I'm in love with For Honor!!

[Nature Guardian]

I see many people dissing it out.

"Not worth day one purchase", says the guy who blindly preorders any sequel just because of brand name recognition.

"I tried the beta and think I got the full game experience, it'll be repetitive" says the guy with 100+ hours on Overwatch.

Me? I LOVE THIS VIDEOGAME. It feels like something new to me, and I don't know if other games like For Honor exhist but this is the first time I play something like that.

It helps that I'm in love with semi-realistic armours and the female characters are also so well-done.

 

[sXeth]

1)How's the story mode?
2)Has the tutorialization improved so you can be competent in multiplayer without having to research the mechanics out of game?
3)Is their still a microtransaction setup for stat improving gear?
4)Oh and are the classes unlocked to start with on the actual purchased game?

1 would dictate a bit of whether I consider it worth full price or think it should be the 40 dollar model. 2 isn't a deal killer, granted. 3 is basically a death point. 4 is potential nuisance that would add on to negative 1 or 3.

 

[Nature Guardian]

For me this is a perfect example of a game that looks far more fun than it is to actually play. The directional tactics are something that should be a big plus as it's rarely done in games, but like someone else said in another thread it feels like controlling walking refrigerators with weapons stuck to their sides. I can see how it's something that sounded great on paper but implemented in-game it feels too stilted and predictable. The closest analogy I can think of is that they seem to have built the combat system around Simon Says. For me it felt slightly better than controlling a Gears of War character, which isn't good for a tactical melee-focused game.

It kinda got me thinking that I hope to God the new God of War doesn't control like this, as the demo seemed to suggest it might based on animations. But then again, the combat will probably be a lot more free form and stylized. I think the camera system also plays a role here. I understand the cinematic focus being centered on the player character, but not at the expense of playability. The Last of Us worked well enough because it was a TPS with an outstanding melee system, but God of War will probably need a bit more room to breathe.

 

[CritialGaming]

For me this is a perfect example of a game that looks far more fun than it is to actually play. The directional tactics are something that should be a big plus as it's rarely done in games, but like someone else said in another thread it feels like controlling walking refrigerators with weapons stuck to their sides.

That was me! I said that! I love you buddy!

But seriously. For Honor is a bad game. While the movement and the combat style may be entertaining for some people for a little while. I really don't see it having a lasting effect when there are far better games in the arena pvp genre that people can play. Some of which are completely free. Not to mention that the actual modes and maps are boring and rather small.

If For Honor wasn't a 60 dollar game, and was either a budget or F2P game, then maybe it might be worth the short amount of fun you can have with it. But for 60 bucks that game can choke on a bunch of shitty server wires.

 

[Nature Guardian]

^Oh ouch...You certainly live up to your username dear sir!

 

[CritialGaming]

^Oh ouch...You certainly live up to your username dear sir!

I indeed do. I'm just very critical of things that I feel are objectively bad. Everyone is certainly allowed to love a game despite it's faults, much like the OP seems to love this game. But I feel like there are objectively bad things that should never ever be excused in a game.

For Honor has too many of those issues for me.

1. Shit controls. Absolutely trash, unresponsive and slow, this is a hard issue to overcome.
2. Mediocre animations, attacking mooks will yield the same animation every single time with no variation of context.
3. Fucking Microtransactions in a 60 dollar game, that yield gameplay!!!!! You can invest extra money to unlock other characters faster. Which alone is bullshit because that hurts the balance of the game right out of the box. How do you have a class based pvp arena game, but lock some classes behind a grind or a pay wall!? How do you look at that and go, "okay that's balanced"? It'd would be one thing is these transactions were costumes, or skins on weapons or whatever. But actual classes? That's a hard pass.

Now i'm sure a lot of people will over look these things, and might even be able to have fun with the game. And to For Honor's credit, it at least made an effort to have a single player campaign, though like Call of Duty, the single player isn't going to keep anyone invested.

To me...For Honor is a bad game, with almost no redeeming value to it. There are a few good ideas under the surface here, the combat system had the potential to be deep and rewarding, except that the sluggishness of the controls makes executing combos and techniques not nearly as reliable as wildly swinging upon an opponent that you catch from behind. Ambush gameplay is the best way to succeed and that is going to frustrate a lot of people in the team based modes.

Pro tip if you do decide to play: Get friends and run around the map together. Most other teams will be split up trying to handle objectives and you'll more often than not catch one or two people in a 4v1/2 fight and obliterate the enemy team, allowing you to control all the objectives while they just die over and over.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I can see how it's something that sounded great on paper but implemented in-game it feels too stilted and predictable. The closest analogy I can think of is that they seem to have built the combat system around Simon Says. For me it felt slightly better than controlling a Gears of War character, which isn't good for a tactical melee-focused game.

I think they tried to distance themselves from Mount & Blade: Warband, War of the Roses and War of the Vikings. All had a similar system of directional strikes (with stabs as an additional direction) but were really floaty and airy in terms of controls. In those games you could feint a left swing with a two handed sword and immediately switch to a downward chop, which was both ridiculously hard to defend against but also made the animations look spastic. For Honor obviously tried to do away with that floatiness, but instead ended up feeling sluggish and unwieldy.

I will say this about For Honor: I rarely get angry at games, but For Honor found the sweet spot in terms of being engaging, unbalanced and controlling so badly that it made me walk away from a running game in frustration. It is the first game that's made me do that in 15 or so years, so it deserves credit for that. It also means I will never ever play it again.

 

[Nature Guardian]

Release day and still no Meta entries. I'm predicting a sub 80 average, with IGN being the high outlier.

 

[Nature Guardian]

So, I'm the only one who absolutely loves this game? Fine, I knew it was too good to be true. I'll see myself off and enjoy the game.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So whats the length of the single campaign? We talking a good 8 inches err I mean hours or something like Titanfall 2 where I can get it done in a single sitting and its just a feature length demo for the multiplayer, where 99.999% of the development time and 101% of the budget went?

 

[Catfood220]

So, I'm the only one who absolutely loves this game? Fine, I knew it was too good to be true. I'll see myself off and enjoy the game.

Who cares what everyone else thinks? If you enjoy it, then screw everyone else.

I'll be honest, I tried the beta last weekend and I got through the tutorial, thought it wasn't great, but you can't judge a game by a tutorial. Unfortunately that's all I have to go by, because every time I tried to get an online game, it kicked me back out. Don't know if it was the game or my internet connection, but I couldn't be bothered to keep trying it.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

Yeah...I dunno. It looks like one of those games that I'll watch people play to keep from getting bored while exercising. Chivalry was a similar deal, exciting to watch but not something I particularly want to play. Unless it has a decent length single player, in which case I might give it a go on discount.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Yeah...I dunno. It looks like one of those games that I'll watch people play to keep from getting bored while exercising. Chivalry was a similar deal, exciting to watch but not something I particularly want to play. Unless it has a decent length single player, in which case I might give it a go on discount.

Kinda' what I'm waiting for. PVP games hold no appeal for me, so I want to know about the single-player. It only came out today and I'd be very worried if someone had already completed the single player, so maybe its a good thing no one knows how long it is yet...

EDIT: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2017/02/for_honors_single_player_campaign_lasts_around_6_hours

Turns out yeah, its about 5 hours worth of prep for the Multiplayer.
So its safe to write this one off as just another multiplayer $60 DLC laden cash-grab wank.

 

[Zhukov]

"The controls are unresponsive and it does a poor job of visually communicating what is happening," says the guy who liked the character designs but reserved judgment until he tried the beta.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

EDIT: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2017/02/for_honors_single_player_campaign_lasts_around_6_hours

Turns out yeah, its about 5 hours worth of prep for the Multiplayer.
So its safe to write this one off as just another multiplayer $60 DLC laden cash-grab wank.

Yogscast Sjin has put up an hour's worth of the campaign. It has not encouraged me to buy the game.

 

[CaitSeith]

So, beside the semi-realistic armours and the female characters, what is the appeal of this game? Or do you love it because it's an underdog that people you dislike hate? Most of your OP is focused on the later.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So, beside the semi-realistic armours and the female characters, what is the appeal of this game? Or do you love it because it's an underdog that people you dislike hate? Most of your OP is focused on the later.

To be fair, if there was an actual single-player mode, I'd get it. Not now, obviously. Half off minimum. But it doesn't look terrible to play, and I've dealt with poor controls before.
I just wish there was a real single player to it.

 

[CaitSeith]

So, beside the semi-realistic armours and the female characters, what is the appeal of this game? Or do you love it because it's an underdog that people you dislike hate? Most of your OP is focused on the later.

To be fair, if there was an actual single-player mode, I'd get it. Not now, obviously. Half off minimum. But it doesn't look terrible to play, and I've dealt with poor controls before.
I just wish there was a real single player to it.

I'm not a big fan of MP-only games (main reason I don't play Overwatch). But if it's really good, I may give it a try (I tried WoW for a month, after all).

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

The thing I enjoyed about WOW was I could solo for a very long time. No need for groups or guilds or raids.