Hah, on chivalry v m&b, I've always preferred chivalry as far as
infantry fighting went.
In M&B you've got your four attacks: left right overhead thrust, and they deal more or less damage depending on which direction you're moving. Problem I have with this is that they all feel same-y: the focus is on the movement, not the attack. Contrast that with chivalry's 3 attacks where each serves a distinct purpose: the spammy sweeps, the slow heavy overheads & the difficult long-range pokes. I also felt less restricted with my footwork- I could spend more time trying to psych out my opponent and think about the environment when I don't have to futz with the finicky momentum system.
But, well, there isn't anything quite like bisecting a fleeing archer from horseback- no dismemberment system can make up for that lovely crepitus.
But then, my single-player MB experience was tinted by the Forward+LMB AI, I was able to avoid latency problems in chivalry, and my M&B mp experience consists of 40 hours in war of the roses.
Yeah, TES combat isn't very deep. I can't play vanilla- it's just too floaty. Surreal-like. You sit there and LMB 50 times to kill a bandit leader & 200 times to kill a dragon, woopty-doo.