Hut, Hut, Vike: War Of The Vikings Out Now

By Nathan Grayson on April 16th, 2014 at 10:00 am.

If only there were a mode where they removed the pointy tips and just hit each other with sticks until one side was like, 'OK yeah, I've got too many bruises. War is dumb. Let's go home.' Huh, what game? I'm talking about real life.

If history has taught me anything, it’s that Vikings were a complex, multifaceted people splintered into an incredible number of micro-cultures spread far and wide across Europe thanks to extremely versatile wooden longboats. If videogames have taught me anything, it’s that Vikings loved WAAAAAAAAAAAR. War of the Vikings, then, represents the culmination of all my scholarly studies, what with its “historically inspired” Viking Age setting and also maybe an ever-so-slight thumb-and-pinky pinch of WAAAAAAAAAAAAR. It’s already taken its share of licks on Steam Early Access, and now it’s “done,” whatever that actually means anymore.

War of the Vikings is more or less a sequel to War of the Roses, which I actually enjoyed quite a lot back in ye olde day despite a number of rather serious flaws. War of the Vikings, then, is kinda like that only with more refined mouse-based sword-fu (with a dash of Dark Souls, according to Adam) and of course, Vikings.

I think I’ll give this one a download right now, actually. While Chivalry definitely took the medieval warmongering crown (and throne, and complimentary air freshener) last time around, I felt like War of the Roses’ systems were strong, even if the game surrounding them needed a fair amount of work. Who here played the Early Access version? Do you think Fatshark is off to a better start this time?

__________________

« | »

, , .

20 Comments »

  1. Choca says:

    I’m really enjoying the Pitched Battle mode since it forces people to actually play carefully. I’m looking forward to try out the new maps.

  2. guygodbois00 says:

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAR never changes, ‘cept in Unix, of course.

  3. amateurviking says:

    Might be time for me to go pro at last…

  4. Horg says:

    WIT, please.

  5. Graves says:

    I played a quite bit of it in Early Access. I definitely liked it better than WoR. Overall it feels lighter, easier to grasp, and more fun to just play. There is less of an emphasis on armor and weapon type, and the addition of special attacks lends it a sort of…. almost arcadey feel that makes it feel a bit more like a game than a half simulation/half first person swordbiffer. While I sometimes got frustrated in WoR, in Vikings I tended to just shrug off my failures and jump back in the fray (Well, for the most part. There was some shonky hitboxes in the beta I hoped they fixed). Battles tend to be fast paced melees (as opposed to the occasionally far ranging or archer based combat that WoR encouraged, what with good ranged options and cavalry), and the penalties for diying are such that it never really feels like so much of a setback as it is another chance to give it a better go next time. Loadouts are mildly interesting, but lack the depth of WoR- here, its more of a choice between axe or sword, rather than whether you want your claymore to be Toledo or Damascus steel, and armor has less of an impact.

    In terms of game mode, my favorite was the pitched battle mode- Team Deathmatch can be a little too inconsequential for my taste. While it is fun to engage in a little mindless viking-ing, the limitation on lives in the battle mode means that people play much more conservatively, and even getting a single kill feels like a great victory for your team.

    Overall, found the game to be quite fun, and a justifiable purchase. It can feel a little light at times, but I like $25 is a fair price, especially if they make good on their promises for post release support. A caveat, though- I haven’t played it yet since launch, and connection issues forced me to stop playing a month or so ago while it was in beta, so I can’t speak to its current level of polish and completeness.

  6. botty says:

    That jumpy running animation is ridiculous

  7. Jimmy says:

    Oh that such glorious blood simulators would be bathed in first-person realishism. Oh that kingdom come would be completed tomorrow. There is nought more pleasant than splattered remains as one decapitates one’s enemies while scorning their demise. Oh that the first DLC may feature ritualised disembowelment. “HUMILIATION!”

  8. siamezefun says:

    Seemed fine in EarlyAccess ‘xcept for the incredible lack of players playing online. Usually there weren’t more than 2 or 3 servers with any players on them, I seriously hope the situation improves now that the game has gone live.

    But overall the mechanics are satisfying enough, even if not as deep and challenging as Chivalry and it’s definitely more than just a retheme of WotR. Check it out if you’re into vikings, bloodshed, and close quarter brawling with axes and shit.

  9. bstard says:

    Does it has Blood Eagles? Snakepits? Christians?

  10. Eggman says:

    Extra points for mentioning actual history. I don’t get the Hut reference, though? Jabba the Hut?

  11. UncleLou says:

    Everything here appeals to me (just like it did in WotR) – the setting, the combat system, the graphical style and/or engine – except that I wish it was single-player. Think Mount & Blade. :-/

  12. Cinek says:

    I see they improved animations a bit…

    …but they’re still shit.

    Everything looks horribly artificial, there’s no “flow” in character movement or attacks. Which is rather disappointing in a game build around face to face combat.

  13. Turin Turambar says:

    In real life there is a little thing called inertia, which isn’t in this game. That’s why the animations looks so bad and fake.

  14. clumsyandshy says:

    Ouch. That was not a very selling trailer, quite the opposite.
    What little hype i felt before just bounced straight off :(

  15. SuicideKing says:

    “Heavily armoured you say” was totally Yoda.