I am a little baffled why people here seem to all be in agreement that the singleplayer is anything more than a meager tutorial for the multiplayer. First, it's very short. You finish it in one or two sittings. Second, the story doesn't really go anywhere significant. Lastly, and most importantly, there is nothing special in that entire campaign. It's feels like a multiplayer map with some cutscenes in between. It has the length of a Call of Duty or Titanfall, probably even shorter, with none of the spectacle or interesting mission designs you'd play it for.

Dan said in the Quick Look that the singleplayer doesn't feel like an afterthought, but that's precisely what it feels like. It is completely build around the multiplayer component of the game.

I am having fun with the multiplayer, but that singleplayer not so much. I would recommend not getting this game if you're just looking for the singleplayer experience, but then again I seem to be one of the few who thinks so.

I don`t think anyone is recommending buying the game for the single player alone. Personally I have enjoyed the single player. I think it`s fun and a really useful way to get comfortable with the mechanics of the game (which most people will need) while letting you try out and fight against most of the heroes so you can get a feel for them before you jump into the multiplayer. And while the story is not going to win story of the year it has a fun and interesting world, a decent antagonist and is more than I expected from he game.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I dunno. I only play the single player campaigns in any game like this, and a 4-6 hour campaign seems perfectly serviceable to me in order to get to play around with the combat system. Do bear in mind that if I were to buy it, I would be waiting until I can grab it for $20 (the same thing I do with Call of Duty and similar titles where I only play the single player campaign).

I'm not commenting on the quality of the SP campaign (since I do not know anything about that), but I'd be willing to give it a shot even if it is short and a little shallow – however, the thing that has me thinking I'll likely pass on the game is the always-online requirement for the single player.

I've not seen anyone say that you should get this for the singleplayer alone, only that it's an OK campaign in a multiplayer focused game.

I actually think it's good that the campaign is short since it is, again, a multiplayer focused game. And having a campaign built as a tutorial with some story is perfectly fitting for a game like this.

I'd say it probably took me around 3 hours per faction to finish the single player, so it definitely was longer than a couple of sittings for me (your sitting length may vary).

It's surely not the main focus of the game, and it largely serves as a tutorial for the multiplayer, but it's fun and well realized for what it is. There were also a couple of cool moments in there (like the battle on the ice) that while not ground-breaking or amazing, were definitely cool enough for me to want to see it through the end.

I went in assuming the single player was only slightly more than bot matches, i'm about half way through and so far it's been very good.
It's all about setting expectations, originally there wasn't going to be much of a single player but they decided to expand it somewhere during development, as a multiplayer first game what they did deliver for the single player is a well made and fun experience, which could be considered a bonus, it's also a friendlier place for newcomers to start the game.
There is another way of looking at it, For Honor is a fighting game, if compared to other games in the genre the story mode is pretty great, and while i probably shouldn't compare it to the latest in the Street Fighter franchise, as the mechanics in For Honor allow for a grander experience in general, the story mode in that game at launch was pretty embarassing.

Seemed like what i thought it would be, i really wanted to get this game but after the betas I feel like there is no long term value to it. Dominion is alright but besides that everything else is dual or death match. Gameplay is great though, but i need something to keep it engaging if i buy it and obviously single player isn't it.

i think it's odd that you would even buy this game after looking at the reviews.

this game is gameplay only AKA multiplayer.

It's what I expected. a well presented mode to ease you into multiplayer, the main focus.

If you expected more than that then yeah I can see why you'd be disappointed.

I was hoping it had more crazy boss fights and stuff, but I thought it was decent. I'd probably call it an "afterthought" though, yeah...MP is definitely the focus of this game.

And that's an interesting/good way of looking at it ---v If this is a 3D fighting game, then I'd rate the Story Mode pretty darn high for the genre.

I thought the first campaign, the Knight one, was by far the weakest. The Viking campaign, and even more so the Samurai one, I actually felt were pretty strong. Admittedly, that is all in context of it being essentially a long-ass tutorial for what is, without a doubt, a multiplayer focused game.

In a game like this all I expect from the single player campaign is a decent tutorial of the mechanics so that I can blast through that and feel like I'm competent enough to battle it out online. Anything more is just icing on the cake.

I think expectations for the singler player mode of this game were so low most people are actually relatively pleasantly surprised or at least not disappointed.

I didn't even know this game had a single player mode, I thought it was a multiplayer only thing. As soon as I heard that it does have a single player campaign, I was pretty sure it would just be a glorified tutorial. Seems like that's exactly what it is and I don't see why you would expect anything else.

I was expecting something else because, as Dan said: the singleplayer doesn't feel like an afterthought at all.

I was buying this game for the multiplayer, I don't feel burned. I just think it's weird people think the singleplayer part is good. It's decent as a tutorial for the multiplayer, but that's about it.

I've only done like 3 missions in the knight campaign. I might finish at some point but tbh I just got bored. There's much more interesting stuff you can do labbing with the bots or beating real people.

I like the campaign well enough. The Viking campaign is probably the best, but I was partial to the knight one. The Samurai one suffers from reused maps and zero checkpoints on Realistic.

The voice acting in general is pretty bad, especially compared to Nioh's handling of different cultures interacting in their native language. Everyone sounding american is just dumb.

you can also play all the multiplayer modes with bots so that certainly adds to the solo depth

I'm close to done with the knigt campaign. This is boring. I think its crazy that I live in a world where this game is considered better than Ryse Son of Rome. The single AND multiplayer in that game was better than this thing. I wish my wife had gotten me the physical copy so I could sell it off.

@makayu: not when noone else is playing against bots. No bot games load for me.

if i get this i'll probably put a lot of time into bot matches anyway, so it's not a big deal.

ouch.

@sammo21: I think the multiplayer in For Honor is really fun and cool (when it works).

I've only bothered to play up to Viking 1.2 (or something) I've found it serviceable but pretty dull compared to multiplayer. I think I might try get a bit further through before passing full judgement, but the fact I've been avoiding it is telling. Murdering Humans is the draw here.

@sammo21: I got it on Steam and returned it as I only had 2 hours played.

Most of the reviews on metacritic call everything outside of the core combat half-baked and the combat awesome. I thought the core combat felt bad as well, slow and unresponsive, with attacks chaining together in unintuitive ways. As far as the story goes, I only played the first 3 or 4 missions, but I managed to lose the thread in even that space of time, and I'm the sort of person who pays attention.

@veektarius: I think if this game launched 3-5 years from now everyone would call it terrible. But it is currently the only thing of its kind and is a great proof of concept. For Honor 2 might be fantastic, but in the meantime I am happy to play For Honor. Having a lot of fun with it.

Learned how to parry, and I apparently became able to spot Jennifer Hale outside of Mass Effect and Metal Gear.

Can't complain.

@veektarius: I do think the basic 1 on 1 combat is interested, especially when you consider the types of character you play. However, I think I think that once you get into full scale team based stuff it devolves into "be the fastest class and spam". I've played may 10 different matches and lost about 8 of those (all team based). I played about 5 or 6 duels and won at least 1/2 of them.

I also think the single player is short and boring. There's more work in the single player than I expected but its nothing that I'm anywhere near impressed with. I'd give the whole package 2.5/5.

@zevvion: Tbh I'm probably not the right audience for this game. I can't name a PvP game with fewer than 5v5 that I enjoyed/was any good at. I only bought in because I like knights.

The single player was only good relative to my assumption that it would be terrible. It at least introduces you to a lot of the characters you'll be seeing online and grants rewards for your online customization. It was fun enough. A lot of my friends that would never touch a fighting game have gotten in to this off of my recommendation, and going through the single player gave them practice to go online with.

I just beat it today. I liked it. I mean, it's not going to win any goty awards for best story, but I found it very entertaining to play through.

So far I enjoy it, it's a nice change of pace from the multiplayer and a fun way to experience the other classes that isn't just versus AI. The voice work is really well done too. It's not gonna win anything, but it's a quality little thing. More quality then I would have expected in this 99.9% multiplayer game.

Updated thoughts, finished the story mode 2 days ago, it's totally fine, i enjoyed myself, i couldn't really tell what the intentions of the ending were but whatever, i stabbed dudes.

@cikame: If I recall, there's DLC coming out down the line. I assume they left the cliffhanger for them to continue the story mode later on.

Playing it made me realize how there are very few games that go for this very simple idea of medieval dudes fighting. I wouldn't recommend the game for the single player alone, the multiplayer is just too key. But its totally fine for what it is. I had my doubts at whether they could make a compelling fight against AI with these very 1v1 systems and they do alright. Better than I thought they would.

Not really. I think there is a reason why the multiplayer has a set amount of seasons since that pretty much fills in the time between the end of the game and the epilogue right afterwards that takes place years later. I think one of the devs admitted that the multiplayer takes place in the "present" of that world.

its better than an afterthought, but this is a multiplayer game. the combat is nearly a fighting game, what do you expect? its better than an arcade mode, but not some sprawling open world medieval game (which does sound awesome)