anyone try Chivalry yet

seen it on steam and the combat looks vicious.

 

abetter vid

 

I don't know about it. I want to try but afraid too small of a player base will leave the game with one or two servers and just boring.

 

my same thoughts..wish it had a demo or trial

 

Erock and I got both this and War of Roses.

Age of Chivalry is complete garbage compared to War of Roses. In every way.

That trailer is NOT in-game footage. The graphics look like they are about 6 years old and he combat is very simple. Takes about two swings to kill anyone and everyone. Archers are pretty easy to use and if you have a lot no one is going anywhere. The game modes are a nice variety.(The only thing imo that this game has over War of Roses)

War of Roses has much better graphics. Combat system that is actually thought out and leads to real fights. Armor means everything and where you hit/how you hit means everything. Archery is a game of skill and perks give everyone a different play style. The only thing War of Roses is lacking is gamemodes. They have TDM, DM, and Objective(more like tug-o-war). I like objective the most but TDM is fun at times too. While the combat can be frustrating at times its only because of lack of skill and not because a teammate is swinging their halberd around decapitating everyone on his team while missing the enemy.

Bottom line. The only reason Age of Chivalry looks good to people is because they haven't tried War of Roses. They are on completely different teirs of actual gameplay. If you want to hack and slash for a week then get bored as hell with a game then buy Age of Chivalry. If you want a game where the skill cap is unlimited and graphics that are actually pleasing to the eye then War of Roses is your choice. (PS. it was also cheaper when it was on sale).

 

That video is a decent comparison but fails horribly in the actual melee combat where they give chivalry a more in depth vote lol and other things I'd rather not get picky on. You can tell total biscuit is a easy mode gamer and likes the up front skill capped games from most of his reviews though. While he claims to have played both extensively I don't think that's possible for him.

Chivalry = 3 attacks and a block/parry. Almost no difference in the type of weapon you use besides range and speed you can swing it. It doesn't matter where you hit someone just as long as you hit them. They will die in 1-3 hits no matter what. You carry 3 weapons. Main(usually a 2h), secondary(one hander), and a thrown(which never actually kills anyone). Doesn't really matter which one you use they will all kill in the same amount of hits and all will one hit if you hit anywhere near the head. You do have a stamina bar but since it takes only 1-3 hits per kill I've never been without stamina when needed.

WoR = 4 attacks, block/parry are directional based and when you parry you throw off your opponents attack allowing for a counter. Each weapon is completely different in its uses. Swords are better for piercing heavy armor and slashing through visors, or just cutting the living crap out of a cloth/mail user. 1h and 2h do different damage by about double the damage for a 2h. Maces are fun and stun players if you hit them in their plate helm and do more damage to shields.(which will break if you use it too much). A mount with a lance will bust right through your shield most of the time. Daggers allow you to attack super fast so if you are an archer and a plate user comes up you can lay down the super speed and go nuts on them so they can't get an attack in. You will probably die in the end but every so often you get a few good attacks in through the visor and kill them. Daggers are also good to stop people from running away from you. You move faster or slower depending on the weapon you have out, on top of the armor type you have. On top of the basic weapon differences you have your 2h weapons which come in from a 2h axe to a lance, to spears. They all attack differently and depends....I could keep going on with this crap.


Bottom line that review is an OK review but its Total_Bullshit giving it so its not usually worth its weight.

Chivalry = Simple combat, more game modes, CTF, Objective(garbage btw and attackers win 99% of the time), TDM, DM, some other game mode, and unreal tournament 2003 graphics. Brutal but its so easy to cut off limbs it gets old fast.

War of the Roses = Very in depth combat(so much so you will hate it your first 5-10 rounds) once you get used to it its a lot of fun and you end up trying many different strategies and using all your weapons, only 3 game modes(TDM, Domination, DM), with squad spawn they all stay very active, graphics are fucking sweet. Not as brutal as chivalry even with the execution but you do get a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction out of those perfect hits with both the bow and in melee combat. Plus you rarely cut off someones head but it can be done with the perfect axe/halberd swing. It's nice when it happens.

I wish I could type more on chivalry but there's not much too it. What you see is what you get. I do feel I must say I started playing War of Roses first then went and played chivalry so that might have something to do with the reviews. But Erock and I both agree War is a much more satisfying game, once you get used to it, in every department.

 

I've had chivalry for a while. Loved it. Now I'm learning all this about WoR and just bought that as well =X