War of the Roses
- Thread starter NBAfan
- Start date
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Not really no, it has more similarities to the customizable classes in CoD4 and onwards customizable class & weapon systems but that is about it. It is a lot more like a fancier & slightly more actiony (but so far not in a bad way except for one of the executions where the guy gets a little carried away with the stabbing) 3rd person Mount&Blade: Warband multiplayer designed to appeal to a wider audience (although so far the actual gameplay is on M&B's hardcore level which is good).
Here is a good PRE-ALPHA look at the game by TotalBiscuit.
Link to video.
So far it looks pretty good, my biggest worry though is the developer, Fatshark, as they do not have the best track record when it comes to supporting their games. Also hopefully their netcode will be good enough to fully support 64 players, although Warband supports 200
Also hopefully they provide full support for people to customize the server options.
attackfighter
Emperor
Should have been strategy game instead.
So we can look at a map of something that does not even remotely look like England? No thanks.
attackfighter
Emperor
Well you should avoid looking at globes because they also don't look remotely like what they depict.
Strategy games work best for historical settings. There's no point in basing a mutliplayer death match thingy around a historical event, since the historical angle doesn't change anything. It could be a generic medieval setting instead and nothing would change. I'm guessing the historical reference is just for marketing purposes, rather than because it adds anything meaningful to the game.
Strategy games work best for historical settings. There's no point in basing a mutliplayer death match thingy around a historical event, since the historical angle doesn't change anything. It could be a generic medieval setting instead and nothing would change. I'm guessing the historical reference is just for marketing purposes, rather than because it adds anything meaningful to the game.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Remotely is inappropriate here as England still looks somewhat like England. It isn't like they put Korea in there and claim it is England.
attackfighter
Emperor
What example are you guys talking about anyways.
I haven't played either of those games, so thanks for the correction.
Paradox is notorious for making inaccurate and/or ugly maps of any location that is not Scandinavia. Paradox devs - namely, King, although he's more management than dev these days - have openly stated that map accuracy is not a priority and that they effectively don't care about it. This is a fairly troubling problem in a strategy game, in which the map is the most important and salient feature of the user interface.
If you want specific examples, the only Paradox game, ever, that has had anything approaching an "accurate" map was Victoria 2, in which Paradox employed a mapmod created for Victoria: Revolutions by fans, made it slightly cartoonier, and changed the names of the provinces to make sure they didn't make sense. Europa Universalis 3 employed a truly awful 3D map before the most recent expansion, Divine Wind, in which the coastlines of the V2 map were used, but not the land borders, giving us accurate coastlines with childish scribbling on the interior. Hearts of Iron 3 placed some cities hundreds of miles away from their actual locations, and not all of these were fixed by release, although they have incrementally improved the map with subsequent releases. (The coastlines still look junky, though, and various trouble spots - India, the Caucasus, Africa - remain inaccurate.) And so on, and so forth. Of the recent Paradox releases, only Darkest Hour has had a good map, and that was created by a third-party developer and only published by Paradox.
While, as ruki said, they have never made something as obviously wrong as Korea in Europe, errors of that magnitude shouldn't even be in the cards.
attackfighter
Emperor
Ahh, well I missed your exaggeration and thought you interpreted "strategy game" as meaning civilization or something, where the maps can be truly unrecognisable. I suppose Paradox maps are pretty inaccurate too, but I don't notice or really care myself. To each their own though.
There's the simulation-type strategy games and the abstracted strategy games. Less-accurate maps are just fine for the latter, but not for the former. And Paradox, though often being viewed in the former category, uncomfortably straddles the two at times.
Civ is all abstract, which gives it a little more freedom.
Civ is all abstract, which gives it a little more freedom.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
They always managed to screw up some part of Canada, but that is for another topic.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,588
What are you talking about? Baffin Island totally grows wheat as a main export!
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
Here we go, this is the first gameplay footage I've seen so far (still in Beta). It looks promising, IMO. The combat system doesn't actually look as fast paced as I was expecting and the HUD elements might take some getting used to. I also think the coup de grace animation is going to get real old, real fast.
Link to video.
Don't forget that if you already own a M&B game, you can preorder WotR with a 20% off deal.
As an aside, SideStrafe does really great videos on Youtube (my favorite video game commentator).
Link to video.
Don't forget that if you already own a M&B game, you can preorder WotR with a 20% off deal.
As an aside, SideStrafe does really great videos on Youtube (my favorite video game commentator).
MoreEpicThanYou
The most Epic.
Well, hopefully I'm not as bad at this as I am at CoD. I'm pretty good at Warband, though, so that's a start...
EDIT: I probably won't be able to run it anyway, those graphics are pretty good.
EDIT: I probably won't be able to run it anyway, those graphics are pretty good.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
The combat is really much more disappointing and frustrating in reality than it looks in the videos (which already don't look that amazing). If you are intent on purchasing it wait for the inevitable xmas sale at the very least.
Or just skip it like I plan on doing.
Or just skip it like I plan on doing.
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
How did you get into the beta?
Looking at the videos from that one TotalBiscuit fellow, I'm starting to think I'll pass as well. The mounted combat looks pretty bad, though I like the amount of character customization offered.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
I signed up weeks (months?) ago and got into the Alpha which gave me beta access too.
I didn't get a chance to ride a horse, both times I mounted one someone had gotten killed off of I was immediately sniped, but the horses are pretty OP and poorly controlled.
I didn't get a chance to ride a horse, both times I mounted one someone had gotten killed off of I was immediately sniped, but the horses are pretty OP and poorly controlled.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Anyone play this? I do, it's really fun, and I'm looking for other CFCers to join in combat for Lancaster or York! If you have the game, please tell me and let's exchange Steam profiles or something. If you don't, read on with the post because I figured I might as well tell you about it.
It's like Mount & Blade (Similarly fun!) but a little more straightened with a better engine and a less demanding (but equally rewarding) requirement of upfront skill for being able to participate.
Gameplaywisely there's not much to build on or discuss. It's a regular arcadish first/third person game where you use medieval weapons rather than handguns. I've only seen two game modes online, Team Death Match and Conquest. Can't say I've looked a lot though, I'm new to the game so don't blame me for being wrong! Team Death Match is slaughter-till-your-team-has-the-required-score and Conquest is objective based warfare. There's basically five kinds of fighting, all of which requires practice and perfection - melee with shield, melee without (usually two-handed), archer, crossbow, and knight. You utilize different classes for the game - you begin with a pretty shoddy man-at-arms character and then earn XP/gold through killing enemies, helping allies, capturing objectives and can unlock the other 3 built-in classes or the 4 you can customize yourself. EDIT: I was personally overwhelmed by the amount of detail you can specialize in - shape of sword working better in certain situations like armor piercing, fencing or encumbrance - when you buy a bow, you just don't buy a bow. You buy a specific bow type, then choose a kind of arrowheads, choose between quivers or a certain arrow feather, plus several other things to eventually to end up with a weapon and fighting style that suits you.
Compared to Mount & Blade, which is a very fun game, you have a sense of progression, there is higher dependency on team play with bandaging and reviving allies, better visuals and some pretty immersive details (On-battlefield executions are particularly harsh at times). All of this actually make it into a quite elegant game and I find it really immersive. The crunchy sound when you are crushed by a cavalier excites me in particular - there are plenty of fun things you experience and interesting challenges you are put in. Because of the armor system, an arrow to the head often doesn't kill you anymore (As it did in M&B, making skilled archers particularly annoying). On the other hand, the armor system makes it impossible to damage heavy infantry at times which is not very amusing with a light weapon.
On the other hand, the fact that there's two factions, neither of which being that different, you seem to miss the sense of Mount & Blade's intriguing nation chaos when Nordic warriors fought Arabs in snow terrain. War of the Roses is less exotic that way, but the setting itself is particularly grim and dark, and it makes for a game which feels more well-developed and complete.
The makers of the game are constantly working to add new things or fix old things. They preferred releasing a working game early with fewer features, then to add in depending on what players wanted.
It's like Mount & Blade (Similarly fun!) but a little more straightened with a better engine and a less demanding (but equally rewarding) requirement of upfront skill for being able to participate.
Gameplaywisely there's not much to build on or discuss. It's a regular arcadish first/third person game where you use medieval weapons rather than handguns. I've only seen two game modes online, Team Death Match and Conquest. Can't say I've looked a lot though, I'm new to the game so don't blame me for being wrong!
Team Death Match is slaughter-till-your-team-has-the-required-score and Conquest is objective based warfare. There's basically five kinds of fighting, all of which requires practice and perfection - melee with shield, melee without (usually two-handed), archer, crossbow, and knight. You utilize different classes for the game - you begin with a pretty shoddy man-at-arms character and then earn XP/gold through killing enemies, helping allies, capturing objectives and can unlock the other 3 built-in classes or the 4 you can customize yourself. EDIT: I was personally overwhelmed by the amount of detail you can specialize in - shape of sword working better in certain situations like armor piercing, fencing or encumbrance - when you buy a bow, you just don't buy a bow. You buy a specific bow type, then choose a kind of arrowheads, choose between quivers or a certain arrow feather, plus several other things to eventually to end up with a weapon and fighting style that suits you.Compared to Mount & Blade, which is a very fun game, you have a sense of progression, there is higher dependency on team play with bandaging and reviving allies, better visuals and some pretty immersive details (On-battlefield executions are particularly harsh at times). All of this actually make it into a quite elegant game and I find it really immersive. The crunchy sound when you are crushed by a cavalier excites me in particular - there are plenty of fun things you experience and interesting challenges you are put in. Because of the armor system, an arrow to the head often doesn't kill you anymore (As it did in M&B, making skilled archers particularly annoying). On the other hand, the armor system makes it impossible to damage heavy infantry at times which is not very amusing with a light weapon.
On the other hand, the fact that there's two factions, neither of which being that different, you seem to miss the sense of Mount & Blade's intriguing nation chaos when Nordic warriors fought Arabs in snow terrain. War of the Roses is less exotic that way, but the setting itself is particularly grim and dark, and it makes for a game which feels more well-developed and complete.
The makers of the game are constantly working to add new things or fix old things. They preferred releasing a working game early with fewer features, then to add in depending on what players wanted.
Similar threads
