What the actual fuck?? 
1 Like
For Honor could be a good game, but actually it’s another P2W shit from Ubisoft which costs about 60 Euros, which is HUGE, because EVEN THOUGH it costs so much, the game uses microtransaction system which AFFECTS YOUR CHARACTER A LOT. So basically , the game is overcosted shit. End of story
1 Like
It isn’t pay to win. You can buy steel (also earned ingame), which can be used to buy scavenger crates. You gain gear randomly through scavenger crates, while paying a lot could definitely help you find better gear (that you could still get without paying anything), that doesn’t get around the fact that gear doesn’t actually do a lot statewise, not enough to bridge gaps in skill.
Again though, it isn’t hard to get good gear without paying anything. I agree it shouldn’t be there, but it really doesn’t do anything you can’t do through a bit of time, or even quicker than paying if you’re lucky. They mainly try to bait you into buying steel through cosmetics. One premium scavenger crate costs around 500 steel, while their cosmetic packs go between 30,000 to 50,000 steel.
Looks terrible to me. So arcadey, and I really dislike its interface, the microtransactions, the focus on multiplayer, weak campaign…It is like the exact opposite of Kingdom Come.
2 Likes
My understanding is that this means it focuses more on action than strategy or realism? In terms of realism, absolutely, but not strategy.
As someone who spend 20 hours on the open beta and have the game, here is my opinion so far, after another 18 hours on the game on and off since release.
The combat is fun, 1v1 and if you don’t lag, like it’s the BEST combat I have felt in years, with all the depth that goes into it, the 1v1 can be very tense because it actually feels like a duel between 2 master warriors, each waiting for the other to make the first strike(or if you play as the nobushi class, you want to actively keep the enemy out of your zone by making the first strike). However in all other game modes aside from 1v1, you always ending up 1v2, 1v3, 1v4, and it’s not fun because the game goes from a tense duel as 2 warriors slowing circle each other to a slug fest where you are getting hit from all directions.
But for a $60 price tag AND microtransactions, the game is just not worth it. Honestly you are better off waiting 2-3 month for the price to drop down to like $30, because that’s what this game is, it’s a $30 game. It doesn’t offer enough stuff to justify a $60 price tag.
pros:
- beautiful graphics
- sexy combat with a ton of depth
- sounds of weapon clashing feels good, believable
- characters look real, no half naked ninja women with double D cups exposed fighting with their ass bouncing all over the place, the warriors look historically accurate and they dress as such as well
- the bots are NOT easy, they are actually good 1v1 practice tools, like, I get my ass kicked more by the bots than some of the human players I play against in Dominion/TDM
- overall makes you feel like you are a warrior fighting to the death against another, if you don’t lag out or anything that is
cons:
- $60, not enough stuff for that much price, this is my biggest beef, like the only mode I play is 1v1, because that’s the mode the game’s combat is designed for and there aren’t any interesting alternatives
- respawn timer, if you aren’t good with the game/having lags, you ending up spending more time on your phone waiting for your character to come back to life than actually playing the game, overall just kills the enjoyment of the game, especially when you have a nice 1v1 going and all of a sudden someone comes and ganks your ass
- buffs around the map, kills the immersion of the awesome combat, too often when you are winning a fight the enemy just runs away, go to a health shrine/armor shrine, get buffed and come back to fight you, it’s stupid really
- generally you don’t feel like it’s a $60 well spent given how little stuff there is, the combat here is the biggest selling point but you ending up just play 1v1 all day and eventually things gets boring after 2-3 hours. Especially if you are a casual player, this game is NOT for you, be prepared to spend hours training the different warriors if you want to get anywhere, this game is HARD, especially against competent players.
1 Like
Are you sure about that?
7 Likes
I mean if you wanna go all history nazi over it then whatever, you can always nitpick. Overall they look accurate enough while still look appealing.
It doesnt look fun.
- Singleplayer seems dull
- Its gets boring like all PVP
I’ve played it. Graphics are quite nice. Gameplay is a bit wooden though. Combat system is interesting but gets old fairly quickly. Multiplayer is fairly atrocious.
Nitpicking? I’m quite sure you don’t have to. It is 100% stylized.
I also found strange that you put appealing and accurate as something opposing each other…
4 Likes
does something like this look appealing to you? For a game like For Honor what is important first and foremost is the LOOKS, not necessarily the accuracy per-se. Because the game isn’t trying to be historically accurate on every little detail, but rather accurate enough so when you see a samurai/knight/viking, you can say “OK, that’s a knight/samurai/viking, and they look believable, they look realistic”. This way when you play as a raider/warden/kensei you FEEL like a badass viking/knight/samurai in a deathmatch, it gets your adrenaline pumping and makes the game alot more immersive.
You really are barking up the wrong tree if you want to nitpick every little historic detail in For Honor. Overall they have plenty of historically accurate/near accurate details to make the warriors look believable AND fashionable, since the meat here is to role-play as these badass warriors in a fight to the death, not living the life of a 8th century viking or 13th century knight or whatever
The re-enactor looks a lot more appealing than the Thrud the barbarian nonsense from FH.
5 Likes
Just out of curiosity, how the heck did you stumble on this forum? Most of the things you say are borderline heresy around here.
2 Likes
Sorry, I had to. When someone says “heresy” or something like that, my brain automatically goes nuts…
3 Likes
More than that deformed, tatooed body builder in leather stripes and horned helm? Yes, a bit. Though you could have choosen better.
I’m not nitpicking. There is simply no need for that. For Honor isn’t accurate or realistic by any means, even in the widest scope and it is not just details.
I can say “OK, this is kinda knight/samurai/viking” but no way I can tell they look believable or realistic.
The “adrenaline pump” and “immersive” (etc) are quite subjective things. I do not fell any of those in those cartoon-like games, it’s rather fun and relax.
And I do not criticize it for that, I play Warhammer games and collecting the miniatures after all. I’m just saying they choosed to made 100% stylized and inaccurate game with every cliche known to them.
I never meant that For Honor is trying to be accurate or that it should try, I don’t know where did you get that feel that I do.
6 Likes
Because I like the medieval period, I love games with this time period as a background and just the general history that happen in this period and how it influenced modern Europe. The biggest difference between me and some of the other people here is that, I’m not a dogmatic person, I approach subjects with a very open mind and am not stuck in a particular way of view or belief.
Hope that answers your question.
To your own taste, but remember FH isn’t a niche game, it has mass appeal to the general audience who isn’t obsessed with historical detail down to the species of the plant that makes up the fiber for the cloth some warrior wore hundreds of years ago, but also like to have the warriors they play as to be believable.
FH strike a nice balance between historically obsessed and looking good to a wide audience.
Again, person opinion, refer to my reply above.[quote=“Wenceslaus, post:21, topic:31604”]
I’m not nitpicking. There is simply no need for that. For Honor isn’t accurate or realistic by any means, even in the widest scope and it is not just details.I can say “OK, this is kinda knight/samurai/viking” but no way I can tell they look believable or realistic.
[/quote]
Without giving an examples it hard to be convinced, because remember, FH isn’t a niche game aimed at history nuts, and the warriors in these games look pretty damn believable to me, and many others. At least in terms of the samurai/knight, vikings aren’t really up my alley so I will admit I lose some credit there. But still, I prefer the badass looking viking over that dude in chainmails hahaha.
We look at the same thing from 2 different perspectives, mine is much more open than yours, no offense meant.
1 Like
I’d argue that if you have no knowledge about the period, or interest in ‘the details’ of the very basics, then you lose credibility when claiming to like it for it’s accuracy. Even in the era of “alternative facts” it is rather weak.
lol, so if something isn’t 100% accurate the way it is in your heads, you history nuts see it as “alternative facts”? (aka wrong, false, not right)
good to know lol
The thing you seem to not understand is that when you make a statement such as -
Then you go and post a picture like this-
You lose all credibility in terms to accuracy, which is what is being debated with you.
First off the characters do not even look close to being real. The armor and weapons are completely stylized, and would have ZERO functionality in the real world.
The number one thing though that really gets anyone who knows anything about actual vikings is there was no horned helms.
4 Likes