A third-person melee-focused arena versus multiplayer game featuring warriors from different periods of time. Initially featuring European Knights, Samurai, and Vikings but subsequentially expended with other warriors from different times and cultures.
A lot of people at my work are talking about this game that have no interest in fighting games or the slow methodical combat of the Souls series. I missed the Beta that just passed, but I'm jumping all over the next one in the few days as are my coworkers. I heard on the bombcast that the dudes weren't really feeling the game, but anywhere else that the game has been talked about it's been all positive.
I haven't played it, but i kinda see it as a newer version of Chivalry. Somewhat?
I bounced really hard off of Chivalry, so i probably won't be interested in this. But i can see this being a good one of those games. It seems pretty satisfying to win a 1v1 battle, and outside of the combat mechanic, you can still be cheesy with the environment. Reminds me of something like Virtua Fighter where you can get demolished by the opponent, but get a lucky ring out to win.
Seems to be pretty mixed, i like the game but the betas so far have pushed me away from a purchase at least at launch. Its a different thing, which is good but also means you dont have much of a frame of reference without playing it yourself.
I feel like the combat is too animation heavy and doesn't give enough control to the player in regards to swing manipulation and maneuverability. It has weird "super moves" and buffs/debuffs that kill the fun for me. I'd much rather have combat akin to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare or something like the Jedi Knight games. For Honor is more about The Rule of Cool than fair and balanced combat (at least, that's what I got from the beta). I don't feel the need to go back to it.
I enjoyed the beta, but I never really felt like I nailed the combat, it actually has some really interesting hooks, but I think the beta satisfied my curiosity sufficiently for now.
I haven't play it but w/ everything that's come out and everything coming out near For Honor, it seems destined to go the way of Evolve unless there is a substantial single-player component? Even still, not looking good.
My most hyped game of the year, for sure. Already spent 100+ hours over 4 tests and looking forward to playing more of it. Plays great, looks great. My only real issue with the game is the lack of interesting gamemodes, but the core combat keeps the game fun to play. Oh, and P2P kinda sucks.
I haven't played it, but i kinda see it as a newer version of Chivalry. Somewhat?
I bounced really hard off of Chivalry, so i probably won't be interested in this. But i can see this being a good one of those games. It seems pretty satisfying to win a 1v1 battle, and outside of the combat mechanic, you can still be cheesy with the environment. Reminds me of something like Virtua Fighter where you can get demolished by the opponent, but get a lucky ring out to win.
The game is nothing like Chivalry apart from both games featuring medieval weapons. Environmental kills can be frustrating but in the end they're easy to predict and generally easy to avoid. If a good player lets you throw them off a ledge or into spikes, that's them fucking up, not you getting lucky.
My current hype level is in the Low-Moderate range. Could be cool but I'd probably want to have other people I know to play it with. Also still working through GR2, RE7 and haven't even started Yakuza 0. Nioh is out in two days and that seems like a game I could spend a lot of time with. Then a couple of weeks later Horizon drops, then you have Zelda the week after and then Nier the week after that. The game is gonna have to be really great for it to compete with the crazy Q1 this year is having.
It's an extremely good game fundamentally but the developers and the community will turn it into shit within like 2-3 months just like the Division and AC multiplayer (though AC multiplayer is so brilliant that it usually negated this problem by itself); I'm sure at/in the vicinity of launch it will be amazing though; too bad it's too close to Nioh.
I feel like the combat is too animation heavy and doesn't give enough control to the player in regards to swing manipulation and maneuverability. It has weird "super moves" and buffs/debuffs that kill the fun for me. I'd much rather have combat akin to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare or something like the Jedi Knight games. For Honor is more about The Rule of Cool than fair and balanced combat (at least, that's what I got from the beta). I don't feel the need to go back to it.
I haven't played For Honor yet, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I always thought the weird swing manipulation is what killed Chivalry. Being able to move your camera such that attacks start within the enemies hitbox and they are completely unable to avoid it, among numerous other glitchy moves, made the combat a goofy mess. The same thing happened with Mount and Blade's multiplayer, people were spinning like helicopters all over the damn place. For Honor's reliance on animations and lock on combat theoretically prevents much of that stuff from happening.
Anyway, I'm excited to try the game. Unless the beta goes horribly wrong, I'll probably pick it up on release since Amazon is giving to me heavily discounted, so why not. My big concerns are how 30fps will affect timing and balance on consoles, and the fact that there are no dedicated servers.
I feel like the combat is too animation heavy and doesn't give enough control to the player in regards to swing manipulation and maneuverability. It has weird "super moves" and buffs/debuffs that kill the fun for me. I'd much rather have combat akin to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare or something like the Jedi Knight games. For Honor is more about The Rule of Cool than fair and balanced combat (at least, that's what I got from the beta). I don't feel the need to go back to it.
I haven't played For Honor yet, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I always thought the weird swing manipulation is what killed Chivalry. Being able to move your camera such that attacks start within the enemies hitbox and they are completely unable to avoid it, among numerous other glitchy moves, made the combat a goofy mess. The same thing happened with Mount and Blade's multiplayer, people were spinning like helicopters all over the damn place. For Honor's reliance on animations and lock on combat theoretically prevents much of that stuff from happening.
Anyway, I'm excited to try the game. Unless the beta goes horribly wrong, I'll probably pick it up on release since Amazon is giving to me heavily discounted, so why not. My big concerns are how 30fps will affect timing and balance on consoles, and the fact that there are no dedicated servers.
For me, personally, it did the opposite. It made the combat fun and engaging in a way nothing else does. It opens the door to a way higher skill ceiling. You can't start attacks in Chivalry inside the hitbox, there is always a windup period and a release, so attacks are never instant unless you riposte (the "backswings" *were* bullshit though). Being able to drag, manipulate and change the speed and direction of your strikes is what made the combat work. Most people that called it glitchy simply didn't understand what was happening to them, the games biggest fault was the lack of proper tutorial that goes into these deeper mechanics. Let's just say....I got really into it.....
It has a really solid core system and it's very accessible for how deep it can be. On top of that the artstyle is distinctly more western and less over the top or goofy like fighting games tend to be. I have pretty good hope that this'll bring in new players into the mind games of fighting games. Could possibly even smooth out the transition to playing other games after picking this up?
For me personally, I enjoyed the beta a lot playing with my buddies. But if they aren't picking it up because of the price/time whatever, I probably won't either. I have other games to play solo if that's how it would be.
@pilgore: You most certainly could start attacks within hitboxes. That's the entire basis of the lookdown overheads and the backswings. I haven't played in ages so I don't know for sure if they changed it at all, but the entire reason those work is that they hit instantly, because the blade hitbox starts in contact with the player hurtbox. Then you had other instant hits, and spin attacks, it all made the game into something that, I will grant, gave the game a higher skill ceiling, but was inherently glitchy and destroyed any sense of balance the game had, and made the new player experience a mess. My point being, if For Honor is closer to a fighting game (which a lot of people are indicating), it'll have plenty of mechanical complexity, so that the glitchy stuff like Chivalry had won't be needed to make up for rather bland basic mechanics.
EDIT: Just to clarify, dragging to slightly manipulate the timing of your swings was perfectly fine, but the keyword is slightly.
@pilgore: You most certainly could start attacks within hitboxes. That's the entire basis of the lookdown overheads and the backswings. I haven't played in ages so I don't know for sure if they changed it at all, but the entire reason those work is that they hit instantly, because the blade hitbox starts in contact with the player hurtbox. Then you had other instant hits, and spin attacks, it all made the game into something that, I will grant, gave the game a higher skill ceiling, but was inherently glitchy and destroyed any sense of balance the game had, and made the new player experience a mess. My point being, if For Honor is closer to a fighting game (which a lot of people are indicating), it'll have plenty of mechanical complexity, so that the glitchy stuff like Chivalry had won't be needed to make up for rather bland basic mechanics.
EDIT: Just to clarify, dragging to slightly manipulate the timing of your swings was perfectly fine, but the keyword is slightly.
They hit instantly because they're closer to the player but they don't actually hit instantly, every attack has a windup period preventing it from hitting instantly. There is always a window to block, it's just made harder because of the lookdowns and backswings. I only take issue with the backswings because they skip the windup entirely if done right leaving no blocking window for the defender. Lookdowns are telegraphed far more clearly and provide that blocking window. I will concede that the extreme lengths players went to defeat their opponents brought the game to a place the developers never intended and created a weird inner-circle community that new players never had a chance in hell to understanding. I think the twitchy nature of Chivalry makes it hard for me to go to something like For Honor which feels like moving through molasses in comparison. Very slow and deliberate, perhaps it's just a matter of getting used to it.
@pilgore: One of my potential concerns is whether or not the slower For Honor classes will be able to keep up with the faster ones, exactly because the slow one are very slow, so I'm with you on that. Even just the movespeed on some classes seems brutal.
I watch a bunch of it streamed last beta that convinced me to pick it up. It doesn't look perfect but, I really like a lot of what they're doing. Really curious at how the community will take it in terms of netcode(which I saw a lot of complaints) and balance. I imagine it'll be like everything fighting game people complain about but, amplified and not in a good way.
I've always thought there could be a way better mix between standard fighting games and something like Nidhogg. I was never a fan of the unorthodox combat in Chivalry or Blade Symphony. For Honor is definitely leaning away from that and I appreciate it.
@brackstone: There's definitely a clear advantage to being fast in the game, but I think at least so far the slower classes seem to be designed with that in mind. Kensei sideslashes are really fast and he can fake his real hits into them to make people stop looking for the unblockables. Conqueror is extremely fast on counterattcks if you defend well, Warlord can power through attacks with his own attacks, etc.
I'm slightly more worried that people with absurdly good reactions could make that game impossible. The speed and timing feels designed to be fairly readable and reactable for newcomers and people with average reactions. But I could see someone far above average might actually just break every grab and block every attack forever. In the potential of making this game an esport, that's gonna be the death of it.
I feel like the combat is too animation heavy and doesn't give enough control to the player in regards to swing manipulation and maneuverability. It has weird "super moves" and buffs/debuffs that kill the fun for me. I'd much rather have combat akin to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare or something like the Jedi Knight games. For Honor is more about The Rule of Cool than fair and balanced combat (at least, that's what I got from the beta). I don't feel the need to go back to it.
I haven't played For Honor yet, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I always thought the weird swing manipulation is what killed Chivalry. Being able to move your camera such that attacks start within the enemies hitbox and they are completely unable to avoid it, among numerous other glitchy moves, made the combat a goofy mess. The same thing happened with Mount and Blade's multiplayer, people were spinning like helicopters all over the damn place. For Honor's reliance on animations and lock on combat theoretically prevents much of that stuff from happening.
Anyway, I'm excited to try the game. Unless the beta goes horribly wrong, I'll probably pick it up on release since Amazon is giving to me heavily discounted, so why not. My big concerns are how 30fps will affect timing and balance on consoles, and the fact that there are no dedicated servers.
For me, personally, it did the opposite. It made the combat fun and engaging in a way nothing else does. It opens the door to a way higher skill ceiling. You can't start attacks in Chivalry inside the hitbox, there is always a windup period and a release, so attacks are never instant unless you riposte (the "backswings" *were* bullshit though). Being able to drag, manipulate and change the speed and direction of your strikes is what made the combat work. Most people that called it glitchy simply didn't understand what was happening to them, the games biggest fault was the lack of proper tutorial that goes into these deeper mechanics. Let's just say....I got really into it.....
Yeah I got reaaaaallly into it, I've fallen off these past few months and don't see myself coming back though (it's an older pic). I don't think I've ever been more obsessed with a game before, and its some weird indie multiplayer slasher of all things. I didn't even play multiplayer games before Chivalry! Crazy world.
I feel like the combat is too animation heavy and doesn't give enough control to the player in regards to swing manipulation and maneuverability. It has weird "super moves" and buffs/debuffs that kill the fun for me. I'd much rather have combat akin to Chivalry: Medieval Warfare or something like the Jedi Knight games. For Honor is more about The Rule of Cool than fair and balanced combat (at least, that's what I got from the beta). I don't feel the need to go back to it.
I haven't played For Honor yet, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I always thought the weird swing manipulation is what killed Chivalry. Being able to move your camera such that attacks start within the enemies hitbox and they are completely unable to avoid it, among numerous other glitchy moves, made the combat a goofy mess. The same thing happened with Mount and Blade's multiplayer, people were spinning like helicopters all over the damn place. For Honor's reliance on animations and lock on combat theoretically prevents much of that stuff from happening.
Anyway, I'm excited to try the game. Unless the beta goes horribly wrong, I'll probably pick it up on release since Amazon is giving to me heavily discounted, so why not. My big concerns are how 30fps will affect timing and balance on consoles, and the fact that there are no dedicated servers.
For me, personally, it did the opposite. It made the combat fun and engaging in a way nothing else does. It opens the door to a way higher skill ceiling. You can't start attacks in Chivalry inside the hitbox, there is always a windup period and a release, so attacks are never instant unless you riposte (the "backswings" *were* bullshit though). Being able to drag, manipulate and change the speed and direction of your strikes is what made the combat work. Most people that called it glitchy simply didn't understand what was happening to them, the games biggest fault was the lack of proper tutorial that goes into these deeper mechanics. Let's just say....I got really into it.....
I played in both the alpha and this closed beta and honestly most of my hype comes from Eric Pope. I like what I've played but idk if this has staying power past a couple weeks for me when the skill levels start jumping.
The 4v4 maps were what I was most excited for but wound up feeling too static. For as chaotic as they make those battles seem you're really just jogging from point to point with a lot of window dressing.
I played a slow class called crusader which is flail and shield. I didn't have too much trouble with the faster characters except when running into the one class with two short swords. That one seemingly has a combo to switch stances rapidly which was almost unblockable. Might have been a skill curve thing though so I can't say for sure.
@brackstone: May I ask how the Amazon deal panned out? I'm looking at prices right now and they're offering 4 cents off (how generous). I'm totally interested in trying this thing out and have the beta preloaded on my PS4 and PC to see the differences. Might be fun with some friends. This will be my first dive into this sort of 1v1 swordplay game as I haven't played Chivalry etc. so I can't make any comparisons, but it's a cool concept without anything whatsoever to back up my interest.
PvP seems kind of random, not sure if there is fighting game type character versus character depth here. It also just takes awhile to get back into a fight when you die and if you're 1 on 2+ you're almost certainly screwed. I'm having a lot more fun playing versus AI than I am against people which maybe doesn't bode well. Despite that, I think it's a cool and very different concept and I am having fun with it. I just don't know if I would commit to buying a whole game of this.
I love the game, Ubisoft are in a league of their own when it comes to animation and the graphics are very pleasing and seem to be well optimized for PC. Gameplay wise this is totally a fighting game through and through, those looking for an arcade hack n slash or a large scale multiplayer medieval war game like Chivalry or Mount and Blade might be disappointed. It's all about whiff punishes, grab breaks, footsies and frame traps, i won't currently say it's balanced as i haven't puts tons of time into it and some characters seem weak, and the 2 on 1 situations which occur in most of the modes feel very unfair, they added a "Revenge" mechanic to help deal with those situations and i have won many fights against multiple adversaries using it but i will often get destroyed when the other opponent in 2v2 decides to be dishonorable. Speaking of modes i haven't decided which is the main mode in the game yet, 4v4 Dominion is fun, there is no honor in this mode as it's unlikely 8 people are going to control themselves but that's fine, with only 4 opponents it's valid and fun to sprint past the combat to take a "flag", forcing enemies to split up as they try to regain it while you pick your fights or coordinate with allies to kill people or make more captures, i'm not entirely sure how the scoring in this mode works yet. 2v2 is where i've spent most of my time, having a duel with someone in this mode while your friend does the same a little distance away from you is really unique to this game, this mode is amplified by honorable players who do not team up on the other player once they win their duel, simply watching from the sidelines waiting for their turn, but as most people want guaranteed victory if they see a chance they will take it. It's a great experience to be on the same wavelength as an honorable player, showing each other respect, it's not something the game ever tells you to do so the fact people are doing it is super cool, i wonder if Ubi will take steps to promote this behavior in the future, maybe giving less XP to dishonorable players, though i wouldn't expect it in 4v4 as that mode is made for chaos. I enjoy the mechanics in the game to the degree that i think i'll enjoy the single player campaign also, i'm not expecting anything too amazing, but the premise for the game world is really cool and they already have an evil antagonist lady, so all it would need is some flashy stuff to look at and i'd be happy. Rainbow Six: Siege has received a ton of updates during its life so far, which according to many have improved the game, so i'm hopeful For Honor could receive the same treatment. This is one of three games i'm looking forward to this year.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment