[Game] War Of The Roses

[Pectus]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/de...-of-the/726054

Release Date: Late Summer 2012

Developer: Fat Shark

Publisher: Paradox Interactive

Platfrom: PC



Mp centric M&B Warband style game with better graphics, animations, Slightly tweaked melee system, stat progression, perks and character creation thrown in to the mix.

The man talking on the first video is Gordon Van Dyke, the producer for Battlefield series Up until BC2, after which he left DICE and EA to work for Paradox.

I'm interested, this game seems to fix all the annoyances i had with Warband, which mostly had to do with the shoe string budget of that game, and the limitations of the engine.

Maybe War of the Roses and M&B Warband 2 will become the CoD and BF of medieval times

[fiftyone]

Been keeping an eye on this, looks good.

[RedFlagWaver]

I've been an avid M&B/Warband player for years, but not without a myriad complaints about the engine and the general conduct of the developers.

Looking forward to this.

[NoxNoctum]

Looks cool but they have an unlock system too. Lol is there any game coming out these days without one? It's not a huge deal or anything but I just think it's kind of funny.

[RedFlagWaver]

Let's just hope it's better made than the RO2 unlocks.

[Panzer Meyer]

Looks promising, I am looking forward to this. With a bigger budget they should pull of something great, I mean M&B: Warband was great even with its flaws and bugs.

[Apos]

Sounds interesting. Warband was total blast to play. As long as it will follow M&B indie style game I reckon it might be great title.

[husbert]

sounds great
im still playing mb
better graphics is ok but i hope it still works with 50vs50 player games

[Pectus]

Originally Posted by husbert

sounds great
im still playing mb
better graphics is ok but i hope it still works with 50vs50 player games

I doubt it, they mentioned in one of the vids that currently they have successful
test's with 32 players, but are hoping to optimize the engine/net code for more players.

I'll be happy with 64 players, 32 seems too low for a game of this type.

[husbert]

defending a big stronghold with 16 players would be a bit meh

[RedFlagWaver]

Yeah, Sieges on large castles already feel somewhat ragtag in Warband, even on big servers with 60+ players per team.

16on16, you really couldn't do more than ambushes, scoutings, skirmishes...a siege is out of the question, and field battles would look thoroughly silly.

[Grabbed_by_the_Spetsnaz]

So made by the director of the Battlefield series before it turned to sh!t eh?

Will keep my eye on this...

[Panzer Meyer]

Only 32 players to attack and defend castles... eh. I rather they go with lower graphics (along the lines of M&B), but allow games of 64, or even a 100 people. That would be awesome.

[RedFlagWaver]

Gameplay over graphics. GAMEPLAY OVER GRAPHICS.

How hard can it be?

[Reise]

It really depends on what's involved.

If they do things right they could get away with large multiplayer battles. It's 2012, lets see some games that act like it.

[NoxNoctum]

Originally Posted by RedFlagWaver

Gameplay over graphics. GAMEPLAY OVER GRAPHICS.

How hard can it be?

Ya when will people figure this out seriously . I tend to completely stop even noticing at all a game's graphics/SFX about 5 hours in.

[RedFlagWaver]

One good news item is that the unlock system will be as close as it gets to perfect. Seriously. The only improvement would be not having to unlock them at all, but that probably wouldn't fly at all with the BF crowd.

So, it's the best possible. I'm honestly happy about this, the devs seem smart.

(Source: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...es/#more-92097)

[Amerikaner]

Originally Posted by RedFlagWaver

One good news item is that the unlock system will be as close as it gets to perfect. Seriously. The only improvement would be not having to unlock them at all, but that probably wouldn't fly at all with the BF crowd.

So, it's the best possible. I'm honestly happy about this, the devs seem smart.

(Source: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012...es/#more-92097)

I agree its a good system. I like unlocks as long as they don't turn into grind fests. It gives you a greater sense of purpose in multiplayer. Ideally, I think unlock systems would be best off as purely cosmetic but I dont think systems like Battelfield 3 which this game is taking influence from are bad at all.

The only things in that article I'm not so sure about are regenerating health and knockdowns. If I slice a guys arm or smash his leg he should be incapacitated to some degree, not be able to run off and "recharge". And the zero health = knockdown will only be cool if you endure too many fleshwounds or weaker non-penetrating blows or something like that. I wanna be able to slice a guys head off right off the bat or see them crumple immediately when I use a massive sledgehammer swing.

[RedFlagWaver]

Oh Le Fuque.

You're right, I forgot to think of that. If instant kills aren't in, then it'll positively look silly more than anything else.

[Reise]

I actually dislike instant kills in melee combat.

Unless you're taking a hammer in the skull you should be pretty resilient against a lot of punishment, especially with the late style armor they're foing for in this game. Numbers and intimidation won battles far more than just pummeling hundreds people to death.

That said, regenerating health is kinda bad too. If you get sufficiently injured you shouldn't be able to just avoid fighting for a bit and be back to full health.