Support NeoGAF

[Forkball]

England hath long been mad, and scarr'd herself;
The brother blindly shed the brother's blood,
The father rashly slaughter'd his own son,
The son, compell'd, been butcher to the sire:
All this divided York and Lancaster,
Divided in their dire division

RELEASE DATE: October 2 (early access for pre-orders available now)
PRICE: $29.99 ($23.99 if you own any Mount and Blade game on Steam)
DEVELOPER: Fatshark
PUBLISHER: Paradox Interactive
GENRE: Team-based Multiplayer Medieval Action
PLATFORM: PC (Steamworks)

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
Minimum:
OS: Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: Dual Core 2.4GHz processor
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: Shader 4.0 compatible card (minimum: Nvidia GeForce 9800, AMD Radeon 4830)
Hard Drive: 5 GB HD space

Recommended:
OS: Windows Vista / Windows 7
Processor: Quad Core Intel or AMD processor
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: Shader 4.0 compatible card (recommended: Nvidia GeForce 460, AMD Radeon 5870)
Hard Drive: 5 GB HD space

WHAT IS WAR OF THE ROSES?

Developed by Fatshark (Lead and Gold, Hamilton's Great Adventure, Krater) and published by Paradox Interactive (Mount and Blade, Europa Universalis, Magicka, a ton of other hard as nail strategy games), War of the Roses is a multiplayer online action game set during England's 15th century dynastic wars between the House of York and the House of Lancaster, which would ultimately result in the rise of the Tudor dynasty. Battles are big and brutal, and in order to survive, you'll have to be one step ahead.


FEATURES
Team-based combat
Up to 64 players
Two modes: Conquest and Team Deathmatch
Seven maps
Preset class loadouts with the option to create your own
Over 30 weapons with their own customization options
Gain XP and coins to spend on new gear and weapons by playing
Can beat someone to death with a shield like Tyrion did in Game of Thrones

COMBAT
The meat and potatoes of the game. Similar to the Mount and Blade series, you use your mouse to control the speed and direction of your swings. Spamming won't get you anywhere beyond an early grave. Timing, position, and out-thinking your opponent will lead you to victory. You have a slew of options when it comes to combat. Do you want to go sword and board? Greatsword? Pew pew people with a long bow? Be that jerk everyone hates and grab a horse? It's up to you. Once you defeat an opponent, it's not over though, as you can execute them for extra money and experience. Just make sure no one's behind you to break it up.

CUSTOMIZATION
War of the Roses allows for a great deal of customization, both aesthetically and gameplay. Just picking your weapon isn't enough. What fighting style will you use? What about the type of steel? Edge grind? Pommel? What's a pommel anyways? There are also numerous active and passive perks you can choose for your character. Beyond choosing how you fight, you can also look good doing it. You can paint your armor, and even create your own coat of arms.

FAQ:

Is there a single player mode like in Mount and Blade?: There is an offline practice mode, but otherwise it is completely a multiplayer only game.

Do I have to grind to be good at this game?: There are already custom preset classes that have numerous perks and weapons already unlocked. Paradox has been touting "skill is not an unlock" as their motto. It doesn't matter who you come up against, if you can outduel them, no weapon or armor in the world will save them.

What are experience and gold used for in this game?: Experience unlocks tiers of weapons, armors, and skills. Gold is used to pick which ones you want.

How do I get gold and experience?: By playing. Killing, completing maps, and even reviving teammates get you experience and gold. Even landing a hit on your opponent will net you experience and gold. In theory you could level up without killing anyone, but that's not fun.

Can I preorder now and get early access?: To my knowledge yes, I don't think there is a cutoff.

REVIEWS

Strategy Informer (8.0)

Skill Is not an unlock, is the motto the guys are going with at the moment. In a way, this game could turn out to be more skill-orientated than Counter-Strike. It’s definitely going to be punishing to casual players or people who simply aren’t that good, but if you do manage to get to grips with it, it’s very rewarding.

GamesRadar (8.0)

War of the Roses is an online experience unlike the vast majority of competitive war games out there. After you get over the initial clunkiness of the controls, wading into battle with a massive two-handed sword and bringing it down on some poor soldier's head is even more exhilarating than getting a multikill in most online shooters. The combat is fast-paced and the customization is addictive.

More later.

VIDEOS:
E3 2012 Gameplay trailer
Gamespot Demo preview
TotalBiscuit's Beta preview
PC Gamer Beta preview
Hunting bow gameplay from early access
Early access gameplay
Random Russian guy preview




RECOMMENDED READING/VIEWING:

Impressions in a separate post

 

[Dyno]

This game looks like sick and twisted fun.

 

[ROBOKITTYZILLA]

This actually sounds kind of awesome.

Having never played Mount and Blade, is the combat anything at all like Demons Souls/Dark Souls? Using mouse to control speed and direction of swings seems like it could be awkward.

 

[GhostRidah]

I need to pre order this before its to late.

 

[Sethos]

Got both this and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - Can't wait to see which game will be the main cheese.

 

[Alex Connolly]

This actually sounds kind of awesome.

Having never played Mount and Blade, is the combat anything at all like Demons Souls/Dark Souls? Using mouse to control speed and direction of swings seems like it could be awkward.

It's done in four quadrants, if that helps. Forearm, backhand, overhead and thrust. Of course, it's weapon-dependent, but it's relatively straightforward. Kinda like Die By The Sword, but the mouse direction prior to the wind-up is what sets the attack.

Got both this and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - Can't wait to see which game will be the main cheese.

Yeah, keen to see how both compare. You're the man for it, Sethos.

 

[Sethos]

Yeah, keen to see how both compare. You're the man for it, Sethos.

Yes ma'am! I'll definitely do some comparisons between the two. It's going to be a close one I think.

 

[TheExodu5]

I was excited for this game, but that excitement was lost after playing in the beta.

This game has one crucial problem: there is no game mode with no respawning. This is what made online Mount & Blade so great for me (in particular, cRPG). A huge 64 vs. 64 battle with no respawning until one side was the victor...it made fights tense, and kills very satisfying.

War of the Roses is simply a zergfest by comparison. You can be having an epic duel with an enemy, and then one of his teammates just spawns behind you and kills you. It really ruins it for me.

 

[Xena]

Can you play as a female?

 

[Sethos]

I was excited for this game, but that excitement was lost after playing in the beta.

This game has one crucial problem: there is no game mode with no respawning. This is what made online Mount & Blade so great for me (in particular, cRPG). A huge 64 vs. 64 battle with no respawning until one side was the victor...it made fights tense, and kills very satisfying.

War of the Roses is simply a zergfest by comparison. You can be having an epic duel with an enemy, and then one of his teammates just spawns behind you and kills you. It really ruins it for me.

Yes, that is also my main concern and the sole reason why I even bought Chivalry.

I'm quite frankly amazed they aren't shipping the game with such a mode, it's so important. A no-respawn mode is the difference between me playing the games and not playing them.

 

[Forkball]

Here are my impressions so far:

The game is a lot of fun and I can see a lot of Mount and Blade fans being drawn to it. Being in a one on one duel, or trying to fight off multiple opponents really gets you going. The combat is similar to M&B, but I feel it's a lot more fair. You won't get one hit by some random sword strike. Everything is more fluid and faster, although it does look a bit clunky and robotic at times. The XP system seems fair, and there are some interesting perks along with some dull ones. Small things like execute and reviving teammates are nice additions and make you take chances in the battle.

I do agree that it is very limiting on content though. There are many things to unlock and many ways to change your character, but only seven maps and two modes? A CS-like one life mode is something a lot of people wanted, and also sieges. The developers seem like they are dedicated to adding to the game, and hinted at new armor and an attack/defend style mode.

I'm having a lot of fun now, but I can see some people being bored quickly with the lack of variety in battles right now. I can see this game being just as popular as multiplayer M&B once they add some more features.

 

[vocab]

I got into the beta, but my key didnt work. I really doubt this game will sustain it self to the point of making MB obsolete. Unless the mod support is there, this game will die quick.

 

[Rom1944]

For me is even in worse state now than in the beta i hope they balance the game because when it clicks and there are not cheap spammers or squad spawn unbalance its a quite good game.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I wish you could customize your face (head and hair) like in Warband. I loved that.

the helmet unlocks are decent though, but I am not going to be very attached to my character now and thats a shame.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Subscribed to the thread. Looking forward to seeing what yours guys' impressions are.

 

[speedpop]

Ahh I found it. I threw this up on the beta signup thread but figured I'd throw it in here too.

Is there even an OT for this yet? People who pre-ordered it have been able to play it for the past several days.

My biggest gripe at the moment is the fact that the server browser works 50% of the time and it seems like you're flipping a coin to see whether the game will crash or not when you load a new server map. Whether that has something to do with the official servers they have running or not is another thing entirely, but the FAQ blames Steam and/or your GPU. Talk about throwing the dice down the drain.

The game also needs a shitload of balancing. Nothing more grand than coming across a knight wielding a two-handed sword who's swinging it like a baseball bat without any penalties for missing the target. The amount of windmills running around is laughably bad. People are also complaining about archers which I can understand, but once you close the distance then you are bound to destroy them. And I'd like to see horsemen have to use a bit of skill to gain their kills with the lance - I know it's two different products but a skilled lancer in M&B is incredible, and then you compare that to Joe Blow who is riding down people effortlessly. It'll be nice if they fix that up a bit even if they buff the horse's health to compensate.


I enjoy it but there are definite rough spots and edges that need to be smoothed out. Hard to believe that the game is officially out in a few days so they have their work cut out for them. A full 64p map is fucking glorious though.

They've patched the game today with a few nerfs and such, so it's going to be interesting to see how it goes when I try it later today.

 

[Sethos]

So it was just released, gave it a very quick try and first impressions: Only available in-game AA is FXAA, fuck off. Combat feels like a complete clusterfuck in respawn modes, the third person camera position is awful - Middle of the screen, head just popping up? Game doesn't seem to scale for higher resolutions. There was some edge blood that was sitting cut-off at a perfect box in the middle of my screen.

Oh and the combat feels a bit lame.

Eh, I need to get stuck in some more.

 

[SapientWolf]

Got both this and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare - Can't wait to see which game will be the main cheese.

How does it compare to Chivalry, Sethos? I'm only getting one of these.

 

[charsace]

How does this compare to warband?

 

[Rom1944]

How does it compare to Chivalry, Sethos? I'm only getting one of these.

I tried both and for me is chilvary all the way i like that game better,the first person melee is really well done and the objetives maps are quite good nothing beats killing innocent peasants and poisoning the water supply of the enemy.

The only problem is that the servers are laggy most of the time and it does concern me but i think it will be fixed.

 

[Sethos]

So, just did a quick multiplayer match to quickly get the feel of the game

Like:

- I love the fact there's horses, really like seeing lances splinter all over the place and trying to avoid cavalrymen by running around trees.

- Combat is actually quite solid once you get into it, do some quick blocking and some slashes.

- Visually it's not a beast but it works quite well

- Custom classes and custom coat of arms is a nice touch

- Pace overall is quite good, with the running, jumping over things, you don't feel so encumbered.

- Executions are awesome as shit, first person mode when someone executes you look so fantastic. Too bad it gets tiresome because it happens constantly in respawn modes - Another thing that will get better with no-respawn modes.

Hate:

- FXAA as the only AA solution. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.

- Sword use feels delayed and sluggish. You can bring up your shield straight away but to slash or poke with your sword you need to hold down the button and it seems a bit random how fast it reacts. I don't mind a delayed reaction but it just doesn't feel very good in the current system. Would love to see them start bringing back the sword straight away in a slower animation as soon as you hit the button - Not wait 2 seconds THEN start the animation and the power HUD comes up.

- Respawn mode combat. It's awful and the biggest problem with the game right now, clusterfuck, not fun and I won't be playing the game properly until they implement no-respawn round based modes.

- Cheating already. Guy was jackhammer slashing with a sword.


So once they add a no respawn mode, several of them this game will have the upper hand purely due to feel and speed of combat. Chivalry is a great game and have no-respawn modes but the combat feels a bit slow and too much focus on "Oh bring up your shield at the blink of an eye or die" sort of gameplay, instead of more focus on the overall fun of the combat. It's a matter of taste.

However right now, the advantage is with Chivalry due to no-respawn modes, visually it's also great. Animation wise both games look good in some places, odd in others.

I do have to give a shout out to the horse combat in this game, it looks so good. The way the lance splinters when someone climbs a rock or something and they just smash that lance into the rock, love it. Then they dismount and chase you.

Oh and random crappy screenshots - Photoshop downsampled to hide the jaggies. I refuse to use FXAA.

Available visual settings for those interested

I will add, it does have a whiff of the mount and blade 'cheapness', just a slight whiff but it gives it so much charm.

EDIT: Holy hell it's filled with typos. I'm sick as a dog, I do apologize.

 

[speedpop]

How does this compare to warband?

There was a comparison I heard that if M&B: Warband = ARMA, then War of the Roses = CoD. Whether that's applicable or not even I can't say for certain. But they are two different products.

For the most part I've found the game to be decent. There are definite moments where the cheapness level hits an all-time high regarding weapon imbalances, and it doesn't have Warband's hilarious finer moments or the finesse of weapons. I can't describe it correctly. All I can say is that I feel more joy by throwing an axe to a rider's face in Warband compared to taking the legs out of a horse in WotR with a lucky swing that feels like I am dipping a spoon in to a bowl of melted butter.


Overall though the game really needs a no-squad spawn mode for every single server, as well as a typical no-respawn combat mode. It's as if Fatshark looked at what made modern multiplayer games tick and said "we need this and we need that" without thinking to themselves why Warband multi was so fucking awesome - you were constantly judging situations as to whether an attack or a parry or a block was the best method available to you. It's just so easy in this game to run in to a mob with a 2-hander, swing your life away, and 8 times out of 10 score a kill and survive.

But the whole spawning factor is easily the most complained thing on paradoxplaza. 1v1 duels are effectively defeated in purpose when a man or two spawns right behind the guy fighting you and joins in. Thankfully that is locked out to squad leaders specifically so if he's dead then they all spawn at the normal points, but there's no way to tell who is a squad leader so it makes it all a bit messy. Hopefully they will quick fix that shit in some capacity over the next month otherwise there's no reason to continue playing.

 

[Forkball]

So it's out. I've put a lot of time in it already and it's pretty easy to unlock new weapon and cosmetics. I think it's a lot of fun, but it does have some glaring problems. The respawns are so goofy, especially considering the maps are pretty small already. It would be better if you spawned in a safe radius, not right next to the guy like you're conjoined twins. I also feel the weapon balance is a bit off and you can swing 2H weapons way too fast (though I think today's patch nerfed it). However, the combat is a lot of fun, the customization options are neat, and the developers seem to be very invested in improving and expanding the game (they've already released two or three patches just in the early access week and they've hinted at new armor and an attack/defend mode). Right now it isn't in its ideal state, but I think with time this game could be a hit like Warband.

 

[Fitz]

Have they altered the cavalry since the beta? I haven't had a chance to play the release version yet, but cavalry were utterly broken in the alpha/beta.

 

[Rom1944]

Calvary steel feels like riding a bike and crashing into a wall or tree it does not penalize you in any way but i agree that with the proper balance and new content
this game can be very good at least there is a hospitalier heavy armor in the way and a new game mode.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The program keeps crashing on me. Did I just pay $30 for this?

 

[AzureSkies]

I played the game back in beta and really enjoyed it, unfortunately:

I found respawning incredibly unfair along with mounted combat and the capture system that was in place. We had an enemy team that was constantly using horses, capturing all the bases and respawning if they were killed: We had no way to counter them as the match would end as soon as they captured the base.

Has any of this changed? I really thought the game had a lot of potential, it just felt awfully unbalanced at the time but it was acceptable as it wasn't done.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Respawning's still there and still a major problem. I don't think most people have unlocked cavalry yet, but otherwise the excesses of that class appear to be in play as well.

 

[TheExodu5]

This game just needs a no respawn mode. Cavalry is mostly balanced in that case.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Do I have to grind to be good at this game?: There are already custom preset classes that have numerous perks and weapons already unlocked. Paradox has been touting "skill is not an unlock" as their motto. It doesn't matter who you come up against, if you can outduel them, no weapon or armor in the world will save them.

Yeah from my experience in the Beta, the exact opposite is true. It's easy to say 'skill is not an unlock' or there's no grinding or whatever, doesn't actually make it true.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The game is still fun, but I thought the push back would have made it more polished that this. Crashes, major balance issues, questionable netcode. Hope they keep at it instead of abandoning it like they did Lead & Gold.

 

[Sethos]

After some more hands-on time with it ... I won't be touching it until they add some damn no-respawn modes. It's so bad right now, just a million people running around like headless chickens and when you finally get a kill that person can just spawn next to a friendly and then they're 2-3 against you which usually means death.

In its current state, I'd say the game is close to unplayable and completely lack any sort of fun.

Maybe in a few months it'll be worth playing, until then, Chivalry.

At least the executions are fun.

 

[YianGaruga]

After some more hands-on time with it ... I won't be touching it until they add some damn no-respawn modes. It's so bad right now, just a million people running around like headless chickens and when you finally get a kill that person can just spawn next to a friendly and then they're 2-3 against you which usually means death.

Watched the release stream and that's the impression I got. Looked completely chaotic and random.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I guess this is a problem with all multiplayer games but you'll have people acting like it's deathmatch in these capture the flag missions and they'll just wander off from a control point to try to backstab somebody who's fighting another player and steal the kill. They also ignore allies on the ground and go for executions, even though healing your allies gives you more points.

I also had a hilarious exchange with a knight in full platemail with a poleaxe in which he complained about me "shield whoring" because I wasn't trying to parry his two-handed weapons with a one-handed sword while wearing light chainmail. Never mind that if he could land anything better than a glancing blow he could have splintered that shield in about four strikes. Similarly, people complaining about archers are stupid. Of course they camp. That's what archers do. Shoot from advantageous positions. It's how wars were won back then. It doesn't make any sense to complain about the game have a tinge of realism. Plenty of other legitimate things to focus on.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

After some more hands-on time with it ... I won't be touching it until they add some damn no-respawn modes. It's so bad right now, just a million people running around like headless chickens and when you finally get a kill that person can just spawn next to a friendly and then they're 2-3 against you which usually means death.

In its current state, I'd say the game is close to unplayable and completely lack any sort of fun.

Maybe in a few months it'll be worth playing, until then, Chivalry.

At least the executions are fun.

This is how I feel about it at this point. The spawning is a fucking mess, and the actual sword play is laggy at times, so it's impossible to get kills off (for me at least.) It's just really messy, but I want them to fix it up because it has amazing potential.

 

[Moaradin]

Played a ton during beta. Not sure how much has changed, but I definitely did not like the spawning in this game. Combat also feels very floaty. It's a very good looking game, and I like how it plays, but the combat had no weight to it and I was not a fan of the spawning. Only 2 game modes also sucked. I just can't justify spending $30 on it, even though I definitely want to like it.

Chivalry looks like something more up my alley.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Chivalry looks like something more up my alley.

When does it release? Any betas one could get into?

 

[GhostRidah]

When does it release? Any betas one could get into?

No idea about beta but it does release the 16th of this month.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I was totally ignorant to what Chivalry was. Man, this looks awesome...

I wish there was an open beta or demo, though...

 

[Alexios]

It seems half finished, half baked and no less clunky and dodgy than M&B multiplayer.

Chivalry will hopefully fare better. If not, then maybe M&BII. I had such high hopes too.

 

[Pyrrhus]

No idea about beta but it does release the 16th of this month.

Cool. Won't be waiting long at all, then. The videos I've seen are pretty nice looking. Maybe the balance will be a little better too.

It seems half finished, half baked and no less clunky and dodgy than M&B multiplayer.

I half agree with you. It is dodgy and it does feel half finished. But it feels better than Mount & Blade to me. The rhythms to attacking and blocking feel better and you don't die quite so fast. Feedback with sounds and animation are also a lot more clear. I enjoy the dueling more than M&B. The sense of being in a huge battle isn't as good, though.

But I would have really enjoyed the single player historical campaign they talked about when the game first was announced. That would have given it some meat.

 

[Alexios]

Yeah, I think I had asked about SP in an old thread about it and someone said it wasn't the focus but it would include a meaty SP campaign that would be surprisingly good or whatever... I guess that's part of the half they ditched...

 

[Tess3ract]

I saw this at pax east, never played it. I got into the beta, never played it.

I have no idea what this plays like at all.

 

[Aselith]

Is there some perks that makes you swing super fast or something? Because I keep getting people with big 2 handers that swing incredibly fast and constantly break my swings so that I can't even respond. I don't understand.

 

[Saprol]

So the spawn system is still the same? I don't really like how squad leaders here just spontaneously explode into reinforcements.

Not sure how well I can judge the combat as back whenever there were only ~200 ping servers populated. People sure liked their bills though.

 

[Rom1944]

Is there some perks that makes you swing super fast or something? Because I keep getting people with big 2 handers that swing incredibly fast and constantly break my swings so that I can't even respond. I don't understand.

There is the milanese school that lets you swing faster also wearing light armor and helmet helps too also some people use the keyboard to spam.

edit: they don't fully charge their attacks too.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Game's still randomly crashing. This is shitty.

 

[Raptomex]

Is this game truly just another version of Mount & Blade multiplayer?

 

[Sethos]

I think people need to remember that M&B and WotR are made by two different developers. So while under the same publisher and they wanted to create a sort of similarity, it's hard to directly compare them like that.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I think people need to remember that M&B and WotR are made by two different developers. So while under the same publisher and they wanted to create a sort of similarity, it's hard to directly compare them like that.

I don't think it's hard to compare them at all. Their control methods are nearly identical and they both deal with medieval hand to hand team combat in a third person perspective. But yes, two different devs.