For Honor (PC/PS4/XB1)



  • @DMCMaster
    Yeah, I can't say when they announced it, because I just saw it listed on that site co optimus back in September, but here's the article I found today from October about it being dropped.
    http://www.polygon.com/2016/10/5/13174778/for-honor-cancels-split-screen-polish-ubisoft



  • They also canceled the offline single player campaign. That's the one that irked me.



  • @TokyoSlim Wait, what? Why is the single player online?



  • @Inustar
    “We can confirm that For Honor is an always online experience. Some elements of progression, which is hosted online, are shared across story and multiplayer modes,” an Ubisoft spokesperson told PCGamesN.

    “Players will need to be connected to the Internet at all times to play For Honor.”

    This appears to be a new thing, as the game’s Steam and Uplay pages both previously advertised an “offline campaign”. These references have been updated since the news broke.



  • Aka the entire game is a game within a game. To even play, first you have to roll a D20 to see if Uplay is even up. :p



  • @TokyoSlim okay, well this makes me want the game less. I completely understand it for the multiplayer, obviously, but my single player campaign shouldn't have to be online. I hate when they limit my play like this. If my Internet goes down, which granted isn't often, I won't be able to play at all.
    Along with the couch co op, the single player campaign was the only other thing really making me want this immediately.

    But to avoid being a "negative nancy", the game really does look great, and I did like the fighting a bit. It's certainly a game I'll pick up when it's cheaper.



  • Several server issues, game client crashes....

    I know it's a beta but this is worrying me.



  • @ZyloWolfBane yeah it certainly doesn't instill confidence and ubisofts history doesn't either....



  • @Paper-Lion I didn't mean to sound so negative... I think you're probably right in that I wasn't giving it a fair chance and it is a beta after all. It's hard to know exactly what to think. I do want to give it the benefit of the doubt but ubisoft lost my trust a long time ago so perhaps the criticism stems from there I'm not sure.
    In any case I do wonder if the fighting is going to have more depth to it. While I certainly haven't come close to being good at it, it does feel like you can see the bottom of the ocean floor if that makes sense and that has me worried that once you "git gud" there won't be much left to discover



  • @Mango said in For Honor:

    @ZyloWolfBane yeah it certainly doesn't instill confidence and ubisofts history doesn't either....

    I mean moments like this make it all great

    But yeah, I expect a very messy launch at this rate. What I hate in particular is I'll win 2v1 or 3v1 and then people leave, which then closes the match.

    And then if you're in a party, every so often when the match has an error, it'll mess up the party where both people think they're in a party but on the other person's screen it doesn't show them, and if the leader joins a match when this happens it kicks everyone else out. The only solution I've found is that everyone has to close the game and reload it in order for invites to work properly again.

    But yeah....so many server issues and client crashes tonight, granted this is what the beta is for, but this is a limited invite situation and it's borked NOW, how is it going to improve that drastically in the next 3 weeks?



  • @Paper-Lion said in For Honor:

    Well aren't you all a bunch of negative nancies? :D

    I think the game doesn't focus on the strengths it has.
    The game was not built or designed for a singleplayer campaign, it was not designed for big battles (even 4v4 is too big and mostly just results in gank squads), the individual heroes all feel like generic soldiers (lacking personality and charm).

    I think they should've focused on the duel aspect more and if anything make it a bit more like a fighting game. By that I mean focus more on the 1v1 and 2v2 stuff and drop stuff like the "domination" style mode entirely. They should've given each hero a stronger personality (for example TF2 each are generic soldier classes, but they all have a distinct personality).
    Right now it feels like the game lacks direction and soul.



  • @suplextrain Maybe that's just a matter of getting used to them. Because to me, they all have very distinct personalities and playstyles. If you're just learning how to play the game and only doing the basic block and light/heavy attack, then yeah, they're all pretty similar, but that's hard to do anything about, since they all essentially have bladed melee weapons. It's not like in TF2 where you have rocket launchers and flamethrowers.

    I played warden the first alpha and now I'm playing nobushi, and it's a vastly different experience. I'd probably agree that what I'm playing right now isn't a $60 game, but having seen some of the singleplayer stuff, it looks fun, and it's not like the Beta is a demo for the game. You have to keep in mind that a lot of stuff is missing, one class for each faction, a ton of maps, and game modes.

    I see the Beta less as the main meal, and more as an appetizer.



  • @Paper-Lion said in For Honor:

    @suplextrain Maybe that's just a matter of getting used to them. Because to me, they all have very distinct personalities and playstyles. If you're just learning how to play the game and only doing the basic block and light/heavy attack, then yeah, they're all pretty similar, but that's hard to do anything about, since they all essentially have bladed melee weapons. It's not like in TF2 where you have rocket launchers and flamethrowers.

    I played the Alpha and Beta, I watched and studied the vidoes and movesets. I'm aware each hero is nuanced, but beyond having different gimmicks they all generally play the same. You block/attack in 3 directions.
    Also with the TF2 comparison I meant that each hero should have an actual personality. As it stands they mostly just grunt and have maybe 1-2 short voicelines.

    I'd probably agree that what I'm playing right now isn't a $60 game, but having seen some of the singleplayer stuff, it looks fun, and it's not like the Beta is a demo for the game. You have to keep in mind that a lot of stuff is missing, one class for each faction, a ton of maps, and game modes.

    But the things you mentioned being added to the full game doesn't really fix any of the issues the game has. I mean the SP might be ok but that's hardly a selling point. This is designed as a MP game, the SP is only there to add value. Another generic hero doesn't fix the problems the existing ones have. More maps are neat, but it's as big of a deal as they should be (this is not UT or something here).
    More game modes will in my mind do very little. I mean what modes can you add that will be fun to play in a game designed aaround duels? I can already do without the existing Domination mode.

    I see the Beta less as the main meal, and more as an appetizer.

    Sure, but I see that this game has issues and I fear that these issues will keep people from buying the game. Resulting in the game underperforming. Considering that it's a bit of a daring new IP it would be a shame.

    So this isn't me calling the game shit here, but me being worried that because of some bad design choices the game will sell poorly.
    There's nothing I'd like more than unique new IPs doing well. This is why I for example really hope that Gravity Rush 2 sells well enough because it deserves it.



  • I agree with the generic feel the game has from the intro movie to basically every other aspect of the game. Doesn't help bringing in any personality when the game is so serious. Reminds me of 2010 game Deadliest Warrior though that was more in fighting game style and mostly forgetable. I hope this ends up being fun game, I've waited for it long time and the concept is pretty good, but now it looks like a big old seven to me.



  • I wish the best for this title. If successful, a sequel can build on that to improve any shortcomings.



  • Loved the Alpha, love the Beta, picking up the full game at launch. The expected server issues aside, I'm having a grand old time.

    I consider For Honor to be really similar to, wait for it......Super Smash Bros. Both vastly lower the skill floor of a fighting game while retaining a high (but not as high) skill ceiling. There are no combos to memorize, no complex button inputs to execute for special moves, none of these things that make fighting games really hard to get in and enjoy at a low level. For Honor is really easy to learn how to play, and after the 10 minute tutorial you can hop into a 4v4 lobby and have some fun.

    The more you play, the better you can get. You start to not just block, but parry and dodge. You learn when is the best time to do each of those evasive maneuvers. You use the short, character-specific combos. You feint attacks. You learn match-ups, since each character is unique. For example, you eventually learn how risky it is to attack a Warden with a top attack because she can counter-hit you, so you stop doing them. But then when you get even better you use the fact that you shouldn't attack a Warden with a top to use a top to get a hit in that she won't be expecting. Stuff like that.

    The skill ceiling isn't Street Fighter levels or anything, but I appreciate how it takes the core of the fighting games, distills it to its essence, and wraps it in a a solid, casual package.

    Criticism though: I really think the stance UI was a bad design decision. You spend time entirely focusing on the two indicators in the center of the screen rather than the characters themselves. If you want to be really cynical, you can say For Honor is just a glorified QTE, with you responding to a flash of red in a direction rather than the actual enemy themself.



  • Game is definitely growing on me. It's fun. You just have to play with other characters to keep it interesting. Played little with Peacekeeper and I actually started to dodge some :)

    @Galaxy40k said in For Honor:

    For example, you eventually learn how risky it is to attack a Warden with a top attack because she can counter-hit you, so you stop doing them. But then when you get even better you use the fact that you shouldn't attack a Warden with a top to use a top to get a hit in that she won't be expecting. Stuff like that.

    I've been playing mostly with Warden and at least the characters that I've played against it's almost equally risky for them to attack him from the sides if your opponent is good at parrying because even though Warden gets that auto heavy hit if he parries with light attack against attacks coming from up also his second light attack to sides always hits if the first hit. So he is basically deadly parrying machine. I played the character just parrying and counter guard breaking. Parry right time and you get guaranteed heavy hit worth of damage and you can do that on reaction if you train enough.

    Criticism though: I really think the stance UI was a bad design decision. You spend time entirely focusing on the two indicators in the center of the screen rather than the characters themselves. If you want to be really cynical, you can say For Honor is just a glorified QTE, with you responding to a flash of red in a direction rather than the actual enemy themself.

    Yeah. Like the flashing parry indicator need not be there.



  • I would just like to say, I'm pretty good at swords. I feel like I'd be ok if this game was real life.



  • @TokyoSlim legit? What have you trained with?



  • @Mango Well, its more comfort, familiarity, and physical adroitness with bladed weapons than formal training in any particular style. Also, just in case I ever have to sword fight any of you - I'm not going to tell you how I roll. :p

    I like how you are asking to see to see my sword diploma though. lol