Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: War of the Roses  (Read 13275 times)

ank

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2012, 11:06:54 am »

It's out...
Anybody tried it?
Logged

fenrif

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dare to be stupid.
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #61 on: October 06, 2012, 11:29:52 am »

I was in the beta, it was fun enough though I've not bought it yet.

I'm waiting to see how much after-release support it gets, since a lot of these multiplayer focused FPS games on steam get almost nothing after release and within a month or two are completely dead untill the next free weekend or mega sale.

The game itself is fun. It's a good mix of what I like about M&B and what I like about COD. The combat is satisfying for what it is, though some of the weapons just seemed terrible from the short time I used them. I'm not sure I'd pay £25 for it though, unless they've added in some more maps since beta. Might pick it up if it gets discounted down to £15 or something. But again, by then theres a chance the community will be completely dead.
Logged

Ozyton

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2012, 12:26:40 pm »

I've played M&B and M&B Warband but I have not played WOTR, but I have seen videos and heard other people's conclusions.

WOTR has some interesting mechanics such as armor deflection and precise weapon models (Hitting with the cutting edge of a poleaxe is better than hitting with the haft for example). But the general consensus is M&B/M&B:W is better in pretty much every other aspect. Driving your hoverbike horse in WOTR is incredibly silly with the way it handles, but on the plus side there's no horse archers and your lances actually break so you can't just couch lance everybody to death... at least not until it respawns.

In every video I've seen I don't think I've seen a single person actually block an attack without using a shield, and these are people who have claimed to have played M&B before so I call bullshit (Or maybe blocking an attack doesn't matter because they can just attack again immediately? In M&B they get stunned for a second so they either have to block or get hit, usually). It just generally looks more like a spamfest when it comes to melee, and the fact that people can spawn out of people's asses means that it doesn't really progress the way it should. If you kill 5 guys by yourself you can bet that if they don't pick up their teammate's mutilated corpses and make them all better that a bunch of them will pop out of the guy's armor and smack you the fuck down. Plus the way people can just clip straight through each other... uhg. People call the combat very 'floaty'. What they've done really well, however, is ranged combat, and ranged combat isn't exactly what I'm looking for in my melee game. However I imagine it must be difficult to hit anybody when they're running around at 20 miles an hour (I don't know if it was lag or some kind of charge skill but I've seen people do it in in videos).

That isn't to say M&B:W doesn't have its own fair share of problems, but the fact that it has modding support, goes on sale practically every month or so, and is just generally more enjoyable (even for those who prefer singleplayer, which WOTR lacks) just makes it better all around. Oh, it also has more maps and gamemodes than WOTR... and the horses are actually interesting to ride.

I think I'll just wait patiently (as I possibly can) for M&B2. Does WOTR even have modding support?

Thendash

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #63 on: October 06, 2012, 01:15:31 pm »

I have it and I'm enjoying it. I'm not sure if it's quite worth the price of admission right now since it's a little on the lacking side with content, but post release support sounds promising as the devs have already said they are going to add siege mode and more maps/equipment. To address ozy, you can block with just a weapon people just aren't good at it. If you get hit while charging up an attack then it'll break that attack, so blocking does matter especially for heavy/slow weapon people. You can only spawn on your squad leader, so if you're smart enough you'll figure out who that is and kill him first. I've never seen people clip through anything let alone other people, your attacks even hit friendlies so you do need to be careful in tight quarters. There does exist a charge attack with the right perk selected, when used your character charges forward and will either knocks over whoever you run into, or knocks himself over if he hits a wall or a shield push. It has a long cool down so you can't just spam it though. No WotR does not have modding support and it's a purely multiplayer game.
Logged
Thendash's Livestream

This game could honestly give out hand jobs for free and people would still bitch.

Goron

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2012, 07:06:09 am »

Since there are entirely too many people posting reviews of a game they have not played, I'll join thendash in making a post with credibility (I actually own it, and play it).
It is fun. It does feel a little arcade-y but not in a bad way. I think it is well balanced; most of the complaints I have seen are without base. If you want to play a single player game as an invincible heavy armor knight, don't play this. If you want to play a competitive online game that requires you to use skill to ensure victory, play this. But please, if you are one of those whiny people that refuses to learn to block and easily gets killed by a half naked guy with a dagger and then goes to complain on the forums... Stay away.

Lysabild

  • Bay Watcher
  • Eidora Terminus Imperii Romani
    • View Profile
    • My Steam!
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #65 on: October 10, 2012, 09:19:37 am »

I have it, I play it, and it IS easy mode, I often have the highest kill/death ratio in every game and all I do is spam my unauthentic silly scottish twohander into peoples faces while back pedaling. I haven't needed to block once, it's a waste of time.

The only thing I ever die to is 2+ archers I can't reach with a charge. It does have some nice features, but it feels awfully limited, easy and the heraldry makes me as an enthusiast for heraldry cry blood at it's awfulness.

It's still fairly enjoyable, but only because it's new and different, this will get old quickly I think.
Logged

ThtblovesDF

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2013, 03:04:46 pm »

BUMP


Didn't want to make a new Topic.


There is a free Trial and a double xp weekend right now, to any dwarfs that want to try there luck.
I am quite enjoying it and Lysabilds statement may still hold true (even if it was made more then 120 days ago) - it is somewhat easy, I find myself as top of the scoreboard in about 80% of my games.
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2013, 09:23:19 am »

Just finished playing this for a couple hours on the free weekend deal.

It's... kinda broken. 

Pros:  The game is gorgeous looking, even on the lowest settings.  Animations are very smooth, which is important for this kind of game.  I really like how they've tried to organize character development.  I also liked the somewhat lower mortality rate, counter to current gaming trends.  I don't like one-hit-kill type games.  Armor felt like it actually meant something in this game.  You could absorb a few blows, and placement of blows really mattered a lot also.  Then usually when you're beaten, you fall down and can be revived.  So you get people laying down and suffering around the battlefield, and remaining combatants wrestling for position to execute or revive them.  I like the feel of combat that they're going for in general.  It's near-identical to Mount & Blade, and that's a good thing to me.

Cons:  Laggiest game I've played in a long time.  The lowest pings I could find were in the 50s.  That's not horrible, but most games can manage much better.  Plus, there were only a handful of servers that low.  Most were 80+, which is very high for me these days.  Even with 50 ping, there were lag glitches everywhere.  People blinking all over the place.  Not up to modern standards at all.  Then there's the general feel of combat.  I don't know if it was a lag thing, but everything felt like it was moving in slow motion.  The movement and animations need to be sped up a bit.  The game crashed twice on me.

It seems like the graphics have been excessively polished, while the gameplay and engine stability have not been polished at all. 
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Catastrophic lolcats

  • Bay Watcher
  • [FORTRESSDESTROYER:2]
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2013, 09:52:50 am »

I hated the execute and revive mechanic. I can understand what they were trying to achieve with it but I found it just didn't hit it's mark. I found that the mechanic just reinforced grouping, coming solely down to however has the biggest posse or the last man standing at the end of the fight. I would have these bizarre scenarios where I would be fighting three or four guys, downing one and holding my ground, only to be pushed back and held up while that guy is revived and I'm slowly warn down by attrition alone. I can understand wanting to punish people for separating from their group but not being able to do any damage what so ever was perhaps a bit too punishing. The squad respawn system only worsened this.

The combat was extremely "floaty" and slowpaced which just destroyed all enjoyment I could have. Moves were telegraphed for so long it was usually trivial to block every attack thrown by the other person. You'd end up with strange "stand-offs" where two players would wait for the other to attack just so he could easily parry it and get a cheap shot in.
The weapon balance was also all over the place. Two-handed swords is to balance what a machine gun is to a knife fight. The bow and crossbow also felt much less satisfying than in Mount and Blade and were arguably underpowered.
The lack of directional block on the shield was just a stupid decision. It negated any skill to be found in shieldmen blocking and it made it useless against ranged units. The shieldmen should be the one pushing a line against the archers, not getting picked off by them.  ::)

Armour could have been more interesting. There was really no reason not to use the heavy armour while light armour had no use what so ever. I would have preferred to have much more specialisation caused by armour type so you could have those Highlanders dressed in light armour and two-handers or some skirmishers picking off archers.

Lack of any kind of offline is a bit disappointing. Even an ability to run a map with bots so you could get some practice in would be nice. I do admit I would love to see some of the engine tech in a stand-alone singleplayer game with much more tightened combat.

There are good things to be said however. The customisation is pretty awesome. Coat of Arms generator is awesome (although lacking the ability to crate my own in it >:(). The game is extremely pretty and the tech that went into the hit registry and how materials are factored is just amazing.

EDIT: Also in Mount and Blade: Napoleonic Wars you could stab people to the theme of Hungarian Dance No. 5, therefore it wins.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 10:22:04 am by Catastrophic lolcats »
Logged

SalmonGod

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nyarrr
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2013, 10:32:05 am »

"Floaty" is a good word for it.  That and the lag are the main things that ruined it for me.
Logged
In the land of twilight, under the moon
We dance for the idiots
As the end will come so soon
In the land of twilight

Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.

Kaje

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2013, 11:48:14 am »

I have a pretty crappy internet connection at the moment, and have had absolutely zero lag on 66 ping servers (which appear to be the lowest pings on my server select screen) - and this is with the graphics cranked right up. :-\
Logged

Rilder

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive
    • View Profile
Re: War of the Roses
« Reply #71 on: September 02, 2013, 07:31:36 am »

Slight necro since this is in the current (at the time of this post) humble bundle and have been playing it a fair bit. Definitely worth the rather cheap price. 

Been derping around with a Billhook which seems alright if a bit hard to get the range right on it so the blade actually connects, though it seems to be okay at occasionally decapitating people which is always fun.  Of course I suck so that doesn't happen often.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 07:33:56 am by Rilder »
Logged
Steam Profile
Youtube(Let's Plays), Occasional Streaming
It felt a bit like a movie in which two stoners try to steal a military helicopter
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]