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.
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.
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.
I’ve put in about 36 hours since release (I didn’t bother with the beta) and I enjoy it. The matchmaking is worthless and the whole P2P thing is an awful (and insecure) idea, but aside from that it’s not a bad game. The combat might be repetitive after a few hours, but then what isn’t? The max-level bots are actual monsters (when they’re not being stupid, but the same can be said of humans) so even singleplayer/PVE can give you a challenge.
The story is so-so and the premise is silly, but it DOES lay a bit of groundwork for the reason behind the multiplayer. TBH in the case of this game, you’re not really there for the story. You’re there to smack someone with a sword until they fall over and you can cut off their head. If you’re not interested in the action part of this action game, don’t get it. Also if you have delicate sensibilities, don’t play multiplayer. The community is, as far as I can tell, all fourteen years old.
I actually quite like that. Taking out three people who are all trying to kill you is SO SATISFYING. But then of course they start whining or ragequit and it takes a little away from the victory. See my comment about fourteen-year-olds.
Finally, I have no real concern about the microtransactions. I have a job so I can spend money on things if I feel like it. They’re certainly not compulsory (contrary to what it looks like, it’s not pay-to-win). It’s almost all either cosmetic stuff or a shortcut to different options rather than grinding, but you can ignore that entirely and actually work your way to the unlocks.
There is “gear” you can collect which CHANGES the stats for your character, but every single one has a drawback, so it’s not like people with a gear score of 30 are BETTER than people with a gear score of 10, they’re just different. The higher the level of gear, the bigger the differences. So a level 1 hilt might give you a small boost in attack but drop your defence a little, whereas a level 10 hilt will boost your attack a LOT but leave you with no defence at all. All the gear is random, too, so even buying packs you can’t choose what kind you get, outside of whether it’s armour or weapon parts. The higher the level of your character (e.g. the ones you play the most) get access to higher level items, but that’s about the only difference. All this gear can be earned randomly by playing the game too. So yeah, the microtransactions are generally just shortcuts for lazy people.
TLDR: It’s an entertaining action game with little to no historical accuracy, the multiplayer community is a bunch of {expletive deleted} and it’s not worth what they’re selling it for at the moment. Wait for a sale or something.
Addendum:
I think perhaps there was a misunderstanding between realism and historical accuracy. Is For Honor (I have to force myself to spell that wrong) realistic? Sure, I could imagine these things actually happening, for the most part. No-one has four arms or casts spells or anything (cosmetics notwithstanding).
Is it historically accurate? Only in that the term “knight” or “samurai” are names of things from our history, and some of them used to use sharpened bits of metal to hit each other.
Except for the ones that would work perfectly fine. I think only the Raider (the referenced picture above) is overtly ridiculous. The Shugoki has a weapon that SEEMS patently absurd until you realise it’s a real thing, but the rest of them make sense to me. They’re all swords and shields and spears etc.
That said, the characters are definitely stylised. I suspect that’s partly to do with the whole “this is what people think vikings and knights look like” and partly because it helps you figure out WTF they are when they suddenly appear in front of you swinging at your head. Being able to quickly see that it’s Dude X is pretty helpful in knowing what they can do to wreck your day.[quote=“McWonderBeast, post:25, topic:31604”]
The number one thing though that really gets anyone who knows anything about actual vikings is there was no horned helms.
[/quote]
Only half of the viking characters have horns. But that goes back to the “stylised” bit. Ask someone random on the street what viking helmets looked like and you’ll get the horns.
EDIT: Actually, not even half. I think the Raider always has some kind of horn decoration, but the Valkyrie has other options for the bits on her helmet, so it’s more like 1/4 plus a bit.
Again, FH isn’t meant to be a historically accurate game, if it looks close enough, it’s good enough. That was one of my points, if the character looks like a viking while looking good, that’s it, you just created a viking that not only look real enough to be believable by the masses, but also fashionable.
Remember FH isn’t meant to be a niche game aimed at history nuts, it’s a game aimed at mass-audience - although with how hardcore the combat is you can argue otherwise. But anyways, my point is that FH strikes a fine balance between looking believable, not to the history nuts, but to the average masses who don’t have a day-to-day knowledge of specific historic warriors like the vikings/knights/samurais while making their characters look good.
Also, a side note, the samurais look real, like, pretty damn close to 100% real, even the weapon used by the sugoki class, the kanabo, is real(not really the size, but it does indeed exist). So vikings aside, FH is historically accurate from the POV of the samurais.
Problem is you already paid $60 for the game, what this is doing is spoiling game devs to the point where they take a fully completed game, chop half off and sell us that for $60, then sell the other half for $40 as DLC. It’s extremely bad practice, it is extremely anti-consumer, and it should be stopped.
Imagine 5-6 years down the line where $60 game + microtransactions that evolves into P2W schemes are common. For now people are outraged, but repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth.
Except the DLC is free, from what I hear. If it was something that was actually already in the game and they really did cut it out to sell later, then they should die in a fire. But they don’t seem to be doing that. Besides you don’t have to buy DLC if you don’t want it. You may not get the “full experience” or whatever gets touted about, but that’s your choice.
I agree that microtransactions as a way to actually gain “power” or what-have-you in a game (and thus making it pay-to-win) is a terrible thing. Granted, it’s basically how most of the world works anyway (look at the latest jackoff president in the US), but in entertainment it should stop. Luckily, these aren’t that kind of microtransaction. Everything you can pay for in FH you can get for free just by spending some time. It’s literally just a lazy-tax.
It isn’t really not about open perspective.
Recognize things for what they are (are not) and being open to them are two things.
Yes, I realize it’s not meant for history nuts… but that doesn’t change a thing. It is still unrealistic no matter the observer.
Even considering it’s game, and it’s for masses… it is obviously stylized and realistically inaccurate. Just because you can say that the knight is knight doesn’t make him look accurate. You can say the Popeye is a sailor too.
*Or perhaps you meant that the materials and animations looks realistic? Because yes, it seems they use PBR and the lighting is good — the graphic looks believable from the technical POV.
[quote=“Wenceslaus, post:29, topic:31604”]
It isn’t really not about open perspective.Recognize things for what they are (are not) and being open to them are two things. [/quote]
No of course not, there are always the conservative or liberal interpretation of any object really. If you are conservative enough nothing in the world is “accurate” as there will always be some flaw the creators overlooked.
Be careful with blanket statements like these, you are arguing your POV as if yours represent everyone’s. When you say " no matter the observer" you are implying that EVERYONE on earth, when looking at the warriors in FH, would see them as historically inaccurate. That’s a very easy argument to de-bunk, so be careful with these blanket statements, I would use words like “most, alot” instead of an absolute here, as they are harder to de-bunk.
And ultimately, the underline problem with what you are arguing and FH is that, to the masses, the warriors look accurate enough for them to see a viking as a viking, a knight as a knight. Whereas a history nut can say all the missed detailed or whatnot, to the average Joe, the warriors look pretty damn realistic. And that is what FH is, their warriors look realistic enough for people to recognize them, but also fashionable enough so they are fun to play as.
Well I mean underneath all that armor/cloth, what else is there to look real? It’s extremely hard to differentiate between the physiology between the different human races. What I mean is: in FH the warriors look real and fun to play as.
This is not even about liberal or conservative perspective.
I never said they made “flaws” as I don’t see historically inaccurate stylization as flaw nor I think they overlooked it.
I’m careful but sometimes those statement are right and this is the case.
I’m not saying that everyone sees that, just that it is inaccurate whenever the observer realize it or not. Banana is banana no matter if some observer would call it cucumber.
Lacking knowledge doesn’t mean that the person have his own right or that he is are more open-minded. He is merely wrong and don’t know about it.
And again, it’s not details.
Well you can have realistic materials (steel, wood, cloth…) lighting, movements.
But no human being has that small head compare to body for example. That is their artistic expression.
Ironically this discussion made me more curious about the game. Hope there will be another free weekend.
But depends on how wide a range you are willing to accept something as “accurate” or not, that affect your end conclusion about the game.
But in the case many people would say FH is historically accurate, you saying everyone would see FH as historically inaccurate is simply false no matter how you look at it, no offense.
Or he is more forgiving as to call something “historically accurate”, an 89% on an exam could either mean a B+ or an A- or even an A, depending on the view of the grader grading the exam.
The materials, unless you are actively looking for them are quite easily miss-able, but even with regards to the raider, the proportions looks fine to me, which again, goes back to the individual looking at the picture.
The same object, when looked at from 2 different perspectives, can produce different conclusions
You said something about being conservative or liberal in regards to what you’d call historically accurate. This isn’t a good argument, as no one is saying any game or book or movie is 100% perfectly historically accurate. It’s a gradient, some things are extremely historically accurate, but we’d never say “perfectly”, in the case of for honor, it is very inaccurate. If something isn’t overwhelmingly inaccurate or accurate, you need to clarify.
To call it “historically accurate”, but not prefix it with “barely” (or something similar), is dishonest, as when you say that, you’re implying that it is historically accurate to a large degree. Which in this case, it isn’t. At all. Regardless of how anyone sees it, it is not. You could call it historically reminiscent, or say it’s based on historical concepts, etc, but not that it’s accurate.
It don’t even see where the fascination with trying to pass this game off as historically accurate is coming from, I’m one of the few people on this forum defending this game, and I don’t see the need.
even if they were going for “appealing” or “stylistic” that literally looks like feces. i don’t know who designed those character models but they need to be harmed.
To you guys sure, as people who [I assume] studies history as a hobby, a form of relaxation. But to the average Joe, the characters ARE indeed historically accurate, because, again, accurate or inaccurate depends on the person judging it. Since these characters conforms to what they view as a “viking/samurai/knight”, they are accurate to these people. It is ONLY until these people are shown actual viking/samurai/knight gear that were used historically, THEN you can say that the vikings are not accurately represented in the view of the average Joe, as now they have learned/seen actual gear used by these warriors. Once again, accurate/inaccurate, right/wrong, depends on the person judging the object.
Also, getting off the subject of the vikings, the samurai class is indeed very accurate, so if we shift focus from the vikings to the samurai, then the topic just got flopped 180.
But you are ONLY inaccurate when I tell you my name isn’t Reginald, but Bjerson. Anytime before that, to you, you thinking my name is Regi is correct, because what you perceive as “right” hasn’t been toppled with something else yet.
