Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I'm just arguing against the people who claim it to be dead.
And eSport's success isn't determined by the amount of players who participate, but by the amount of viewers who will watch it.
And people love team sports.
Seriously? Definitvely not! I haven´t even played Chivalry (my brother does) but I played Dark Souls 2 and it is nothing like Chivalry, it is first of all mainly single player before you can even begin to play pvp, second of all it´s a simply terrible port and not even that much of a good game (it´s not bad of course as well) but if you want to play dark souls better the third one than the second...
because its medieval. but for honor isnt even medieval.
yes.
havent seen so many games that offers the same amount of control/good enough to match chivalry that isnt the style that dar souls and other games is.
war of the roses was good, and its free to play with some pay 2 play options added recently what ive heard
Please go face Barace, and then tell me if it take zero skill.
altough with peacekeeper you can be braindead enough to take down anyone