1) The idiotic decision to use peer to peer instead of dedicated servers. If you're going to charge $60 for a game, being a cheap POS is not acceptable. I would be willing to pay $60 if the game actually worked properly, but with P2P it simply doesn't. I would not buy the game on a Steam sale in its current state, much less pre-order.
2) Many classes are too simplistic only having 2 or 3 special moves. It makes them a newbie intro class that nobody will play after that unless they have something brokenly good. It will ultimately push everyone into the 3 classes that have a lot of variety and the high skill cap that comes with them and the other 9 classes will rot.
3) Dominion has the same problems as GW2 conquest. Standing on a point playing with yourself is friggin boring but you have to stand there because the enemy will back cap you the instant you leave. The central point with the minions that have to be pushed back to cap is a much better design that keeps the player engaged.
I played this game during closed beta last week. I am now the proud owner of a gold edition pre-order. I can't wait for it to come out. I played it a solid 30 hours over the span of 3 days. If you haven't tried it try it between the 9th and 12th. There is nothing like this game on the market. It may seem like there is from the perspective of someone watching a stream, but what makes this game so great is the actual gameplay. You will not be able to appreciate what is great about this game by watching a stream.
rather play a few rounds of CS:GO than this game tbh, nothing about it grabbed me and the numbers involved were just too low to make it interesting, either way the game needs proper servers if its going to be anything more than 1 v 1, also understand that the game is going to have a cash shop, not the best move for a $60 game, could suffer the no mans sky effect, over priced for what you get.
I don't understand the price tag argument. They spend quite a large budget to design and create a game what it is. Believe me, the combat, the physics, the animations--not a small task--if you think it is, how come other devs couldn't pull off anything like this?
If you like this sorta game--PvP--then you'll be spending many hours in it. Much more to justify the price tag. If you don't like PvP, then it's not about the price tag.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
It's more an arcade game if you take the 1v1 like SF or Tekken and for this it's quit good.
And the pace of combat is as slow as it needs to.
Unfortunately there are only 9 fighters.
I can see the game making a competition to most arcade games if the area of combat wouldn' change so randomly.
Now if it were large scall persistent battles faring between 3 factions over territory control like Planet side, I'd be in!
No thanks. From what I've seen, the game is decently chaotic but still maintains skill-based combat. I really don't see the appeal of creating a mass clusterfuck when your niche is skill-based pvp. That's why I really don't get comments like "Man, for $60 we should be able to do 20 vs 20 at least". Basically it seems everyone is clamering for yet another pvp game where all that matters is how many people are in your zerg ball.
In this thread there's a post from someone that had fun dueling his friend for 9 hours. What you're proposing is taking that practice and making it totally irrelevant because you can't block or react to 10 people attacking you.
Now if it were large scall persistent battles faring between 3 factions over territory control like Planet side, I'd be in!
No thanks. From what I've seen, the game is decently chaotic but still maintains skill-based combat. I really don't see the appeal of creating a mass clusterfuck when your niche is skill-based pvp. That's why I really don't get comments like "Man, for $60 we should be able to do 20 vs 20 at least". Basically it seems everyone is clamering for yet another pvp game where all that matters is how many people are in your zerg ball.
In this thread there's a post from someone that had fun dueling his friend for 9 hours. What you're proposing is taking that practice and making it totally irrelevant because you can't block or react to 10 people attacking you.
I have to agree with this. Though I will say that I wish factions were more meaningful. Being able to play as a Viking while representing Samurai does kill the immersion a bit.
Personally, I would have liked to see 4 v 4 v 4 with locked factions but equivalent/similar classes on every faction.
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.
That was a really good answer, pretty much nails it.
I would just add that I found the 4vs4 to be some of the most fun small group pvp I have played as well. Its hard to describe why without going into massive detail, but its a combination of a lot of things- map sizes, time to cap points, respawn mechanic, win conditions, ability to use the environment to your advantage, TTK is not too long or short, everything is pretty balanced, etc. Feel like I have more impact on a game than in say Chivalry.
How odd the marketing world is.
This game instantly is number 2 on Twitch with all the top streamers who were just playing Nioh now playing For Honor.
Pretty obvious really,the streamers are given free copies and in turn they endorse/advert the product.If the streamers actually liked these games they would play them more than 1-2 days but they don't
Watching a fair bit on twitch is doesn't look fun at all to me.Stand out in the open and swing a weapon at each other.It also really looks like using a shield is a big advantage.
I personally think the combat like so many of these is just bad.The weapon swings are sort of slowish and telegraphed to make blocking easier.
However the issue i have is the fake rendition of how combat really would be.
Example dude has a Pike which is longer than a sword.If i was using a pike i would be using it to stab and stay out of range of the sword,i wouldn't be swinging it like a sword.As well i highly doubt i would be stupid enough to challenge someone with just a sword when they have a shield lol.Nor would i just stand out in the open and leave it up to a bit of luck and timing,nope i would be looking for some tactical advantage.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
How odd the marketing world is.
This game instantly is number 2 on Twitch with all the top streamers who were just playing Nioh now playing For Honor.
Pretty obvious really,the streamers are given free copies and in turn they endorse/advert the product.If the streamers actually liked these games they would play them more than 1-2 days but they don't
Watching a fair bit on twitch is doesn't look fun at all to me.Stand out in the open and swing a weapon at each other.It also really looks like using a shield is a big advantage.
I personally think the combat like so many of these is just bad.The weapon swings are sort of slowish and telegraphed to make blocking easier.
However the issue i have is the fake rendition of how combat really would be.
Example dude has a Pike which is longer than a sword.If i was using a pike i would be using it to stab and stay out of range of the sword,i wouldn't be swinging it like a sword.As well i highly doubt i would be stupid enough to challenge someone with just a sword when they have a shield lol.Nor would i just stand out in the open and leave it up to a bit of luck and timing,nope i would be looking for some tactical advantage.
The problem with your argument is that the pole weapons in this game are, in fact, slashing weapons like naginatas and poleaxes. Also, range advantages do exist in this game.
And realism is never an argument. People can randomly trip in battle in real life. People can pull muscles. People can, and probably will, die in one hit from a sword. These things are not fun in gameplay. Artistic license is a good thing and exists for a reason.
I'll just reiterate what everyone else is saying for the most part. Fun game, Gets boring quick, yet addictive, feels like something is missing, NO WAY WORTH 60 Bucks!!!
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.
Isn't that a fantastic game? To be honest i think the combat is trash but collecting and painting your mini's is a blast, I doubt that crowd that plays for honor would like showdown but great game
Comments
1) The idiotic decision to use peer to peer instead of dedicated servers. If you're going to charge $60 for a game, being a cheap POS is not acceptable. I would be willing to pay $60 if the game actually worked properly, but with P2P it simply doesn't. I would not buy the game on a Steam sale in its current state, much less pre-order.
2) Many classes are too simplistic only having 2 or 3 special moves. It makes them a newbie intro class that nobody will play after that unless they have something brokenly good. It will ultimately push everyone into the 3 classes that have a lot of variety and the high skill cap that comes with them and the other 9 classes will rot.
3) Dominion has the same problems as GW2 conquest. Standing on a point playing with yourself is friggin boring but you have to stand there because the enemy will back cap you the instant you leave. The central point with the minions that have to be pushed back to cap is a much better design that keeps the player engaged.
If you like this sorta game--PvP--then you'll be spending many hours in it. Much more to justify the price tag. If you don't like PvP, then it's not about the price tag.
And the pace of combat is as slow as it needs to.
Unfortunately there are only 9 fighters.
I can see the game making a competition to most arcade games if the area of combat wouldn' change so randomly.
Now if it were large scall persistent battles faring between 3 factions over territory control like Planet side, I'd be in!
Originally posted by Arskaaa
"when players learned tacticks in dungeon/raids, its bread".
No thanks. From what I've seen, the game is decently chaotic but still maintains skill-based combat. I really don't see the appeal of creating a mass clusterfuck when your niche is skill-based pvp. That's why I really don't get comments like "Man, for $60 we should be able to do 20 vs 20 at least". Basically it seems everyone is clamering for yet another pvp game where all that matters is how many people are in your zerg ball. In this thread there's a post from someone that had fun dueling his friend for 9 hours. What you're proposing is taking that practice and making it totally irrelevant because you can't block or react to 10 people attacking you.
Personally, I would have liked to see 4 v 4 v 4 with locked factions but equivalent/similar classes on every faction.
I would just add that I found the 4vs4 to be some of the most fun small group pvp I have played as well. Its hard to describe why without going into massive detail, but its a combination of a lot of things- map sizes, time to cap points, respawn mechanic, win conditions, ability to use the environment to your advantage, TTK is not too long or short, everything is pretty balanced, etc. Feel like I have more impact on a game than in say Chivalry.
This game instantly is number 2 on Twitch with all the top streamers who were just playing Nioh now playing For Honor.
Pretty obvious really,the streamers are given free copies and in turn they endorse/advert the product.If the streamers actually liked these games they would play them more than 1-2 days but they don't
Watching a fair bit on twitch is doesn't look fun at all to me.Stand out in the open and swing a weapon at each other.It also really looks like using a shield is a big advantage.
I personally think the combat like so many of these is just bad.The weapon swings are sort of slowish and telegraphed to make blocking easier.
However the issue i have is the fake rendition of how combat really would be.
Example dude has a Pike which is longer than a sword.If i was using a pike i would be using it to stab and stay out of range of the sword,i wouldn't be swinging it like a sword.As well i highly doubt i would be stupid enough to challenge someone with just a sword when they have a shield lol.Nor would i just stand out in the open and leave it up to a bit of luck and timing,nope i would be looking for some tactical advantage.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
And realism is never an argument. People can randomly trip in battle in real life. People can pull muscles. People can, and probably will, die in one hit from a sword. These things are not fun in gameplay. Artistic license is a good thing and exists for a reason.
Aloha Mr Hand !
Aloha Mr Hand !