knights : fine, vikings : why not, but why samourai ..? | Forums

[Grivois_Gaulois]

Knights is a great choice for such a game, vikings is a current quite popular trend, though they were more raiders than actual warriors fighting in wide open fields, but I still can't understand why samourais ..?

This game could has featured quite an exciting historical theme instead of going forward into the now common (since deadliest warriors) best warriors of all time arena like... I really hope they'll try to keep with the middle age time period, thus we won't see romans or spartans in the future...

I'm a little disappointed they choosed samourais over mamluk warriors (considering the time period) for example, or berber pirates, or even mongols, since knights/crusaders did have to fight against all of them through history, but never against samourai, that we can be pretty sure about, and vikings probably never fought against samourais neither...

Samourais have fought against themselves moslty, chinese warriors and mongols, especially during this time period.

[Beas7ie]

I don't know what you are talking about as For Honor has no such thing as "samourai" nor "samourais". At first I thought a new fourth faction was announced but then realized that would be silly as the new "samourai" faction could be confused with the SAMURAI.

As for why the original Samurai, I find that to be a logical choice. Many people love Samurai and a game like this is a great way for people to have Samurai vs Vikings or Samurai vs Knights action. Also Ubisoft has mentioned they have a story planned and if the game goes well there will most definitely be DLC featuring factions suchs as Romans and Greeks, and possibly Chinese, Arabic, Egyptian, and other warriors from all throughout history.

Also while the Samurai fought Samurai it is also well known that Knights fought Knights and that Vikings fought Vikings so that also works out fine.

Still got no idea what a "Samourai" is though.

[premiumart]

Knights is a great choice for such a game, vikings is a current quite popular trend, though they were more raiders than actual warriors fighting in wide open fields, but I still can't understand why samourais ..?

This game could has featured quite an exciting historical theme instead of going forward into the now common (since deadliest warriors) best warriors of all time arena like... I really hope they'll try to keep with the middle age time period, thus we won't see romans or spartans in the future...

I'm a little disappointed they choosed samourais over mamluk warriors (considering the time period) for example, or berber pirates, or even mongols, since knights/crusaders did have to fight against all of them through history, but never against samourai, that we can be pretty sure about, and vikings probably never fought against samourais neither...

Samourais have fought against themselves moslty, chinese warriors and mongols, especially during this time period.

Since For Honor is set in a fictional world where 3 factions clash that historically wouldnt really meet. They can pretty much do what they want with the story.

[WYRDB0Y]

Because its... ICONIC? You are also in the dark about what this game wants to be, which isn't historical accuracy. It's going to be low fantasy with these iconic warriors of the middle ages mashed together.

OFFTOPIC:
Speaking of ICONIC, here's a video for ya:

youtube has been deactivated.
Do you accept the use of cookies to display and allow you to watch the video content?

[Grivois_Gaulois]

Well, considering the playstyle rather realistic, I thought they were trying to make something rather historical. Guess they just jumped in the band wagon to make another MOBA like.

Too bad, could has been good, not really interested then...

pouet pouet...

make an educated guess

[theinkBot]

... and vikings probably never fought against samourais neither...

Nor did they fight knights. Picts and saxons, yes, but not what is generally regarded as the "medieval knight" that we see in For Honor.

[Grivois_Gaulois]

Nor did they fight knights. Picts and saxons, yes, but not what is generally regarded as the "medieval knight" that we see in For Honor.

actually they did, in the XII century norway tried to retake england vikings were owning before the conquest of northern french, knights appeared as soon as the XI century.

thus vikings from norway, not the usual barbaric dans people are thinking about as vikings placeholder, more likely did fight knights of the early middle age.

[B4DD4WG]

I don't know...The easiest answer is; Why not? I wouldn't mind, down this long road they have, to see Arabian Knights, hell even Aztec warriors...Maybe Roman, and Greek...So many possibilities, especially BECAUSE it isnt historically accurate.

I just found out about this game a few days ago, and I can't wait to get my hands on it!

[WYRDB0Y]

I wouldn't mind, down this long road they have, to see Arabian Knights, hell even Aztec warriors...Maybe Roman, and Greek...So many possibilities, especially BECAUSE it isnt historically accurate.

More factions is always nice, but they want to keep them in line to some extent with the technological level and gear they had (eg. Native americans didn't really have armor AFAIK). That said arabic warriors should fit in with the rest IMO, personally I think that would be one of the best choices in terms of flavor.

[V4nClief]

The premise of the game is not to reenact battles from history, but to give this world where the best of the best warriors or every nation and tribe meet on the battle field for glory. I think viking, knights, and samurais are a great initial touch. Would love for them to build in DLC to feature more like romans, greeks, egyptians, aztac, etc.. I just hope they keep the battles with hand to hand combat. I don't want to see Allies vs Germany and start pulling out guns and whatnot lets just keep that out of it.