bored. The key thing is the future - the amount of active players will decide about the game's success or failure. The biggest problem is lack of free-to-play gaming model, but still there's some potential and I quite like it.
  8. Absolute Games
    Nov 9, 2012
    65
    War of the Roses is a good base to build upon in future installments, but until then, Mount & Blade has nothing to worry about.
  9. Games Master UK
    Nov 25, 2012
    62
    There are no single player components for when the lag gets the better of you. [Christmas 2012, p.94]
    All this publication's reviews
  10. PC PowerPlay
    Dec 2, 2012
    60
    The foundation for a sophisticated swordplayer is here, but War of the Roses misses the jugular by forgetting to include the rest. [Dec 2012, p.74]
    All this publication's reviews
  11. Hyper Magazine
    Nov 14, 2012
    60
    If more maps and game modes are released, War of the Roses could turn into quite a niche time sink. Whether such hope is worth gambling $29.99 US on is up to you. [Dec 2012]
    All this publication's reviews
  12. Eurogamer Germany
    Oct 25, 2012
    60
    War of the Roses still has the potential to become a real jewel of a game. Coming patches and updates will determine if it'll go under in the storming sea of middling arena action titles – or if it will become an exotic insiders' tip that'll win a devoted following apart from renaissance fair enthusiasts.
  13. 4P.de
    Oct 25, 2012
    60
    War of the Roses is what happens when you cross medieval weaponry with the Battlefield-franchise. It is motivating to fight for your next level up and the spoils that come with it, but nonetheless this game feels like it is released prematurely.
  14. GameSpy
    Oct 9, 2012
    60
    War of the Roses is a game I desperately want to like more than I do. It's the end product of so many high-quality pieces, but unfortunately it fails to really pull everything together.

Awards & Rankings

48
#48 Most Discussed PC Game of 2012

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 282 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 116 out of 282
  2. Mixed: 64 out of 282
  3. Negative: 102 out of 282
  1. Tyrx
    Oct 3, 2012
    3
    I could see how this game might appeal to any newbies of the genre but the facts stand that FatShark have managed to butcher what could haveI could see how this game might appeal to any newbies of the genre but the facts stand that FatShark have managed to butcher what could have been an awesome game in an awful attempt to make the game appeal to the masses. The funny thing about this is that even my "casual" friends can see through the terrible gimmicks and truly retarded choices that the developers have made in accordance to the game.

    Let's break the negative and positives points of this game down; NEGATIVE: 1. **** progression system designed to hide the bland gameplay and increase the eventual short lifespan of the game. (summer flick) 2. Slow and cumbersome combat system. Two veterans will literally duel each other for upwards of 10 minutes simply because there's a very low "skill height level" compared to that of other games in the genre such as Mount & Blade.
    3. Developer is rejecting the fundamental aspects that make up PC gaming - they're refusing to post in topics asking them to release dedicated server files (even unranked files) and the devs have no plan to include mod support
    4. To rub the soreness of the lack of dedicated server files in further, the developers have decided to team up with Multiplay (Whom host **** servers, the only reason they're "big" is because they spend tonnes on marketing) to provide EXCLUSIVE server hosting. So the only way you can run a server is if you rent it. 5. Squad spawning system is so bad that I simply don't know how to sum it up in words. They might work in games such as Call Of Duty and Battlefield but THEY DON'T WORK IN THIS GENRE! 6. Game is riddled with bugs and connectivity issues, despite players warning FatShark that this was going to happen in alpha/beta.
    7. I could keep on talking about the negative aspects but why rehash content which you can find all over the 'net. The only positive aspects about this game is the graphics and excellent archer mechanics. Bascially, this game is simply an arcade game which should be priced around the $10 mark as it's really only good for wasting an hour or two on when you're completely bored. I might be being overly harsh with my review score, but FatShark have broken so many promises with this game that it's astounding that people are still defending them. I don't have any hopes for much after-release support considering FatShark's has a reputation (or lack thefore) for not creating updates for their products after launch.    … Full Review »
  2. Skaz
    Oct 2, 2012
    10
    This is an excellent game, with a steep learning curve. If you are more used to slower-paced games, this game will throw you off. If you areThis is an excellent game, with a steep learning curve. If you are more used to slower-paced games, this game will throw you off. If you are used to games that require little in terms of practice and skill, this game will throw you off. This is not your average multiplayer game, this is something unique and different.

    Some claim that the controls are clunky and awkward and, you know what, they are. The point is that it's not something that takes away from the game; rather, it is just another element that you have to learn, adapt to and then master. We are all noobs to begin with and this game makes that painfully clear.

    If you're a terribad, you're going to hate this game, because no matter what you do, others will seem to instantly kill you from miles away with a crossbow, mow you down with a horse and lance, crush your face with a hammer coming down on your helmet like the wrath of a severely irked deity... but if you decide to lift yourself above the masses and actually learn the mechanics, learn when to use the dagger, when to use the poleaxe, how the arrows drop off... then you will eventually be rewarded ten-fold, when you snipe that pesky mounted knight right off his horse at 200 yards.

    This game rewards skill and, unfortunately for some, skill is not an unlock.

    The graphics quality is top-of-the-line and with all settings cranked to the max, it looks as good as any triple-A title on the market. It has some work to do in the optimization/performance department, but those are just details, minor cracks in an otherwise superb presentation. If you don't own a beastly machine, turn shadows off, and your framerate will skyrocket.

    Overall, this game is definitely worth the     … Full Review »
  3. H00b
    Oct 3, 2012
    5
    Great idea done badly. The melee combat is terrible. Players squad spawn on each other so combat basically amounts to people popping out ofGreat idea done badly. The melee combat is terrible. Players squad spawn on each other so combat basically amounts to people popping out of thin air until one side has enough to win, then repeat. Strategy zero, skill zero, tactics zero, zerg everything. Hand to hand combat is of the 'mount and blade' style. Run slowly forwards with your arm raised in one direction. Release, spin mouse about as you run about in a little circle, repeat. Weapons seem to pass ghost like through other players.

    Ranged combat works better, but not good enough to save this pretty, but empty game. Customization exists but you probably won't care by the time you've played enough to unlock them.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »