Versus mount and blade?

#1 Posted by Questionable (596 posts) - 7 months, 18 days ago

Anyone experienced enough to compare this with mount and blade?

For some reason the quicklook for this really grabbed, so much that I plan on purchasing and devoting my weekend to this game.

The mount and blade QL did not look anywhere as appealing due to the constant instant-deaths but pretty much all google results say that mount and blade is the better game.

Can anyone enlighten me on what the main differences are?

#2 Posted by Dezztroy (545 posts) - 7 months, 18 days ago

I prefer the combat in this. A big reason is that M&B doesn't simulate armor at all, it simply slaps a damage reduction number on it and leaves it at that. Also M&B lacks the ability to hit multiple targets with one attack, no matter how large your weapon is.

And of course this doesn't have graphics from the 90s.

#3 Posted by lexyz123 (16 posts) - 7 months, 18 days ago

I pre-ordered the game from steam, if you were grabbed by the game by all means buy, but... when you play remember this: the game is VERY HARD on new players, the combat even if its more complete than Mount & Blade can make you really angry when your 2 handed sword doesnt do any damage against a leather armor wearing archer, YOU MUST have a good internet connection if you really want to enjoy the game to the fullest (like in the QL), the lack of single-player its a major let-down.

If you can bypass all those troubles im guessing you will enjoy it a lot. If you dont, then i hope you can wait for mount & blade 2 (was announced a little while ago).

Cheers, Mate. ;)

#4 Posted by mustardfacial (24 posts) - 7 months, 18 days ago

This game has bird armour. That is reason enough to get it.

War of the Roses

Team-based, multiplayer-only action game set in the 15th century.

Comment and Save