Chivalry: Medieval Warfare Gets A Beefy Free Update

12 responses to “Chivalry: Medieval Warfare Gets A Beefy Free Update”

1. 

   crazyguy1990

   February 1, 2013 at 8:55 am

   Oh, hell yes!
   \o/

   Reply
2. 

   Andre

   February 1, 2013 at 9:12 am

   Excellent…

   I’m pleased about this.
   Good thing it’s the weekend, too.

   Reply
3. 

   mcgarnical

   February 1, 2013 at 9:27 am

   So they’re officially including duel mode? That’s a great way to play but since it was unofficial it led to loads of anger on the servers it was being played on when people didnt know the rules.

   Reply
4. 

   brent3000

   February 1, 2013 at 9:29 am

   Needs better server manager IMO

   Should be a nice update tho 😀 more blood !!!!

   Reply
5. 

   trex

   February 1, 2013 at 9:39 am

   Looks like I’ll have to don the armour this weekend

   Reply
6. 

   woods

   February 1, 2013 at 9:42 am

   I’ve been keen to check this out huh, but I’ve also had my eye on War of the Roses. Having loved Mount & Blade, what’s some opinions on the two? I’ve heard Chivalry is a bit easier to get into?

   Reply
   1. 

      puck

      February 1, 2013 at 10:08 am

      Chivalry is awesome. Smaller maps than Mount & Blade, and obviously no horse combat, but a focus on really tight melee combat. It’s very visceral – rushing into battle shouting a battle cry and engaging another playing in a clash of swords in Chivalry is the closest I imagine you can feel to real battle short of LARPing. The tutorials are good and I found it very easy to get into.

      Reply
   2. 

      Burnside

      February 1, 2013 at 11:52 am

      Wars of the Roses is the better medieval combat ‘simulator’ with a lot more options for customisation. Chivalry is Wars of the Roses for CoD players. Wars of the Roses has a mild mannered community, Chivalry has plenty of trash talking 12 year old douchebags.

      Reply
   3. 

      Bob

      February 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm

      Totalbiscuit did a good comparison. War of roses is a good third person combat simulator but actual combat has alot to be desired is just hit hit hit until health drops to zero where as Chivalry has satisfying combat and is first person, and knowing when you hit someones head with a sword its going to decapitate them.

      Reply
   4. 

      Toasty Fresh

      February 1, 2013 at 10:43 pm

      Have played both extensively. I originally had played a lot of Mount and Blade, and was very hyped for WoTR (and was actually sceptical of Chivalry), but was sorely disappointed on release. It has a lot of balancing issues, feels way more sluggish than M&B, and is quite buggy. Chivalry on the other hand has a lot of players, and is brilliant in a lot of different ways.

      Chivalry is the superior game, although WoTR is more similar to M&B.

      Reply
7. 

   yrrnn

   February 1, 2013 at 10:12 am

   Good for them. The basic idea of the game was very appealing, but the lack of “professional” polish kind of deterred me from playing once I bought the game – on video it looks great, but when you get closer and play it yourself, it looks and feels like a game made by students (albeit very talented ones) who haven’t really had proper industry experience other than making the mod. I think this game has been consistently in the top 10 on Steam, up there with Arma 2, so hopefully the new flow of cash Torn Banner are starting to see means they can hire a couple of veterans to help polish things up a bit more.

   Reply
8. 

   Wayno@War

   February 1, 2013 at 8:22 pm

   This has just made my day.

   I enjoy dying in Chivalry.

   Reply