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. Limbo9
    Oct 4, 2012
    3
    I can only speak for the Multiplayer. And i try to keep it short:

    Call of Duty with swords. anyone who confused this, with a sequel to the amazing Mount&Blade franchise, you are mistaken. The gameplay seems random and stiff. There is no first person, which makes it even more arcadelooking. I was really disappointed, and i wonder why i should play this, and not switch to the more than    I can only speak for the Multiplayer. And i try to keep it short:

    Call of Duty with swords. anyone who confused this, with a sequel to the amazing Mount&Blade franchise, you are mistaken. The gameplay seems random and stiff. There is no first person, which makes it even more arcadelooking. I was really disappointed, and i wonder why i should play this, and not switch to the more than capable competition. Chivalery i think it is called.    … Expand
  2. 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
  3. Hugues_PI
    Oct 3, 2012
    10
    A great game with some real historical accuracy and attention to detail. The graphics are AAA quality with amazing ambient sounds that give the game real depth and makes you feel as if you are on the battlefield. Buy it and you wont be disappointed!
  4. grainger
    Oct 3, 2012
    4
    I really wanted to like this game. It looks pretty good, but the fighting feels and looks very awkward. Its not very immersive, and its presentation is very arcadey. The hud is overwhelming, the VO is uninspired- it just feels very generic. The game modes are not exciting and there isn't much to inspire teamwork. The commander spawn in system is awful- you will be in a duel with a guy forI really wanted to like this game. It looks pretty good, but the fighting feels and looks very awkward. Its not very immersive, and its presentation is very arcadey. The hud is overwhelming, the VO is uninspired- it just feels very generic. The game modes are not exciting and there isn't much to inspire teamwork. The commander spawn in system is awful- you will be in a duel with a guy for a minute and suddenly 3 people blink into existence behind him and kill you. Players who want a melee grindfest and playing dress-up with knights might enjoy it but I don't see it having much long lasting appeal for many.… Expand
  5. 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
  6. gizmo2501
    Oct 3, 2012
    8
    This is the first time I have reviewed anything on Metacritic, but I felt the need to to help the longevity of this classic game. Yes, it does have problems: the first day servers kept crashing (but this was fixed by the morning); there are only two modes (but more have been promised for free), and it is not very well optimised (but I turned off shadows and now my frame rate is good). ButThis is the first time I have reviewed anything on Metacritic, but I felt the need to to help the longevity of this classic game. Yes, it does have problems: the first day servers kept crashing (but this was fixed by the morning); there are only two modes (but more have been promised for free), and it is not very well optimised (but I turned off shadows and now my frame rate is good). But the great things far outweigh these negatives. Firstly, it's great to have something new multiplayer-wise, rather than FPS games. Secondly, this is is just pure, unadulterated fun. Nothing more. It is, in fact, hilarious. What other recent games do you get to charge at people with a sword or be on the receiving end and shoot them with a crossbow just as they reach you? Or where a guy on a horse with a lance is charging at you and you shoot the horse so he flies off it as it collapses? Battles can be messy (like I imagine they were in medieval times) and they can also be sparse. You can play how you want - close quarters, long-range, horseback, quickly in for a kill then run away, or a mixture. I like the crossbow then going in for some sword-fighting. It is hard. There is a steep learning curve. You have to give it time and learn how to play. People say it's unbalanced, but it's not. if you want to kill a guy with heavy armour you really have to use a hammer. If you only have a sword, then hopefully you have little armour so you can move more quickly and escape or run circles around him. This game actually requires thought and skill. It also requires teamwork to win. The only thing I fear is people won't try it because other people say it's unbalanced, but, in actuality, they haven't taken the time to learn how it plays. This is definitely worth picking up, especially as free DLC content has been promises in the form of maps and game modes. Hopefully they will make a siege mode, as the genre calls for it. And hopefully they will allow servers other than Multiplay. All-in-all, great game if you give it time to learn it.… Expand
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. djungelboogie
    Oct 3, 2012
    10
    As with all good things in life this little game takes some practice. But when you master it, its quite a joy! I started as a bowman and learnt the tactics. After a couple of hours played i had money enough to costumize my medieval answer to Mr Swarznegger. But even the most well equipped soldiers in this game has its weaknesses i learnt when getting stabbed down by a peasant.
  10. 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 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 toI 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.    … Expand
  11. fandango89
    Oct 2, 2012
    2
    The idea of this game is great but not executed very well. Although they say it takes skill and to some degree it does, most of the time it doesn't. All it boils down to is a bunch of people fighting in a concealed area. That leads to most of the time you die it is because you got gangbanged 3 on 1. About 1 in every 4 fights is an even match and comes down to skill. There is no way toThe idea of this game is great but not executed very well. Although they say it takes skill and to some degree it does, most of the time it doesn't. All it boils down to is a bunch of people fighting in a concealed area. That leads to most of the time you die it is because you got gangbanged 3 on 1. About 1 in every 4 fights is an even match and comes down to skill. There is no way to sprint or way to get away so you always lose if ganged up on. The swinging mechanic is original but poorly performed. You have to move your mouse in the way you want to swing, but most of the time I would move it forward and it would swing left. You barely every swing where you want to. Also if you fight a higher level guy you automatically die if he is heavily armored. That is because he can only be hurt in the face and you can be hit anywhere and be hurt. With the attack system and the fact that the only way to hurt him is a jab to the face you can do nothing but die. The single player is just a few random battles to get you practicing but it literally explains nothing about fighting, game controls, or any tips to play. Also you are usually left to try and take points by yourself as your team AI doesn't know how to follow you. Most of the points you have to attack have multiple enemies and some respawn, which means you have to keep killing them as they all gang up and then respawn. I quit it after 15 minutes. A good idea but most of the execution and gameplay falls very short of the lofty aspirations. Apparently you have to play mount and blade games prior to playing this to appreciate it. I was super excited and then completely let down.… Expand
  12. DroneIV
    Oct 2, 2012
    2
    I was looking forward to a single player but after launching the game, learned that there wasn't. disappointing... Still, I decided to jump into multiplayer. I played for about 15 minutes, I killed one or two guys. One guy I fought for maybe five minutes. We both had shields and were swinging - blocking - swinging again - blocking again. It wasn't the most thrilling thing in the world. ItI was looking forward to a single player but after launching the game, learned that there wasn't. disappointing... Still, I decided to jump into multiplayer. I played for about 15 minutes, I killed one or two guys. One guy I fought for maybe five minutes. We both had shields and were swinging - blocking - swinging again - blocking again. It wasn't the most thrilling thing in the world. It ended when I got killed by a guy running up behind me. After that 15 minutes, I lost connection to the server and my list of servers was gone. I give up on this game. The 15 minutes of gameplay I experienced was barely mediocre.… Expand
  13. 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
  14. Tiger2
    Oct 2, 2012
    9
    OUCH - the sword / mace / arrow / higher lvl player kills you outright and wtf??? - but no more than any sniper action in any other given multi - player online game. There is a certain slash..slash...slash to the game that can seem repetitive and unskilled to the initiate, but actually, on the contrary - the immediate simpleness belies the deeper subtleties within. To strike effectivelyOUCH - the sword / mace / arrow / higher lvl player kills you outright and wtf??? - but no more than any sniper action in any other given multi - player online game. There is a certain slash..slash...slash to the game that can seem repetitive and unskilled to the initiate, but actually, on the contrary - the immediate simpleness belies the deeper subtleties within. To strike effectively each attack must be angled and aimed and each weapon (many choices) has it's own benefits or drawbacks. For example, some can pierce / break armour or weapons effectively, but are slow or ungainly to wield. Downed players can be put to death for MONDO xp, but at the risk of a nail bitingly slow cut-scene when, in my experience, your protagonist seems to randomly sprout arrows and gushes of blood from the neck / head. The resulting battlefield can feel sometimes chaotic but mostly deeply fulfilling and incredibly compelling.… Expand
  15. 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 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    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 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     … Expand
  16. 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.
next
Page:

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 »