Gamescom 2016 Developer IGN Interview | Forums

[ZenBearV13]

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

Mostly stuff we already know, but still more gameplay and commentary from a developer.

Confirmation on mixed faction teams in PvP. Confirmation on splitscreen but the interviewer didn't ask and the developer didn't specify if that is for console only or if they've rescinded their decision to deny it on PC.

[Willaguy2010]

I wonder if by confirming mixed teams in PvP he also confirmed that there are no faction locked teams in PvP? If so, that's a bit disappointing, I wonder why they distinguished the factions so much if they're going to just end up mixing them without having the option to have faction locked teams.

[ZenBearV13]

I wonder if by confirming mixed teams in PvP he also confirmed that there are no faction locked teams in PvP? If so, that's a bit disappointing, I wonder why they distinguished the factions so much if they're going to just end up mixing them without having the option to have faction locked teams.

I'm still of a mind that all the hype around "Choose Your Faction" was a purely personal question and not an intention to actually pit the factions against each other to see who wins. Obviously For Honor is not historically accurate, so attempting to use the game as a metric to answer "Which faction is best?" is foolish.

I hope they add in faction locked game modes in future DLC, but I'm perfectly fine without them on release.

[Willaguy2010]

I'm still of a mind that all the hype around "Choose Your Faction" was a purely personal question and not an intention to actually pit the factions against each other to see who wins. Obviously For Honor is not historically accurate, so attempting to use the game as a metric to answer "Which faction is best?" is foolish.

I hope they add in faction locked game modes in future DLC, but I'm perfectly fine without them on release.

Oh believe me I wasn't going to decide who the better warrior was because some video game says so.(it's clearly the Knights duh) I just really like having to identify with your faction, it also gives more flavor to the combat in multiplayer. Like, oh I'm capturing these points so I can win this match. Or, I'm capturing these points because this is our last holdout against the Vikings, if we lose here then we lose the war.

I think that kind of dynamic is really cool in a multiplayer game so that's why I expected there to be some sort of faction based game mode.

[MathiasCB]

Oh believe me I wasn't going to decide who the better warrior was because some video game says so.(it's clearly the Knights duh) I just really like having to identify with your faction, it also gives more flavor to the combat in multiplayer. Like, oh I'm capturing these points so I can win this match. Or, I'm capturing these points because this is our last holdout against the Vikings, if we lose here then we lose the war.

I think that kind of dynamic is really cool in a multiplayer game so that's why I expected there to be some sort of faction based game mode.

Faction V faction... I would give a William for that...

And come on! We all know that the vikings are by far superior to the other factions!

Thanks for posting the video, Zen!

[MisterWillow]

I'm still of a mind that all the hype around "Choose Your Faction" was a purely personal question and not an intention to actually pit the factions against each other to see who wins.

So why have factions in the first place? Why frame it as 'here's a war that's raged for a thousand years, pick a side'? Why not go the MOBA route and make a bunch of characters that kinda look like Knights, Samurai, and Vikings, maybe add a Saracen or Mongol, or even Zulu, put them all in a hat and tell people to pick their poison?

It diminishes one of the defining aspect of the multiplayer to have ostensible enemies fighting alongside one another? For what? Standing in a box to make it turn Blue or Orange.

Obviously For Honor is not historically accurate, so attempting to use the game as a metric to answer "Which faction is best?" is foolish.

Not from a historical sense, perhaps, but from a mythological sense, from a wouldn't-this-be-cool-if-this-happened childlike wonder sense, from the point of view of an imaginative scenario, it is the furthest thing from foolish.

That is where dreams live.

(it's clearly the *Vikings duh)

Fixed it for you.

[dapheenom]

So why have factions in the first place? Why frame it as 'here's a war that's raged for a thousand years, pick a side'? Why not go the MOBA route and make a bunch of characters that kinda look like Knights, Samurai, and Vikings, maybe add a Saracen or Mongol, or even Zulu, put them all in a hat and tell people to pick their poison?

It diminishes one of the defining aspect of the multiplayer to have ostensible enemies fighting alongside one another? For what? Standing in a box to make it turn Blue or Orange.

If each faction had identical gameplay styles, then it would be fine. But with as differently as each character plays, I wouldn't want to be forced to use a character I'm unfamiliar with just to get into a game. It's like playing Street Fighter and being forced to only be able to pick from Balrog, Vega, Sagat, and Bison because your bros wanted to play Shadaloo...and you main Ryu. It would be awful.

[MisterWillow]

If each faction had identical gameplay styles, then it would be fine. But with as differently as each character plays, I wouldn't want to be forced to use a character I'm unfamiliar with just to get into a game. It's like playing Street Fighter and being forced to only be able to pick from Balrog, Vega, Sagat, and Bison because your bros wanted to play Shadaloo...and you main Ryu. It would be awful.

Sorry if this comes of as rude, since this is the first interaction I've had with you (and I've had this conversation before*), but why do people keep making comparisons to fighting games? There's little to no thematic conflict in having any fighting game's host of characters fighting one another because just about every fighting game has a fighting tournament as a setting, where it is a very solid presumption that any person within a tournament could end up fighting any other character.

More to the point, there are already games that restrict you to a faction in a similar way---the most obvious one for comparison (and the one I will continue to use) is Planetside, since each factions' weapons function slightly differently, all factions have access to vehicles the others don't (Vanu gets the Scythe, for example)---which are accepted just as well despite this limitation.

*see more thorough arguments here and here

[ZenBearV13]

Indeed, we've had this discussion before and don't need to again. We agree to disagree on the importance of the theme vs variety. My question for you, MisterWillow, is do you plan to organize a Faction v Faction fight club? Like in Dark Souls, players can choose to come together for an express purpose within the parameters of the game's options, and this allows you the freedom to play Faction v Faction and enjoy answering your question. I for one would love to be a part of this fight club. Knights are supreme, that is a simple fact, and I look forward to proving it to you and everyone. ;P

[dapheenom]

Sorry if this comes of as rude, since this is the first interaction I've had with you (and I've had this conversation before*), but why do people keep making comparisons to fighting games?

Because this is a multiplayer hand-to-hand combat game where there are twelve characters who each have unique attacks and combos? If I practice and get good with a certain character, I'd like to be able to use said character in any match type. It's not particularly hard to figure out why people would make that connection. If it makes you feel any better, I support thrusting 100%.