War of the Roses is modest and pared-down, then - but it offers a challenging, chaotic and sometimes comic take on multiplayer. It's an innovative game and I'd like to see it succeed, I'd like to see it grow and, quite honestly, I'd like to see it turn into an eSport.

Quotation forthcoming.

An interesting medieval action game with a very good combat system (except for a rather primitive mounted combat) which is more refined than its counterpart in Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. [CD-Action 13/2012, p.62]

War of the Roses is a solid multiplayer experience blessed by fresh and funny combat system and doomed by lack of multiplayer modes. There is a single player too, but it's so thin that it's almost invisible.

A complicated game mechanics title that's obviously suited for gamers in love with medieval battles. If it is your love, you will clench your teeth and the gameplay will reward you with a fantastic atmosphere and a rich experience. The game's variations are few, so it is basically two groups of fighters slitting each others throats. Nonetheless, expanding the gameplay experience is a likelihood.

Some will like this game, some won't. Fans of Warband will be excited by the multiplayer, but sandbox lovers won't find anything here. Mount & Blade players will appreciate much better graphics, but others won't be impressed. Ethusiasts of intuitive swordfights will welcome the simple fighting system, but slasher veterans will most likely be bored. The key thing is the future - the amount of active players will decide about the game's success or failure. The biggest problem is lack of free-to-play gaming model, but still there's some potential and I quite like it.

War of the Roses is a game I desperately want to like more than I do. It's the end product of so many high-quality pieces, but unfortunately it fails to really pull everything together.