War of the Roses

 PC
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

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. 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 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 mouseGreat 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.    … Expand
  2. Amorebietal
    Oct 2, 2012
    5
    I think the idea is great, and the game is kinda fun to play... for 20 minutes. Then it's just the same thing over and over again. In other words, it's a game which you grow tired of really quickly. And the graphics aren't that great. worth 29 euros? no :( Might be worth to buy if it's on a discount on steam.
  3. Gaettusk
    Mar 1, 2013
    5
    I regret buying this game. It lacks in balance. The lance/horse combo needs to get taken down a notch, and the combat system is so silly. Let's show people what direction to block! It defeats the whole point of the system, if you show what direction to block. Also, the whole server system is a bunch of individually owned servers it looks like because I got kicked from a game for "notI regret buying this game. It lacks in balance. The lance/horse combo needs to get taken down a notch, and the combat system is so silly. Let's show people what direction to block! It defeats the whole point of the system, if you show what direction to block. Also, the whole server system is a bunch of individually owned servers it looks like because I got kicked from a game for "not dueling". I'm sorry, but when there are people shooting arrows at you, then it's on. All in all, this game isn't even worth the 5 bucks I paid on Steam for it. Go play Chivalry if this is your thing.… Expand
  4. abasche
    Mar 18, 2013
    5
    The combat is certainly challenging and it takes a good deal of getting use to. The controls are basic and the fighting is typically, well, hack and slash. The gameplay is quite basic as well; you can either do team deathmatch or capture the flag. Overall, this game is really a "meh", I wouldn't pay for it if I were you.
  5. TragicShow
    Mar 2, 2013
    6
    War of the Roses is a third person game where you play in medieval times and compete against other players. It is multiplayer only and has no story of any kind. At first, you start off with a default class which is really hard to play with as you are constantly being killed by more advanced players. But over time you gain experience so you can level up and buy better weapons, armor, perks,War of the Roses is a third person game where you play in medieval times and compete against other players. It is multiplayer only and has no story of any kind. At first, you start off with a default class which is really hard to play with as you are constantly being killed by more advanced players. But over time you gain experience so you can level up and buy better weapons, armor, perks, etc. The graphics are good, not spectacular, but good. It is a step above the one-button combat, which I like. But fighting with another player can be awkward. After you kill someone, they fall down and you can preform an execution move which is pretty cool, but after you see the same move over and over, it gets pretty boring. Progression can take a while so most of the time you will be stuck on the bottom of the scoreboard because everyone else is better equipped that you. There aren't a whole lot of multiplayer modes which is unfortunate. Character customization is also pretty weak with only 4 heads to choose from, including only one female head. It isn't a great game, but it gets such a good score because it is only 20 dollars.… Expand
  6. DudasDrakaan
    Dec 6, 2012
    5
    War of the Roses has some beautiful graphics and awesome customization, both of equipment and cosmetics. The process of unlocking both is also quite interesting. Unfortunately, this is the best that I can say for this game. While I found archery to be satisfying in this medieval game, melee feels incredibly floaty and I oftentimes do not know why I insta-kill somebody even after hoursWar of the Roses has some beautiful graphics and awesome customization, both of equipment and cosmetics. The process of unlocking both is also quite interesting. Unfortunately, this is the best that I can say for this game. While I found archery to be satisfying in this medieval game, melee feels incredibly floaty and I oftentimes do not know why I insta-kill somebody even after hours of playing; things just do not connect sometimes and I have found that that attack spammers with heavy armor often win the melee field. For a medieval game focused on melee combat, you are going to be frustrated when fully charged attacks to an opponents head do no damage when it appears perfectly aimed and timed. Once you learn the power of heavy armor, not wearing it is more of a challenge than a trade-off. Then there is the fact that not that many people play this now. On top of this, the number of play modes are limited. Conquest and Team DM are basically what you are looking at, plus a DM with no respawns even fewer people play. In short: it is a limited experience and everything that it does, I feel other games have done better: Chivalry, in melee, and Mount & Blade, in horse and game modes. It's a 5, in my opinion, because it is average and Mount & Blade -- an older game -- outperforms it, even though WOR looks nice.… Expand
  7. Necramonium
    Oct 31, 2012
    6
    I have been a mount & blade player since the first offline game game to be, so i was happy to hear the publisher of the game, with another studio started making something similar, during the beta it was fun, but lacking, thinking this probably will be fixed in the final version, i was wrong. What we now have is a game that is nothing but a blatant high res copy of the brilliant Mount &I have been a mount & blade player since the first offline game game to be, so i was happy to hear the publisher of the game, with another studio started making something similar, during the beta it was fun, but lacking, thinking this probably will be fixed in the final version, i was wrong. What we now have is a game that is nothing but a blatant high res copy of the brilliant Mount & Blade Warband but without the awesome Siege mode. All you do is either just play deathmatch or capture the flag. The fighting system needs more work seeing its way to slow and most of the time you end up against 5 enemies hacking you to pieces. 1 on 1 fights are really rare. The game was allot better in the beta, i don't know what they did to it to make it so different.

    The game also offers a bleed out system, even though this realistic, it ruins the gameplay, mainly because i always get a bleed out when i finally am fighting a good fight for once versus 1 guy and not 5 and just drop dead after 10 seconds. Also squad members spawning on each other is something just something straight out of Battlefield, something that is not needed in this game. Just when you are about to kill a guy, his buddies magically spawn around you and you are dead. But the game has a future if the developer listens to its community and fixes bugs and other annoyances, i am hope for a Siege mode!    … Expand
  8. Tk3997
    Jan 4, 2013
    6
    This game is really one missed opportunity after another, and also another example to add to the list of failed attempts at it's genre. You'd think with so many "almost their" examples SOMEONE would be able to get this right, but it hasn't happened yet that I've seen. It's a shame because the "melee shooter" for lack of a better term has so much potential, but no one can seem to nail theThis game is really one missed opportunity after another, and also another example to add to the list of failed attempts at it's genre. You'd think with so many "almost their" examples SOMEONE would be able to get this right, but it hasn't happened yet that I've seen. It's a shame because the "melee shooter" for lack of a better term has so much potential, but no one can seem to nail the formula. Either they make it so realistic it's unappealing to the majority or so arcade that all skill is lost and it just feels like a shooter with longer range knives... (See Chivalry Medieval Warfare for an example of this) War of the Roses was close... SO close to striking a middle ground of complexity and fun that really could have made it the first out and out "good" example I've seen, but it just couldn't get there. It ends up being mediocre, but frustratingly so because sometimes when playing you can catch glimmers of what could have been a really fun diversion from the flood of shooters on the market. The core problem with the game pretty much boils down to its combat system. To sum it up: -The aiming system is clunky the mouse option throws off aim and the keyboard option forces unwanted movement. They should have just assigned the attacks (overhand, thrust, slash) to bindable keys. -Compounding the poor aiming system the hit boxes and windows on the weapons are far too small for their own good and you… Expand
  9. Everhard
    Oct 3, 2012
    5
    Bought it with MB warband discount on steam, expecting combat to be even better as in MB. Could I be more wrong... It's all very clunky an unintuative. It just doesn't feel right its just far too slow. Even though the hitting system is very precise it's very hard to actually aim for something from 3rd person as you cannot see dept. There is also no single player to get used to theBought it with MB warband discount on steam, expecting combat to be even better as in MB. Could I be more wrong... It's all very clunky an unintuative. It just doesn't feel right its just far too slow. Even though the hitting system is very precise it's very hard to actually aim for something from 3rd person as you cannot see dept. There is also no single player to get used to the controls, instead only mutliplayer were you either get gangbanged or be owned by somebody with a lot of upgrades. I wouldnt recommend this game. Only for diehards...… Expand
  10. Ruckainc
    Oct 2, 2012
    7
    Great fun, for a while. However, the exp and gold nerfs were too hard. The game turned into a grind fest. While you did get a lot of exp and gold per kill, it still takes a very long time to level due to how much exp is required to level. The game feels chaotic at times, but at other times the combat is frustrating due to the difficult to get use to controls and the awkward feel of using aGreat fun, for a while. However, the exp and gold nerfs were too hard. The game turned into a grind fest. While you did get a lot of exp and gold per kill, it still takes a very long time to level due to how much exp is required to level. The game feels chaotic at times, but at other times the combat is frustrating due to the difficult to get use to controls and the awkward feel of using a weapon. Good game. Worth a pickup, especially if you're a fan of Mount and Blade.… Expand
  11. q111
    Oct 10, 2012
    5
    War of the CRASH CITY. Crashes at the start, crashes during the game, crashes between matches. Gameplay is not bad but I'd go with the new competitor game instead. This feels like it was rushed out to beat the competitor's release date.
  12. ChoicestGames
    Jun 4, 2013
    6
    War of the Roses is a good concept. The novelty of wielding a sword instead of a shotgun is a refreshing change. Unfortunately, the game was incredibly buggy on release and while some steps have been made in fixing it, it might be too little, too late.
  13. Tothedregs
    Jul 9, 2013
    7
    I enjoy playing this game very much. It is very easy to pick up and begin playing. I believe the combat system is unique but is sometimes frustrating. Squad spawn also is annoying and is almost useless. However, I still recommend this game highly as I already have 30+ hours logged in, and plan to have many more.
  14. Jacksonclan
    Oct 5, 2012
    6
    Doesn't live to expectations and its lacking many things, that being said it isn't a bad game, just not as polished as I would have liked it to be. My only worry is that the game has been ruined by its slow combat, medieval warfare is a fast and brutal affair but war of the roses is far from it.
  15. redzzzzzza
    Oct 7, 2012
    5
    Well, after having to sign up for an account, confirming my email, changing browsers because this text box does not work with Chrome (Good job MetaCritic, no one really cares that this box is resizeable when you shun an entire browser away) I am finally here to give a review of War of the Roses.

    First, I've played every single Mount and Blade that has ever been. The multiplayer has    Well, after having to sign up for an account, confirming my email, changing browsers because this text box does not work with Chrome (Good job MetaCritic, no one really cares that this box is resizeable when you shun an entire browser away) I am finally here to give a review of War of the Roses.

    First, I've played every single Mount and Blade that has ever been. The multiplayer has always been off balance and this game is no exception. In fact, the balance is worse. It is so bad that unless you are a high enough level to use heavy armor and two-handed sword then you might as well be an Archer. Fighting an enemy with heavy armor? You'd have to jab through the hole in his visor while he is strafing and spam bashing you with a massive sword that does 40x the damage yours does. LUCKILY that is the worst part. We all know the bugs of the previous M&B games that made them unplayable unless you exploited the bugs for TEH LULZ, well I'm glad this game does not have those glitches that I have seen yet. There are people that will run into your spawn and kill everyone constantly. They will one shot you to the head with a mace, then do it over again and over again and over again. I was really hoping that MAYBE they would have come to a balance in this game after releasing SO MANY bugged games over the last several years. I thought for a very long time before deciding to purchase this game and in the end I regret it. If your ideal game is getting raped constantly the second you spawn and watching a level 35 chop your head off with a shield once every 15 seconds, then go for it. Also in the "single player aka "how to get aimbotted by NPC archers until you ragequit" sounds like fun, then go for it. If you aren't an archer or a lvl 15+ then prepare for the rage. If they lowered the health and made some kind of knockback for attacking 50x a second by spammers, then maybe this game could involve skill, but as it is it's a bashfest. You won't be able to block 3 attacks per second and even if you do there is no reason why it matters. A parry doesn't knock them off balance like it would it any other game. The only "skill" involved is to stay in-game long enough without breaking your computer so that you can finally get heavy armor and a two-handed weapon to pwn nubs like everyone else.    … Expand
  16. BlackCorsair
    Oct 3, 2012
    5
    First of all i should inform you, that i came to this game after 3000+ hours in Moubt&Blade Warband.
    So i comparing WotR mainly versus Warband.
    WotR nice sides: nice graphics some rpg elements some kind of armor|weapon crafting some battle inventions like strike by shield and so on WotR bad sides: no single - frustrating battle system is far from being comfortable - it's    First of all i should inform you, that i came to this game after 3000+ hours in Moubt&Blade Warband.
    So i comparing WotR mainly versus Warband.

    WotR nice sides:

    nice graphics
    some rpg elements
    some kind of armor|weapon crafting
    some battle inventions like strike by shield and so on

    WotR bad sides:
    no single - frustrating
    battle system is far from being comfortable - it's hard to see when u hit someone or u was striked by someone
    animations - awful, all players move like they have smthng in their ass, and battle with more then 4 guys turn in total chaotic mess

    So for me personally - WotR is a big dissapointment, and i will continue to play Warband.
    After a month or so I will try WotR again to see how it goes after patches, but i dont expect much now...    … Expand
  17. Simon1979
    Nov 8, 2012
    7
    I gave very negative score a month ago, but now after many tweaks and patches the game is a good title, but i have to give not the maximum because of singleplayer thing (it is very ridicolous and ugly) and no dedicated server thing, if you want to host your own, you can't and this is very bad
  18. barth_desade
    Oct 3, 2012
    7
    This game is released too early. Paradox should add another month of beta testing and listen more carefully to what have been written on beta testing forum but it is apparently their habit to release unfinished game, which is a real shame as their games are usually great after polishing. With this one they will need to polish the crankiness of duels and add some more depth to theThis game is released too early. Paradox should add another month of beta testing and listen more carefully to what have been written on beta testing forum but it is apparently their habit to release unfinished game, which is a real shame as their games are usually great after polishing. With this one they will need to polish the crankiness of duels and add some more depth to the weaponary. The fighting system, general feeling and level of satisfaction from kill is great though. If you can wait, wait another month and buy it when it will be cheaper and really finished. I couldn't wait :).… Expand
  19. Bobsignathus
    Mar 2, 2013
    7
    I bought this game for $5.00 on Steam during a sale, and I have to say, it's one of the better games I've played. The game play is fun and fast-paced, and the class customization is very in-depth, going so far as to letting you choose your fighting style and how your blade is sharpened. There are a few downsides however. When you start, you'll probably get frustrated because of the playersI bought this game for $5.00 on Steam during a sale, and I have to say, it's one of the better games I've played. The game play is fun and fast-paced, and the class customization is very in-depth, going so far as to letting you choose your fighting style and how your blade is sharpened. There are a few downsides however. When you start, you'll probably get frustrated because of the players with full plate armor and two-hit swords, but when you unlock some good armor and a good weapon, it's really not a problem. Then there's the matter of nothing cheaper than 1,000 coins. What the developers did was put high prices on things that you unlock at level 5 so you'll buy in game coins for real money, on top of buying the game. I can understand doing that if it was a free-to-play game, but seeing as how it's regularly $30, I think it's ridiculous. On the upside, the coins aren't that much, so if you're having trouble with fully armored foes, there's a way past it. Honestly, the option of being able to buy coins made me want to unlock everything manually, and that feeling you get when you save up enough hard-earned coins to buy an armored horse or a perfectly balanced sword is exhilarating and it makes all the time you spent, winning or losing, well worth it. This game also rewards you for playing as a team and helping out your buddies. You get 200 points for an execution on a fallen teammate, but you get 250 points for bandaging your friends wounds, and 300 points for helping up a downed teammate. It encourages people to work together and travel in groups, and punishes those that walk around by themselves with a group of enemies around the corner or an arrow in the face. Overall, I think is a good buy for anyone that enjoyed Mount Blade or Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, and in the end, buying coins can be easily avoided if you're willing to put the time into the game.… Expand
  20. Klewer
    Nov 29, 2012
    7
    A solid medieval fighter with enjoyable combat and lovely environment to play in. Lacks a little bit of depth in certain areas and can be hard for new players against people with higher levels and better gear.
  21. GunShy
    Feb 24, 2014
    5
    The game offers pretty great ambiance and sound, but the combat system is sketchy at best. While playing the archer can be fun if you have 7 or 8 buddies acting as axe fodder preventing other players from zerging your position, the hand to hand is abysmal. The execution animations are dull, and seem almost out of place with the fast paced combat. To top it off, the squad spawning causesThe game offers pretty great ambiance and sound, but the combat system is sketchy at best. While playing the archer can be fun if you have 7 or 8 buddies acting as axe fodder preventing other players from zerging your position, the hand to hand is abysmal. The execution animations are dull, and seem almost out of place with the fast paced combat. To top it off, the squad spawning causes the game to devolve into an arm cocked zerging of the closest players to the squad leaders. It's free to play on Steam as of this writing, so I recommend checking it out for the sake of novelty. But I do not recommend buying the game at this time.… Expand
  22. EmuChicken
    Apr 2, 2014
    7
    I really did want to love this game, ever from the trailers being released, but I was left unfulfilled with this title.

    This game as you already know is a team-based "FPS"-styled game themed on Medieval England. You can unlock new weapons and armor through an XP system, XP is earned by killing and winning games online. Graphically, the game does a good job by using the Unreal    I really did want to love this game, ever from the trailers being released, but I was left unfulfilled with this title.

    This game as you already know is a team-based "FPS"-styled game themed on Medieval England.

    You can unlock new weapons and armor through an XP system, XP is earned by killing and winning games online.

    Graphically, the game does a good job by using the Unreal engine. Controls are tight and do well as they should. Players are plentiful, so finding a game in progress is no problem.

    Unfortunately, the one thing that really lets this title down is the balance issue when it comes to them frigging horses.

    It's not unusual to get into a server where the opposition spams with horses. It is fairly obvious that these should be limited to x amount per team. A recent game that manages to pull this off successfully is Natural Selection 2, where the more powerful items appear near the end game.

    There is a "tutorial" system which was fine until it bugged out for me half way through.

    Online there is always the question, "Chivalry or War of the Roses" ? - I dont really care for the question, but what WOTR does very well is with archery. It feels great to get a hit in and there is a sense of instant gratification. Ahhhh! If you prefer to stick swords into the enemy- WITHOUT being annoyed by horses, then I'd lean more towards Chivalry.

    Pros

    + Good, well tested Unreal engine

    + Archery

    + XP system

    + Horses (if you know how to use them)

    Cons

    - Balance Issues

    - Horses (Unbalanced)

    - Hitting with swords feels a little disconnected    … Expand
  23. AlienSpaceBats
    Sep 26, 2013
    5
    There's a good game here somewhere, perhaps best found in a single-player campaign a la Mount & Blade. WotR is poorly balanced and not very fun. In typical MP style new players are given a target to run around in and left to die 50 times before they can unlock something that can stand up to enemy players. Has a very poor tutorial that explained nothing. Combat is unresponsive, frustratingThere's a good game here somewhere, perhaps best found in a single-player campaign a la Mount & Blade. WotR is poorly balanced and not very fun. In typical MP style new players are given a target to run around in and left to die 50 times before they can unlock something that can stand up to enemy players. Has a very poor tutorial that explained nothing. Combat is unresponsive, frustrating and clunky, matches are annoying, basically capture the flag with knights.… Expand

Awards & Rankings

48
#48 Most Discussed PC Game of 2012

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
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. 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]
  2. CD-Action
    Nov 29, 2012
    80
    An interesting medieval action game with a very good combat system (except for a rather primitive mounted combat) which is more refined than its counterpart in Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. [CD-Action 13/2012, p.62]
  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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »