When I first saw a score of 62 for M&B I was quite surprised. Sure, you can argue that the graphics are outdated (though why one would care about how the enemy looks when in the middle of a 500 man battle is a mystery to me) and some of the icing on the cake isn't there, but when it comes down to it, icing is exactly that- superficial fluff that is smeared off 30 minutes into a game. Still I understand that M&B appeals to a niche audience that appreciates a semblance of realism- something that many fantasy (read "Oblivion", "Rohan", "Tolkien", "mainstream MMO") lovers won't necessarily value.

Despite this, it can't be denied that M&B's gameplay is revolutionary. No other game matches the depth of M&B's battle system while putting the player into the role of just another soldier on the battlefield.

This review makes a number of slanderous remarks while providing no foundation for them- something that my 7th grade English teacher taught me never to do. Please, please, tell us why "the heralded mounted combat is patchy", "The archery is... largely ineffective with large numbers of enemies", "the sword/knife/axe hits are annoyingly random in their effectiveness", and worst of all, how "Mount & Blade is really an anorexic Oblivion set in a budget version of Tolkien’s Rohan", for to compare M&B to a game and novel of an entirely separate genre is an inexcusable travesty.


I urge anyone reading this review to disregard the reviewer's words. It seems that this reviewer has missed out on what M&B has to offer, which is a shame considering that it really is a gem in an industry dominated by fantasy MMOs and their like.