Posts: 98 Location: United States
Mon 01 Apr, 2013 3:42 pm
My opinions concerning "Chivalry: Medieval Warfare" are that the hand-to-hand combat system is better than most video games that have a melee attack in first person. Most games do not really go into the timing aspect of fencing, with parries having to be executed at the right moment and attacks requiring commitment and stamina to execute, and feints being an option. That I do commend because it is executed well. At the same time really silly things, like knights using two-handed weapons in one hand and carrying the heaviest
shields, even though they have the heaviest armor, just irk me. It is one thing to be anachronistic or fantastic, but it is another to just violate common sense. When you have a game that imitates realism then the inaccuracies are harder for me to accept. The melee combat system is a concept that should be experimented with more, but I guess when you're a historical stickler your enjoyment of video games can be a casualty.
By the way Dan, I thought that Ailettes were mainly used between 1290 and 1325. Is that faulty information?