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. Mephic
    Oct 14, 2012
    0
    At start I want to say - this game is really OK. When it works. The main problem is that 90% of the time it does not work at all. Either these are: 1. Problems with refereshing server list (not able to play for couple of hours, occurs every day)
    2. Crashes to desktop without a reason
    3. Low FPS due to tragic game code - gpu is not utilised AT ALL (30-35% - 2012 AD it is. Joke.) 4. Kicks    At start I want to say - this game is really OK. When it works. The main problem is that 90% of the time it does not work at all. Either these are: 1. Problems with refereshing server list (not able to play for couple of hours, occurs every day)
    2. Crashes to desktop without a reason
    3. Low FPS due to tragic game code - gpu is not utilised AT ALL (30-35% - 2012 AD it is. Joke.) 4. Kicks out to menu right before the end of the battle. Why? Because. So summing it up the game is not worth even a dime. If the problems would be fixed, for the game itself I would give strong 8. But how can You review something which stopped to work after the patches were released? In my opinion Paradox just rips people off on this, gathering money to make some other game. This is a frustrating product - some may ask why don't You play single player? Because there is none. So I give this so called "game" a strong 0.    … Expand
  2. feda1
    Oct 9, 2012
    0
    1) Completely lacks balance. Anyone with armor is basically invulnerable to the only starting soldier that a new player can have. Most players already have armor, so if you've just started, you are effed. Armor and shields do not deteriorate
    2) No single player campaign
    3) Performance is horrible even on good systems. The game is not optimized to use your GPU properly, utilizing only    1) Completely lacks balance. Anyone with armor is basically invulnerable to the only starting soldier that a new player can have. Most players already have armor, so if you've just started, you are effed. Armor and shields do not deteriorate
    2) No single player campaign
    3) Performance is horrible even on good systems. The game is not optimized to use your GPU properly, utilizing only about 40% of it.
    4) Extremely simplistic and boring gameplay.

    DO NOT PURCHASE THIS GAME!!!    … Expand
  3. UnkleBustakap
    Oct 13, 2012
    0
    I pre-purchased this game under the pretense that it would have a single player campaign. In half of the write-ups about the game, it even states that it does, when it in fact does not. Extremely disappointed.
  4. Jay8329
    Oct 17, 2012
    0
    Buggy mixed with a crappy combat system = epic fail.
  5. Paykov40k
    Oct 4, 2012
    0
    Very bad game, worst money can buy, even don't reminde mount and blade, some kind of **** i am very disapointed.

    Why they do it with the reputation of mount and blade?
  6. That-a-guy
    Oct 6, 2012
    0
    The game is bogged down by technical issues--it crashes about one out of every three times I play. It still has potential, but probably should not have been released in its current state.
  7. PJReb316
    Jan 19, 2013
    0
    Had great potential but when it actually released it turned out to be worse than a beta test as far as being able to play the thing. Rather than fixing the enormous amount of problems with this game, the developers would rather make it more fun for the few hundred or so who can play it as apposed to the thousands who bought it.
  8. Illuminaughtiii
    Nov 21, 2012
    0
    This game was made with the lead and gold engine, any melee game should be built from the ground up and not use a FPS engine modified a little. Due to it using the lead and gold engine it is clunky, glitchy, and extremely awkward feeling. I have played mount & blade for 2 years and this game was marketed to me, I even got a discount. Fatshark are trying to appeal to the casual gamers onThis game was made with the lead and gold engine, any melee game should be built from the ground up and not use a FPS engine modified a little. Due to it using the lead and gold engine it is clunky, glitchy, and extremely awkward feeling. I have played mount & blade for 2 years and this game was marketed to me, I even got a discount. Fatshark are trying to appeal to the casual gamers on this one. DO NOT BUY THIS! One thing that is funny is that when using a horse you can either A) move extremely fast and uncontrollable, or B) move extremely slow and trot.… Expand
  9. Belus
    Nov 15, 2013
    0
    I purchased this thinking it would be similar to Mount & Blade, a game I love, but it isn't.

    It's basically a fast paced FPS in medieval times. Claustrophobic maps. Scripted A. I. Constant respawning. Horrible bows. Worthless combat. Crappy settings. Not at all fun. This is probably the worst game I have ever purchased. Yet again I have to remind myself to read reviews before I buy a    I purchased this thinking it would be similar to Mount & Blade, a game I love, but it isn't.

    It's basically a fast paced FPS in medieval times. Claustrophobic maps. Scripted A. I. Constant respawning. Horrible bows. Worthless combat. Crappy settings. Not at all fun.

    This is probably the worst game I have ever purchased. Yet again I have to remind myself to read reviews before I buy a game. *sigh* Silly me.

    I return to Mount & Blade (heavily modded....).    … Expand
  10. Oridiian
    Feb 5, 2013
    0
    Great idea, absolutely pathetic execution. One of the worst games I have played EVER. Terrible combat mechanics, poor system performance on a high-end gaming system, terrible game all around.

    Incredibly disappointed to have wasted the money on this steaming pile of garbage.

    DON'T BOTHER WITH IT!!!
  11. lzanagi
    Apr 10, 2013
    0
    After loving Mount and Blade Warband which is probably one of my favorite or my favorite game, this is the only game I've ever regretted buying, the multiplayer was completely god awful, so many holes with the gameplay, it just came down to how many friends the enemy had with him and how much more armor they had, truly truly disappointing. I could forgive some of it if it had some kind ofAfter loving Mount and Blade Warband which is probably one of my favorite or my favorite game, this is the only game I've ever regretted buying, the multiplayer was completely god awful, so many holes with the gameplay, it just came down to how many friends the enemy had with him and how much more armor they had, truly truly disappointing. I could forgive some of it if it had some kind of singleplayer which it also doesn't include, unless you count this really frustrating tutorials. Just wow, and to think i was looking forward to this game.… Expand
  12. SoulLessbot
    Oct 20, 2013
    0
    Terrible game, you will probably be kicked from a server for killing someone, hits don't count half the time. Floaty, spammy combat. Griding for new classes. All around boring game. Don't waste money on it.
  13. Mavado1
    Jun 6, 2013
    0
    I played "War of the Roses" straight from the beginning, I even did preorder it. It started off as a fairly enjoyable game, not great but fun and enteraining for a while. Every single patch since then has made the game buggier. The balance is completely up since the early beta-days, because the Devs decided to listen to every single complaint about a weapon being over-powered. It has lessI played "War of the Roses" straight from the beginning, I even did preorder it. It started off as a fairly enjoyable game, not great but fun and enteraining for a while. Every single patch since then has made the game buggier. The balance is completely up since the early beta-days, because the Devs decided to listen to every single complaint about a weapon being over-powered. It has less than 300 players a day (according to steam), so I really have to hate myself because I bought this steaming pile of donkey instead of the much, much better Age of Chivalry (which has ofc its own problems, but WotR dwarfs them in comparison). Avoid this stinking pile of garbage at any cost. Again: Less than 300 players a day cant be wrong.… Expand
  14. Sir_SquishyMan
    Sep 7, 2013
    0
    Ok, where do I start? For starters, the swinging system feels backwards. Swinging the mouse to the right makes you swing left, and vise versa. The archery, while seemingly sophisticated, is too complicated for serious use. The game requires you to reach level 20 to make your own classes. Until then, you are stuck with classes that are objectively inferior to these created classes, causingOk, where do I start? For starters, the swinging system feels backwards. Swinging the mouse to the right makes you swing left, and vise versa. The archery, while seemingly sophisticated, is too complicated for serious use. The game requires you to reach level 20 to make your own classes. Until then, you are stuck with classes that are objectively inferior to these created classes, causing you to get your butt handed to you over and over again and destroying any sense of enjoyment until level 20. The spawn and revival systems feel incredibly wonky and confusing, as well. But the worst part of the game, by far, is the campaign missions. You run into glitch after glitch after glitch, in which either your kills aren't registered, the AI has snipers for archers, or you just die on the spot for no reason. In these cases, you don't even get a death animation, you are just sent back to your spawn point. The AI is constantly stealing your kills, yet never has your back when you need them the most. The campaign is definitely the worst aspect. Even disregarding the campaign, this game feels broken and only half finished. I honestly cannot name a single positive thing about this game. If you are looking for a medieval combat game, I would instead recommend Chivalry: Medieval Warfare.… Expand
  15. D04S02B04
    Sep 14, 2013
    0
    Rated 0 for a game that isn't worth your money and time at all for the following reasons:

    1. Pay to win. 2. Horrible balance in weapons & armour, only very few weapons and customisations are viable 3. Poor community (for a multiplayer game), inactive forums, foul mouthed players ingame. Even Dota 2's community is better and its a F2P without Pay To Win. 4. Poor game development    Rated 0 for a game that isn't worth your money and time at all for the following reasons:

    1. Pay to win.
    2. Horrible balance in weapons & armour, only very few weapons and customisations are viable
    3. Poor community (for a multiplayer game), inactive forums, foul mouthed players ingame. Even Dota 2's community is better and its a F2P without Pay To Win.
    4. Poor game development direction and track record (read their forums)

    You need about 20USD to buy the gears (after grinding up the levels to unlock them) to gain a level playing field. With the 4 stock classes available, with the exception of the Foot Knight, you will be mercilessly massacred non-stop by players with OP weapons, which means you can't help your team win, meaning you level very slowly and painfully and have no equipment.

    The current state of the game 1.8 is highly unbalanced and the development direction isn't good. Multi player consists of:

    1. Ninjas in cloth armour and overpowered weapons running around, dodging hits and 1-hitting people
    2. Players using overpowered weapons (Pollaxe, Long Axe, Warhammer) in Medium/Heavy armour killing everything in 1 2 hits.
    3. Snipers with Crossbows sniping with high precision across the battlefield.

    Simply try the F2P version if you want to see how bad it is.

    Forget about trying anything "historical". They don't work.

    List of useless game features (or why the game is terrible):

    1. Heavy Armour Blunt weapons ignore armour. The 2 OP weapons commonly used are Pollaxe (Foot Knight stock class has it) and Warhammer. No knight in shining armour for you.

    2. Any Medium/Heavy Helmet other than Bascinet Pollaxe 1-hit kills if it hits your head regardless of Helmet type. The neck attachments to the helmets DO NOT WORK (Bevors, Mail Coif) but they still slow your character down. Bascinet is the only viable competitive helmet because of its protection to weight ratio as well as the vision restriction. The lack of neck protection also means that people can simply use a faster weapon and spam an attack to your head repeatedly hoping for a lucky hit to your neck (which happens rather frequently).

    3a. Any sword that isn't Imperial Style, Hollow Grind, Balanced These settings increases the damage of your weapon, penetration against heavy armour and swing speed. The majority of your opponents online wear Medium to Heavy Armour. Without Hollow Grind (which gives armour penetration buff), your sword is useless.

    b. That being said, majority of the swords are useless because they either don't attack fast enough, or don't deal enough damage.

    c. You will notice an option to pick Common Style, Imperial Style or Milanese Style of fighting with any weapon. Anything except from Imperial style, is non-competitive. You're welcome to try and frustrate yourself.

    4. Bows They take time to charge up, can only hold maximum charge for a few seconds and are difficult to shoot with. Compare this with Crossbows which can be reloaded within 4 seconds with pin point sniper accuracy and potential 1-hit headshot kills. Again, this requires you to buy all the correct unlocks.

    5. Perks Majority of the perks are uncompetitive and useless. You will only use some perks for the entire time because they are the ONLY VIABLE perks. This reduces the "options" by about 75%

    6. Majority of other weapons No matter what weapon combination you pick, if you go up against players using Medium/Heavy Armour Warhammer you will not win. Even if you're mastered the game by training in duelling scenarios non-stop, your team mates will not be as good as you and the players using OP weapons know this. They will kill them and they will drop like flies. Then you will be mobbed by a party, beaten to death and your corpse teabagged.

    Some players may say, use a Shield! Guess what? All axes in this game deals extra damage to shield (breaks them faster). Add an Offensive Perk called Shield Breaker, add Imperial Style (Extra Damage) and Convex blade (Extra Damage) your shield goes down in 2 fully charged hits. If he is a competent cloth ninja with long axe, good luck trying to hit him with anything shorter than the long axe.

    === ===
    The Good Bits
    === ===

    If you've read all that, you're undeterred you still want to play the game... Here's what's good about the game. (Aside from all the technical problems as well)

    1. Combat system is fundamentally sound If no OP customisations are used, a fight goes down to skill and very little luck. There is also a significant difference between winning duels (1v1) and winning battles (Group Fighting & Objective Game Modes).

    2. Armour Customisations They are quite nice, if you're willing to accept massive penalties to performing well in game.

    3. Graphics It's pretty good looking.    … Expand
  16. Bobds
    Oct 19, 2013
    0
    The game already happening limit stick, now that he is free to play and I've paid for it, I have a lil taste of in my mouth when I think (I'm totally scammed me) Personally, I would not advice for several reasons. The game is not terribly fluid and lagg and camera shots in the third person is more than doubtful. So even free, I will not play more and i have paid for that!

    I want my    The game already happening limit stick, now that he is free to play and I've paid for it, I have a lil taste of in my mouth when I think (I'm totally scammed me) Personally, I would not advice for several reasons. The game is not terribly fluid and lagg and camera shots in the third person is more than doubtful. So even free, I will not play more and i have paid for that!

    I want my money back! Serious     … Expand
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 »