Miscellaneous > The Sallyport

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare = Not Bad!

(1/2) > >>

Sir Brian:
[url]http://www.chivalrythegame.com/]http://www.chivalrythegame.com/] [url]http://www.chivalrythegame.com/[/url]

I purchased this game last night and downloaded it via Steam (strike ONE).

The initial configuration would not let me change the key bindings and searching their forum revealed that there was some issues with this most basic of features but there was a workaround. I actually got the keys to accept binding changes via the configuration section of setup but I had to kick up the level of the mouse double click speed of all things! And after painstakingly reassigning the key bindings of the more important movement and combat actions I realized during the training that one of the important actions was not available for reassignment on the configuration section, namely ‘Kick’ which is used to knockdown an opponent’s shield guard, the default ‘F’ key is this actions only option and I already reassigned that key to my forward movement!  >:( (strike TWO).

Third person view is advertised but not available yet which I hope improves the overall playability as the sense of measure is a bit whacked with melee games in general while in first person view. – One of the primary reasons Warband is typically played in 3rd person!  ::)

You only have three attack directions and each one is a specific mouse function. A Left MB does the standard slash, while the mouse-wheel scroll up does a thrust and the mouse-wheel scroll down does an overhead (Oberhau) cut. The right MB is block which will block any melee attack coming in as long as you keep the point of the opposing weapon in the center of your screen which seems over simplified IMO.  :-\

The graphics are awesome as is the gore factor, something I hope we see with Warband 2, but as far as this game competing with Warband’s playability and robust game engine – Not a chance! I find the Game developer’s comments on the one advertisement woefully delusional and presumptuous when he stated he and others were not ‘Satisfied’ with the past game engines trying to capture the nuisances of medieval combat. – Well this game doesn’t deliver on those aspects either. Perhaps they would have been better off using the Warband engine instead of the Unreal engine and basing the game off a Half-Life 2 mod.

So far for me this game has two strikes against it and is hitting some foul balls to stay up at bat. – Thanks primarily to the graphics/gore eye candy but that wanes thin far too soon to be the highest selling point.  :-\

Ian:
I bought both Chivalry: Medieval Warfare and War of the Roses.

I saw a great comparison that to me holds very true.  Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is to CoD: Modern Warfare as War of the Roses is to Battlefield.

CMW is got the gore factor going for it, but it's not very skill-based, it's really just a medieval arcadey kind of hack away at your opponents and hope you cut their heads off.  WotR is much more skill based, the graphics are prettier in my opinion, and it requires teamwork and well placed shots.  You can swing your sword just like in the Mount and Blade games where you determine the angle of your sword swing by the direction of your mouse.

WotR is much more realistic in both weapons/armor and fighting.  It utilizes squad tactics and you can revive fallen teammates (in fact you need to if you want to win).  WotR is simply the better game.  The one fatal flaw for me is that WotR has a serious problem with NVIDIA GTX 580 series video cards and crashes every couple of minutes rendering the game un-playable.  I'm playing more CMW right now, only because it works, not because I like it that much.  If you like Mount and Blade, and want an experience that pays more attention to history, with a more complex combat experience, then get WotR.

Sir Edward:
Yeah, I was very excited to buy and download Chivalry. I played for about 30 minutes, so I felt like I couldn't fully judge it. I didn't even look into keybinds. I had fun, but you know what? I haven't been itching to get back to it. I'm much more likely to just hop onto Tribes.

Sir Brian:

--- Quote from: Ian on 2012-10-20, 12:49:49 ---WotR is much more realistic in both weapons/armor and fighting.  It utilizes squad tactics and you can revive fallen teammates (in fact you need to if you want to win).  WotR is simply the better game...
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---...If you like Mount and Blade, and want an experience that pays more attention to history, with a more complex combat experience, then get WotR.
--- End quote ---

I will most definitely check out WotR! :)

Sir Brian:
Well I played around with CMW and figured out how to change to the 3rd person view and I worked with the key bindings some more and found a workable configuration. So even though it has that ‘Arcade’ feel to it I am enjoying the quicker pace and like some of the different objective orientated matches.

As for WoTR I completely agree that it does have better and far more historically accurate armor and weapons as well as the melee combat and the Execution sequences are really awesome however the ‘learning curve’ is prohibitively stupid. Running is absurd and mounted combat is positively atrocious! I can appreciate the requirement of well placed attacks and blocks but that is sort of pointless if the training modules difficulty levels are not scalable to help develop the skills the game engine is demanding from players.

In essence: Where CMW is overly simple and ‘arcade-like’ yet fun. WoTR is excessively demanding, elitist and not much fun. I think there is a fine balance between realism and playability. IMO Mount & Blade is still the standard I will hold all games of this genre to because it always had that balance.  :-\

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page