Senior Member
I have seen a lot of comments over the past year criticising Ubisoft because they don't get things right first time that games like Injustice and Tekken do. People also bring up the argument that Injustice and Street Fighter run at 60 fps why not For Honor?
I kind of think that a good deal of gamers are judging Ubisoft - unfairly - against franchises that have been running for quite a few more years than them in terms of the fighter scene or against games that have completely different demands. Taking the 60fps argument, I really do not understand how people can see a basically static sidescroller fighter and think that For Honor ought to find something like that easy because they do it. The battle in let's say Injustice takes place in a confined area with a few moving bits of scenery in the background as opposed to a battlefield that is many times the playing size.
It is even worse when people say things like but Injustice 2 had things balanced day one and they had this that and the other and here we are with For Honor. Injustice 2 works on a template that has been going since the Amiga days, outside of graphics and a few special moves, it is not far away from Street Fighter 2 over twenty years ago in terms of gameplay.
Between Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Injustice and let's say Tekken (slightly different with sidehops but eh) they have had at the very least 23 main title releases over decades. Anything they do the framework and infrastructure is a known thing and already there. People are saying that this new game completely different to any of them should from day one be on the same level of polished as them without, maybe because the internet is a thing now, giving Ubisoft, in it's first fighter game, the time to try things and learn that other companies have had over a much longer period of time.
I believe For Honor will get to where it needs to be, I also believe that the devs are going to do a lot between now and that time, some of it will be good, some of it will be bad, but to say that they didn't just put out a Street Fighter clone and they are where they are now? I'm willing to take the rough with the smooth.
Banned
The only thing that ever adequately judges a producer of... anything really, are the customers.
If it sells well enough thats good for them, if it doesnt its not.
I personally dont see a reason not to hold someone to standard that is well established within a certain industry (i.e. online multiplayer). The fact that they released a 4v4 game with P2P tells you all you need to know about how versed the team is in making online multiplayer games (and PvP in particular). Theres obviously a lot of other things i find completely ridiculous especially in regards to the design of the online multiplayer aspect but as long as people are willing to pay for an objectively innovative product on the market it really doesnt matter what i (or anyone else for that matter) think.
What matters is revenue.
The market will judge. The market does not care if this is "your first attempt". Theres no benefit in not talking about things you dislike/like. Before buying or leaving. Consumer data is all the rage these days anyway. Worst case scenario if you withhold your userdata (i.e. opinion in this case), there will be nothing left for you to enjoy at some point because your purchase profile doesnt exist in their spreadsheets.
Banned
Going to tread both lines here, because I both agree and disagree.
Where I agree: yes this is ground breaking in the realm of fighters because it mixes formulas from multiple sources. There really isn't a fighting game like this one out there, so as you've said there isn't an existing format to pull from.
You can play mortal kombat or street fighter and understand how to play other games of the similar side scrolling genre like marvel vs Capcom, injustice or any others and do well. Similarly you can play Tekken, then go play soul Calibur and, again, grasp the mechanics quickly.
Where I disagree: it's not wrong for us to look to parallels in other games and see issues. most of that has to do, from my point of view, in regards to balancing. Games have been a large part of our culture for a while, so to have some problems still manifest the way they do seems a little off. To me it's like the writing process, when you edit writing it's a wider idea to go to a completely different source for this, as they aren't blinded by bias and or plain fatigue. You aren't always going to catch your own mistakes. Likewise it feels like there isn't enough play testing fine in ways that will accurately mimic live play from users who have and will find ways to advise certain aspects of a games mechanics or design.
Additionally it feels a lot of times there is a disconnect between developers and their audience at times in that they have a product, that regardless of how well it does or sells, they all seem to ignore basic things that realistically shouldn't be as glaring as a problem.
Senior Member
Yes and no. For honor isn't a traditional fighter but that doesn't mean it can't adapt some things from other games. Like having varied ms increments and viable block strings.
At the same time trying to introduce something like frame trapping would probably not go over well. Nor would (as much as it pains me to say) make movement more impactful in a fight.
Senior Member
Yeah I am not for any second saying the game is in a finished state, it needs to improve. My point is that I think some people, used to standard fighters and their clones, were expecting street fighter levels of it being a polished game.
No one is saying it is in its final state, to quote, Luc, in their previous setup they had a ceiing, now it is a floor. I have played all the fighters before this years ago,For Honor brought me back to the genre because it is unique and my point is unless you are insanely lucky you don't have something unique without bumps in the road.
Senior Member
I only judge For Honor, the company and the dev team based on purely how they advertised and categorized their game in monetary value.
They advertised it as a AAA product for multiplayer online fighting game, and priced it as such. A lot of people paid 80$+ for the game, of which this game is definitely not worth with the myriad of problems it have. I bash every game that released on AAA pretence and price and fails to deliver, and For Honor is among the top of that list right below Mass Effect :Andromeda.
If Roman had not blatantly lied about P2P during open beta, claiming with launch all network problems would be gone, and if they actually sold the game for 1/2 of what they charged, I doubt people would be as pissed as they are. This is a business, not a charity or a community project. If I go to a restaurant and steak comes burned, whereas other restaurants of same price range successfully deliver my steak without problems, I could not care in the least what their excuse is. Especially if they still charge me the bill.
Can you simply look at the quality MKX or Injustice2 offers and tell me that For Honor delivers the same quality of experience? If they deliver a subpar product for same price range they deserve all the complaints, regardless of that their excuse for failing might be.
Senior Member
Well, I think it's just me, but I never compared For Honor with classic fighting games. Yes, it's have this unique battle system, but I never was intrested in duels, so for me For Honor always was 4v4. So I mostly judge it from this point. I stop complaining about balance when try out 5+ characters, and after year realised some thing about the game. I, personally, have no worries about feats, but I agree it's need to reconcider.
But I always says about problem I could see in game. For example battle system that just not designed for 1vX fights, some bugs with traking and ledges, I really think gear was a bad idea. In top of that, I still think season five were compleat loose in term of new content. And we still could see same issue with season 6, cause I think all we'll see on E3 will be not release before season 7.
This game have a lot of little things that can pissed of. I, personally, think devs need to simplify the fighting system, cause with reworks, new chars and all this they just add and add levels of deepness there, and made this game harder and harder for a newcomers. Maybe, separate fighting system in duels and 4v4.
So, while I agree that some people just made rage threads about "I loose to one Orochi, lightspam sucks, this game sucks" and this is wrong. But at the same time without criticising this game would never be in state that it is now.
For Honor really need something 180 degrees from what it was in S4-5, and I hope E3 will give it to us.
I think it's mostly the bad side of big publisher behind devs. Same thing happend with No Man's Sky. Unique project with good concept. But than Sony appears and devs hav no chance to release game as Early-Access. Same with For Honor. Yes, If game will release as early-access project for 30$ this could be better. But Ubisoft will never let it happend.They advertised it as a AAA product for multiplayer online fighting game, and priced it as such. A lot of people paid 80$+ for the game, of which this game is definitely not worth with the myriad of problems it have. I bash every game that released on AAA pretence and price and fails to deliver, and For Honor is among the top of that list right below Mass Effect :Andromeda.
If Roman had not blatantly lied about P2P during open beta, claiming with launch all network problems would be gone, and if they actually sold the game for 1/2 of what they charged, I doubt people would be as pissed as they are. This is a business, not a charity or a community project. If I go to a restaurant and steak comes burned, whereas other restaurants of same price range successfully deliver my steak without problems, I could not care in the least what their excuse is. Especially if they still charge me the bill.
Member
The very first time i played For Honor i remember thinking it's a mix between Tekken and Dynasty Warriors. And yeah they're both fighting games so they fall into the same genre and i guess you're entitled to compare them but the truth is no matter what Tekken (or any other game) is doing right or wrong, THIS game isn't worth the full price at it's current state.
Many of us keep playing for different reasons, propably mainly because we're used to the flaws and love the unique core gameplay mechanics but how many of you could recommend this to a casual friend?
Member
Senior Member
I love ubi games, in fact ubi are one of my favourite developers especially for the AC series. For honor was a misinterpretation for many gamers, they clearly expected something it is not. for a CQC medieval style game its amazing and I knew it would be a skill based game form the get go. Yes throughout FH I myself have raged and blamed the devs in the heat of the moment but think about it what others company's stay in contact with their end users after all this time and is still dedicated to the people and creating new content. The moderators are constantly replying to threads and the live streams are still on going, to me that deserve an applaud and on top of all that at E3 with been promised a big surprise after all the DLC has circulated. FH is the sort of game which was always going to been hard to please all and make things balanced. im glad now the game finally feels more stable, it took a while but were getting there and the mods and devs are working hard and they actually LISTEN to us.
