Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

For Honor - Endless War - Robert Lashley at MMORPG.com

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
edited February 2017 in News & Features Discussion

imageFor Honor - Endless War - Robert Lashley at MMORPG.com

Not sure what to expect Rob jumped into the For Honor Beta. He survived long enough to send back this report.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


«1

Comments

  • BillMurphyBillMurphy Former Managing EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 4,565
    I feel pretty much the same way about this game. I could see it dominating streams and steam charts if it was F2P and had more people in fights. As it is, it's very strange that this small scale PVP game is selling for $60.

    Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.

    My Review Manifesto
    Follow me on Twitter if you dare.

  • CopperfieldCopperfield Member RarePosts: 654
    give this game 2/3 months like the division..

    all hype nothing more..

    after seeing the twicht streams you fall asleep due to its boring gameplay
  • bamwallabamwalla Member UncommonPosts: 221
    The 4v4 needs some work. The duel and 2v2 is where the action is. Action is decent, controls are convoluted and overly complex -- and not complex at all at the same time. odd. Once you master blocking and a couple of combos you could beat most anyone. Then what? "For Dress-up (tm)" ? $60 is absurd for a PC arena fighter on Steam. Single player is coming and yet with less than two weeks till it goes live and it hasn't been tested on a large scale. There are heroes that are undergoing so much tweaking (lol phrasing) that they aren't even being made available. I see very creative game developers being hampered by decisions out of their control.
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,671


    I feel pretty much the same way about this game. I could see it dominating streams and steam charts if it was F2P and had more people in fights. As it is, it's very strange that this small scale PVP game is selling for $60.



    I agree with you and Robert on the price tag. 40$ maybe. This game might end up suffering the same fate as Battleborn.
  • GrakulenGrakulen Staff WriterMMORPG.COM Staff LegendaryPosts: 894
    I could see this trying to get some $60 box sales while it can and then quickly transitioning F2P.
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,671
    Grakulen said:
    I could see this trying to get some $60 box sales while it can and then quickly transitioning F2P.
    Seems like a Battleborn vs Paladins situation to me with this since Tiger Knight is pretty similar to this game, at least from a general gamer perspective.
  • FelixMajorFelixMajor Member RarePosts: 865

    Grakulen said:

    I could see this trying to get some $60 box sales while it can and then quickly transitioning F2P.



    Exactly my thoughts.

    Originally posted by Arskaaa
    "when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".

  • VolgoreVolgore Member EpicPosts: 3,872
    To me it looks like one of these titles that you play for one or two evenings and then realise how incredibly restricted it is.
    From there the repetition sets in and you put it away to "give it another go some time later on...", but never really get in the mood to do so.

    Imagine this game had 50vs50 on a giant map, ranged classes, siege, etc...

    image
  • tawesstawess Member EpicPosts: 4,227
    Well i am in a hurry so i leave my thoughts as spoken words.

    This have been a good conversation

  • BizkitNLBizkitNL Member RarePosts: 2,546
    The duel mode is going to keep me quite busy.
    10
  • LackingMMOLackingMMO Member RarePosts: 664
    I did the beta, while I liked the combat, the matchmaking was bad and really hindered my experience for 4v4 or even 2v2. 1v1 was fun though and 4v4 against AI was still fun. But as said above just way too little for a $60 mark. I honestly could see this game selling for $25 at max. Chivalry is similar also, just a little bigger scale. The combat isn't AS good as FH but the scale of the game, the match type and map size are better and bigger.
  • bamwallabamwalla Member UncommonPosts: 221
    As much as it pains me to say it. F2P with a no-combat-benefit cosmetic shop... ouch, oh that hurt... gimme a second... probably would have netted them a lot more cash and a lot more players.
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,772
    Looking forward to open beta next weekend. Not sure what everyone's talking about with the repetitive stuff- that's the point of pvp- it doesn't get old. Especially skill based pvp like this game- every opponent is different and they will purposefully try to "mix it up" against you.

    $60 is really pricey but nobody knows what the single player campaigns are like.

    There hasn't been a skill-based melee combat game like this, that I'm aware of. Some similar games but none recently.
  • Entris38Entris38 Member UncommonPosts: 401
    Very limited details on the single player campaign. They should give a piece of that with open beta. Single player campaign would have to be 20ish hours for this to be worth 60. I was very excited for it, until I played beta.....
    Oh and p2p servers....yuck.......why no dedicated servers??
  • DairiosDairios Member UncommonPosts: 22

    Entris38 said:

    Very limited details on the single player campaign. They should give a piece of that with open beta. Single player campaign would have to be 20ish hours for this to be worth 60. I was very excited for it, until I played beta.....

    Oh and p2p servers....yuck.......why no dedicated servers??



    Most Single-Player Action games rarely have a campaign over 8 hours, and sell for $60. They're a combo Single/Multiplayer game with Campaign and PvP options, and have been like this for years. I don't know why people are only just getting up in arms about this now - this has been the trend since 2007. And yes, it would be nice if campaigns were 20 hours or so - but we've given the industry the message that "all is well" for 10 years now. Outside of RPG's it'll be hard to push for more than single-sitting campaign plays.

    As for the game itself, I actually enjoyed For Honor a fair amount. Viking Raider was a lot of fun to play, though I mostly played Knight. I'm interested to see if the game will receive expansions and additional classes over time, maybe even large scale War Modes that take place on a massive battlefield - I'd be all over that.
  • BoltonsquadBoltonsquad Member UncommonPosts: 403
    I pre-ordered the game for £38, I think for £38 it's definitely worth it's price tag however it all comes down to how competitive you are.
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,100
    edited February 2017


    I feel pretty much the same way about this game. I could see it dominating streams and steam charts if it was F2P and had more people in fights. As it is, it's very strange that this small scale PVP game is selling for $60.


    Surely no stranger than Overwatch, CoD etc?

    I also have the feeling that the PVE "campaign" won't be very good, so I wouldn't get my hopes up for that. Imo they should have just concentrated resources into further fleshing out the pvp. 
    ....
  • Shoko_LiedShoko_Lied Member UncommonPosts: 2,193
    edited February 2017
    The general attitude of this thread sums up my thoughts of the game pretty well. Not worth my cash. There's plenty of F2P titles out there that have more to offer, and the games take on combat isn't completely fresh.

    Jedi Academy, Blade Symphony, Chivalry, & even Assassins Creed all come to mind for various similarities to FH's combat mechanics. And yet somehow, the combat feels clunkier (static combat animations) in FH than even an older Arena fighting game like Jedi Academy.
  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member EpicPosts: 2,556
    The other game Ubisoft recently put out Might & Magic: Showdown is pretty fun for the $19.99 price tag and kind of revived my faith in their company so I'll prob try this out.

  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,100
    give this game 2/3 months like the division..

    all hype nothing more..

    after seeing the twicht streams you fall asleep due to its boring gameplay
    It is one of the most engrossing games I have ever played. The strategic combat, amazing animations, sound, graphics, and overall atmosphere create a level of immersion and tension that I haven't felt in a game for quite a while. 




    ....
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    YashaX said:
    give this game 2/3 months like the division..

    all hype nothing more..

    after seeing the twicht streams you fall asleep due to its boring gameplay
    It is one of the most engrossing games I have ever played. The strategic combat, amazing animations, sound, graphics, and overall atmosphere create a level of immersion and tension that I haven't felt in a game for quite a while. 




    How does it's combat/playability stack up against Chivalry and Mount and blade? 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DenambrenDenambren Member UncommonPosts: 399
    This game is one of the greatest fighting games I've played in a really long time. It isn't a traditional fighter like Street Fighter or Virtua Fighter, but plays closer to something like Bushido Blade (old title) or Oni (if Oni had PvP). I played the 1v1 duels nearly non stop for three days, staying up until 9am on a Saturday night.

    When compared to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, For Honor is clearly superior in graphics and animation, but For Honor is focused more on 1v1 duels than group battling. I find that Chivalry: Medieval Warfare does a better job of handling groups in a battle, with sweeping strikes that cleave through multiple foes at the same time in an intuitive way. In For Honor, you actually need to "lock on" to your primary target, and then can hit additional targets based on what you do vs the primary target. This actually doesn't work that well, mostly because the whole engine seems to have been built from the ground up with 1v1 in mind. There's all kinds of actions and counters you can do in 1v1, but your strategic options vs groups are limited to blocking, and activating your universal AoE ability hoping to hit people around you. In Chivalry: Medieval Warfare you can custom guide each choice of swing to perfectly cater to whatever group scenario you're facing, at the perfect angle needed for both defense and offense vs what's happening right in front of you. This makes For Honor feel inferior to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare from a group combat perspective, and it's why I think the Dominion mode in For Honor doesn't do a great job of demonstrating the strengths of this game.

    With that said, the 1v1 dueling is AMAZING. The subtlety of timings, variety of attacks, stance system, combos, environmental usage, staggers, stamina, are all great. I am so impressed with this game. I feel it will have great longevity for fighting game fans out there, and for people who played games like Chivalry: Medieval Warfare but were more interested in 1v1 duels. The variety of weapon styles is fantastic, and each character feels very different than the other. It's the kind of game that I personally don't get too upset at when losing a game, because you feel you're always learning as you keep playing. If you lost a game, it's easy to see it's because you have more to learn, rather than because some guy keeps spamming Akuma fireballs while jumping backwards, with no actual mechanics available to counter the cheese strategy other than crawling forward inch by inch, parry after parry, until Akuma teleports to other side of the stage (Street Fighter series).

    Also worth mentioning is that the game has no frame cap on PC (was running at 120 fps in the 1v1 duels, and 70-120 fps in Dominion), and I never ran into a bug through all three days of constant play. There is also an INCREDIBLE bot system where you can train against bots at different difficulty levels. It is very helpful to train against bots when you first start playing, to practice all kinds of techniques, and then you can go out to face real players. The bots are available in all the game modes, as well, so if you like 1v1 or Dominion, bots are available for both modes and have good intelligence. The highest level bot is actually challenging to face.

    Regarding microtransactions, there aren't any that I saw in the beta. You can purchase boxes of random items for your characters with in-game currency that you generate when playing, but no mention of actual real purchases. The items are for Dominion mode, and always have a positive and negative effect in equal measure. I.e. a chest piece that adds faster stamina recovery will equally detract from damage reduction when blocking hits on the stat bar shown in-game. After playing the beta I got about 60 items to drop in three days without "buying" a single loot chest with the in-game currency (they randomly drop after playing matches), but I don't play Dominion much so the item stats don't mean much to me. The items drop in all game modes and can be worn in 1v1 for cosmetic purposes, so I was mostly interested in the item drops for customizing the look of my character.

    My assessment of the game is based on three days of beta, with a focus on playing 1v1 duel mode. It's possible that I might learn to love Dominion more after understanding more about the game mechanics, but this has been my current experience. Right now I'd recommend the game to fighting game fans, and fans of 1v1 duels in games like Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. I feel that this game is a real gem, and it would take a really good game for me to tolerate both Ubisoft and Uplay.
  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 8,061
    edited February 2017
    Albatroes said:


    I feel pretty much the same way about this game. I could see it dominating streams and steam charts if it was F2P and had more people in fights. As it is, it's very strange that this small scale PVP game is selling for $60.



    I agree with you and Robert on the price tag. 40$ maybe. This game might end up suffering the same fate as Battleborn.
    Nothing on the market to immediately overshadow it. While Battleborn was snuffed out by a foolhardy release against steep competition, For Honor rises or falls on its own merits. Considering the general rough edges of its competition (Chivalry and Tiger Knight), we aren't looking at the same situation at all.
  • LeiloniLeiloni Member RarePosts: 1,266

    Volgore said:

    To me it looks like one of these titles that you play for one or two evenings and then realise how incredibly restricted it is.

    From there the repetition sets in and you put it away to "give it another go some time later on...", but never really get in the mood to do so.



    Imagine this game had 50vs50 on a giant map, ranged classes, siege, etc...






    The repetition and limited gameplay in a lot of games is why I can only really PvP in MMORPG's.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,183
    Denambren said:
    This game is one of the greatest fighting games I've played in a really long time. It isn't a traditional fighter like Street Fighter or Virtua Fighter, but plays closer to something like Bushido Blade (old title) or Oni (if Oni had PvP). I played the 1v1 duels nearly non stop for three days, staying up until 9am on a Saturday night.

    When compared to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, For Honor is clearly superior in graphics and animation, but For Honor is focused more on 1v1 duels than group battling. I find that Chivalry: Medieval Warfare does a better job of handling groups in a battle, with sweeping strikes that cleave through multiple foes at the same time in an intuitive way. In For Honor, you actually need to "lock on" to your primary target, and then can hit additional targets based on what you do vs the primary target. This actually doesn't work that well, mostly because the whole engine seems to have been built from the ground up with 1v1 in mind. There's all kinds of actions and counters you can do in 1v1, but your strategic options vs groups are limited to blocking, and activating your universal AoE ability hoping to hit people around you. In Chivalry: Medieval Warfare you can custom guide each choice of swing to perfectly cater to whatever group scenario you're facing, at the perfect angle needed for both defense and offense vs what's happening right in front of you. This makes For Honor feel inferior to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare from a group combat perspective, and it's why I think the Dominion mode in For Honor doesn't do a great job of demonstrating the strengths of this game.


    My assessment of the game is based on three days of beta, with a focus on playing 1v1 duel mode. It's possible that I might learn to love Dominion more after understanding more about the game mechanics, but this has been my current experience. Right now I'd recommend the game to fighting game fans, and fans of 1v1 duels in games like Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. I feel that this game is a real gem, and it would take a really good game for me to tolerate both Ubisoft and Uplay.
    If that was toward my question, thanks a lot for the great informative answer. :)

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


Sign In or Register to comment.