Chivalry vs WotR

#1 Posted by dikfox (42 posts) -

Anyone prefer this to War of the Roses? So far I am not impressed, it just feels like a mod and not as tight as WotR. Maybe if there was more progression in the multiplayer it would help.

#2 Posted by mattscout007 (86 posts) -

I've enjoyed it a lot more actually. Combat feels a lot better to me, and the objectives are a lot of fun. I think there is some progression actually, there's clearly some weapons and whatnot to be unlocked for each class, but I'm not sure how to see your progress in game, or if that's implemented yet.

#3 Edited by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

Didn't play either yet, but Chivalry seems more my type of game than WotR based on the footage I've seen.

#4 Posted by onarum (2012 posts) -

combat in chivalry is awesome, haven't played WotR though so I can't compare the two, also I can't find any fricken servers for it... have played only with bots so far...

#5 Posted by trickology101 (29 posts) -

I own WotR and really like the combat and progression in that game. But Chivalry looks pretty decent as well, kinda conflicted if I should purchase it or not since I already have WotR =/

#6 Posted by Ben_H (3307 posts) -

I saw a livestream of this game. I'm definitely getting it. The combat looks amazing to me. I think it looks better than War of the Roses by a mile. I haven't got to play either yet though. I definitely want to play both but I am for sure getting Chivalry.

#7 Posted by BisonHero (6156 posts) -

I'm kind of just shocked that Chivalry is the the second best selling game on Steam right now, ahead of XCOM, Dishonored, Borderlands 2, the new Borderlands 2 DLC, and Mark of the Ninja.

People are actually talking about all of the aforementioned games. Who the fuck are these tens of thousands of people who are losing their goddamn minds over Chivalry and buying it day 1? I'm not trying to insult the game, I just honestly hadn't heard a thing about it anywhere but Rock Paper Shotgun, and I don't recall them claiming it was the best game ever or anything.

#8 Posted by Giantstalker (1529 posts) -

@BisonHero: The top sellers page is the only reason I even know this game exists, and I absolutely mirror your confusion about the whole thing. It's gotta be selling a lot, especially for something I've never even heard of. Borderlands 2, XCOM, and Dishonored are all really popular games right now and lower than this (admittedly, the pass for BL2 trumps them all).

#9 Edited by BisonHero (6156 posts) -

@Giantstalker: I know, right! Mount & Blade, while popular, is still kind of obscure and niche, and while this game looks to be of higher graphical quality, it's still indie, a weird niche genre, and PC-only, so I have no goddamn idea how so many people know about it and are buying it. Seriously, XCOM is like the hottest shit around right now, and I cannot fathom how random medieval PC game is suddenly outselling it. Is every single gamer in Europe buying this game or something?

Baffling.

#10 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@BisonHero said:

@Giantstalker: I know, right! Mount & Blade, while popular, is still kind of obscure and niche, and while this game looks to be of higher graphical quality, it's still indie, a weird niche genre, and PC-only, so I have no goddamn idea how so many people know about it and are buying it. Seriously, XCOM is like the hottest shit around right, and I cannot fathom how random medieval PC game is suddenly outselling it. Is every single gamer in Europe buying this game or something?

Baffling.

Age of Chivalry. That's probably why.

#11 Posted by BisonHero (6156 posts) -

@SlasherMan: I know that mod was pretty popular, but I'm still shocked that it has enough pull that it is topping games from major studios.

#12 Posted by DizzyMedal (398 posts) -

Totalbiscuit said he might do a comparison video of them. He seemed to like both despite their differences, so a comparison by someone who enjoys both (and not from someone who likes one but not the other, which seems to be all I can find so far) should be interesting to watch.

#13 Edited by Ben_H (3307 posts) -
@BisonHero said:

@Giantstalker: I know, right! Mount & Blade, while popular, is still kind of obscure and niche, and while this game looks to be of higher graphical quality, it's still indie, a weird niche genre, and PC-only, so I have no goddamn idea how so many people know about it and are buying it. Seriously, XCOM is like the hottest shit around right, and I cannot fathom how random medieval PC game is suddenly outselling it. Is every single gamer in Europe buying this game or something?

Baffling.

Have you seen the combat in Chivalry? You need to see the combat. It looks simple on the surface but it's actually quite deep. There's also limb/head removal technology ala Jedi Knight 2 so that makes it even more satisfying. I saw a dude clean chop another guy's head off in a field and the head rolled down the hill and up another. It wasn't so much funny but at that time no one on the stream knew you could do that so we were all flipping out. 
 
Edit: also, Chivalry is below Xcom for me. 
 
Double Edit: Just bought it. Steam is being nice and giving me 5.5 MB/s download for once. I usually only get 3. The best I've got is 10MB/s during the night.
#14 Posted by BisonHero (6156 posts) -

@Ben_H said:

Edit: also, Chivalry is below Xcom for me.

Yeah, it has gone below XCOM on my page as well. But when I took that screenshot 3 hours ago, that's where it stood.

#15 Posted by dikfox (42 posts) -

Chivalry was more enjoyable on a second play last night. It is very different than WotR, and I'd say the combat moves faster (or at least I or my opponent died quicker, which might just be a reflection on new player skillset). I still am not a fan of the archery in it, I think WotR does a better job in that aspect. Chivalry does look great, and the modes are varied.

#16 Posted by Slow_pC (241 posts) -

Im still not sure what one i want to grab and waiting for a QL to help ...

#17 Edited by deerokus (533 posts) -

I've not played WotR but it seems very similar to Mount and Blade. Chivalry is more arcadey, accessible and fun. It has a superficially simple but effective melee system where you have three attack types (slash, overhead swing or stab), a kick, the ability to block or parry and a dodge (which may be restricted to the man-at-arms class?). This is a good thing, as it means the game relies more on reactions, skill and understanding of the mechanics and of the right time to use each ability, rather than having to wrap your head around the weird controls better than your opponent, which is the problem with Mount and Blade (and why I greatly prefer the gunpowder-based Napoleonic Wars mod over the melee combat era game). This means you can get locked into long yet fast-paced, tense duels, with each of you strafing, dodging and blocking your opponent's attacks with aplomb, trying to predict when your opponent will attack so you can find and opening. In this respect it almost feels like a boxing game, mechanically. Also, there's nice differentiation between the four classes - I like the Knight class most.

Where M&B and WotR are more like semi-simulatorish type games - a medieval version of Red Orchestra or something like that - this is more a fast-paced arena-based first person brawler.

Being decapitated is also funny, and it's really satisfying to cave someone's skull in.

#18 Posted by Sin4profit (2906 posts) -

I've played WotR and enjoyed it but the footage i've seen of Chivalry just looks like a generic mod to me. If they release a demo for it i may check it out. looking forward to the Giant Bomb QL of it tomorrow.

#19 Posted by Ben_H (3307 posts) -

I played about an hour last night. This game is bonkers. So much crazy crap just happens, though that is because few people knew what they were doing. I did a double decapitation by accident when I was playing the Vanguard class. I just swung my sword and two dudes ran into it and both lost their heads. I'm pretty sure if you get decapitated when you die you can see your own body but I'm not 100% sure on that, it might have just been someone else's but my head did fall faster than normal.

#20 Posted by WarlockEngineerMoreDakka (432 posts) -

@DizzyMedal said:

Totalbiscuit said he might do a comparison video of them. He seemed to like both despite their differences, so a comparison by someone who enjoys both (and not from someone who likes one but not the other, which seems to be all I can find so far) should be interesting to watch.

Funny you should mention that. :P

For those not interested in watching a 20 minute video...

TB states he prefers Chivalry- but only slightly.

The points he made were as follows:

  • Melee Combat: Chivalry wins
  • Ranged Combat: War of the Roses wins
  • Realism: War of the Roses wins
  • Brutality: Chivalry wins
  • Presentation: War of the Roses wins
  • Customization: War of the Roses wins
  • Multiplayer Depth: Chivalry wins
  • Value for Money: A Tie... And then for some reason he briefly brings up Mount & Blade Warband. :P

Anyway... I don't have either game myself, but I'm not surprised Chivalry's supposedly selling quite well due to it being a new retail version for a popular source mod.

I will say as a spectator, I'm pretty sure I'd prefer Chivalry over War of the Roses- just because the melee combat in War of the Roses from what I've seen looks really weird and off-putting compared to Chivalry's. (Though the first-person jousting/cavalry charges in War of the Roses look fun... :P )

#21 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2682 posts) -

I own and have played both a little bit. Gotta say, from my limited experience so far, War of the Roses is the much superior game. Chivalry just seems like a strafe-fest. It's like a huge counterstrike knife fight.

#22 Posted by Phos (15 posts) -

I have both and I like Chivalry more. For all the extra control WotR gives you over your blade it doesn't actually seem meaningfully deeper.

#23 Posted by StrikeALight (1114 posts) -

Both games seem pretty bad-ass.

The constant man-cries in Chivalry would do my nut in, though.

#24 Edited by dross24 (15 posts) -

This game is serious catharsis. Swinging off about 8 years of Bush. Neither perfect nor fluid nor intellectual- but they succeeded in giving the combat a heaviness. One feels the disadvantages of 60 pounds of armor. Reminds me of the last fight in Polanski's Macbeth:

#25 Posted by BionicMonster (1032 posts) -

@dross24: I think that might be the first and only realistic medieval duel I've ever seen in a movie.

#26 Posted by ZoddGuts (9 posts) -
#27 Posted by Ben_H (3307 posts) -
@StrikeALight said:

The constant man-cries in Chivalry would do my nut in, though.

That's my favourite part. I'm the guy that hits that button the entire round. It just doesn't get old because someone will always do it too in response.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.