What is Ubisoft doing with "For Honor"?

The gameplay is also just not interesting enough to warrant a purchase.
If it was some free to play game with purchases for characters/items, I could see it doing okay. I'd probably be down to play it some. But as a $60 + $40 game, I can't give enough of a shit about how the game plays to consider putting down any money on it.

jewbisoft

They are going for the e-sport angle so if it isnt complete shit at launch it will be a few patches later

How many negros and masculine looking women For Honor has?

your forgot to sage

What are you talking about user, there right next to each other…

...

Lasting longer than Battleborn shouldn't really be a point to talk about, anything can last longer than that game as long as it's functional.

I've seen a few normalfags talking about it, praising the graphics, animations and decapitations; from what I've seen, it's actually really pretty.

But the characters do not have lasting appeal at all, they just look like faceless mooks in the end, despite being more impressive than the actual mooks, and the game will be forgotten fast.

There have been many attemps at similar gameplay before, Chivalry and some other that released at the same time I can't remenber.
They never last because it's always just deathmatch with melee weapons that are handled too similar to each other, shields that make the game stale and archery that makes the game cancerous and frustrating.

If this was something like Planetside but you went around the world conquering regions for your faction, the amount of normal mooks based on the players that were in that region and the supplies they had, etc, maybe it would last a bit longer. As it stands, it's gonna be forgotten faster than Watchdogs.

areuabomb?

What the hell is it even? Some kind of Chivalry clone? Is Ubisoft really that desperate?

Yes and yes.

...

For Honor just seems so paint by numbers every time I see it. Like, I remember I read a brief description of what the game was and I knew instantly it was just "ubisoft's Chivalry", and nothing more.

It's like that but with much more of a focus on "1v1 me fgt"

No, it's more like Anarchy Reigns with a half fighting game half Mount&Blade combat system. It isn't nearly as wonky or freeform as Chivalry, you run around and then sort of lock into duels with people which play out like a clunkier Soul Calibur with M&B directional attacks and blocking.

It will be the typical Ubishit online game, active for a month before dead. Servers being P2P has seen to that.

By the way it sounds, it just seems like their designing their DLC like Rainbow Six Siege, whether or not that's good or bad I guess is up in the air.
The season pass may also be giving you either a timely or permemant "Champion" status, which is a status you can buy which gives you:
More XP
More Loot
More in-game currency
Basically Battlefield Premium.

also it has way more advertising.

Is everyone just going to ignore what said?
He is right, either this thread is bait that Holla Forums instantly falls for, like clockwork, or OP is a dumbass.
Either way, its a sage from me.

...

What he said doesn't really apply if you don't want to shit on the game
Also this isn't a reality show and your epic downvote won't kick OP off the island

Wait, what? What does that mean? The point is that the thread is shit and is based on OP saying what Jewbisoft is doing and acting like its the first time something like this happened with a game.

Also, who are you to claim that Holla Forums ain't a reality show? Are you offended by my downvotes?

...

I think you're mixing up your buzzwords there, Holla Forums

Yeah nevermind, this thread was destined to be garbage

I always dislike how faceless mooks are done in most games as it's hardly an element of the gameplay, they really are just mooks to be beaten around in musou games or mobas.

They had the oportunity here to make something like every player having a squad of 25 soldiers to serve under them with equipment chosen by you so you can do some strategy on your own. A simple 5v5 server would actually have 125v125 fighters.

And if sieges or battles had something like a camp that spawns 10 mooks for every tent inside (making them a target for the enemy), a resource stockpile that needs trade routes between regions to keep stocked or your troops lose effectiveness and are recalled (maybe some other like medical tents), you could have some depth here, with players making squads based on strategies they want to try, prioritizing locations in the map to reduce the strength of the enemy smartly instead of just killing them, etc.

But instead, it's probably just gonna be indeed a lot of killing easy NPCs to feel badass coupled with some "1v1 me fgt" for [The Competitive Community]

It only shares a few details in the combat with M&B and not even most of them. The rest of the game is so different that even mentioning M&B here makes no sense.
Your attempt at a critic was like someone kicking a pile of shit, slipping and falling in it.

Oh let me guess. You're one of those "you can't talk about it because it's bad!" types.

Did they already give news about their DRM of choice?

has anyone here actually fucking played it? i'm seeing a lot of "i bet it's x" and no actual facts. i played the beta and can tell you

i'd pick it up if it hit $20 because it genuinely was a lot of fun to mess around with a couple of bros and the combat really does have its own weird cadence and rhythm, it's definitely got a lot more going for it than your average war of the roses style bullshit. but it's fundamentally split up in the most f2p way possible and those weapon pack things you need to buy with steel from melting down your shit or presumably real money in the full version are total fucking horseshit and makes even R6 Siege look better in comparison, especially since certain parts confer certain stat bonuses and penalties, and i guarantee that the high-level meta is going to be simply to stack one stat or another and instakill your foes or whatever

No shit, that wasn't the point.
Let me put it in simple terms: OP makes a thread in which he only puts a bit of info and uses it to cause drama like the info is anything special and anons fall for it by replying to the thread and shitting on the game even tho we already had a thread like a day ago where people did the exact same things.
Main point: thread is nothing more then repeated bitching about a jewbisoft game and most of the bitching is just anons repeating what other anons said because no one is gonna bother to try the open beta.
Get it now?

With Peacemaker and Warlord in the last two betas I've seen pretty even distributions across the factions. Nobushi is annoying as fuck but in a 1v1 it's not too hard to shit on her with any of the factions' vanguards or either of the heavies and Orochi has been tuned down to the point where he's not significantly better than Peacekeeper or Berserker. Three betas back yeah, everyone was playing samurai and four samurai teams were the norm rather than the exception.

Is there that little that can be done with medieval multiplayer games like these? It sounds like they should just be made into single player games with tacked on co-op or something.

The "cuck version" part is right tho

I don't think anyone is disputing the graphics, that's actually the one thing you can see they did really, really well. Especially the animations, the few videos I saw of someone playing, they were really good.

That sounds a lot like Souls combat, which I'm sure they are taking a page of. It doesn't sound that deep to be honest, more a matter of proper timing and we go back to cyborg reflexes winning games.
I don't know if making it look like a fighting game but in third person is good or bad, actually.

Ah, I was wondering how they'd make players actually try to defend as otherwise everyone would just mash attack and stunlock everyone else.
I can see that mechanic backfiring as people will play really defensively until they get rage which will make the game really boring.

That's not that bad if the game isn't about killing people and you're forfeiting the area or something similar. I'm guessing that's not the case, though.
Bit sad to hear that, it's usually one of the things you have to fix first otherwise the gameplay is always gonna be unfun with the ultra competitive niggers. Something like multiple points to attack\defend to separate people, statistical advantages to outnumbered people, etc.

Uh? They actually have something going with that? What does it do, change the drops you get based on how well your faction is doing?

They don't make good games and haven't made good games for about ten years.

???
No drama here, mate. He just posted what he knew and everyone else is talking about it. People would "fall for it" if they actually bought it because they believed the game was actually good which doesn't seem to be the case.

Heh, it's kinda that but it's also talking about why it's bad, not just "it's ubisoft so it's automatically bad!" although that's expected.
Thread is still worth having so we can talk about how NOT to make a game like this.

I think that most of the appeal behind medieval warfare isn't in the battles themselves but rather in the logistics, politics and strategy behind them. That's why most of the best games that feature such thing are RTS or Grand Strategy or 4X games.
In order for a game like this to have long lasting appeal, it would have to be far more than just multiplayer deathmatch.
You either have a solid singleplayer game with a really good campaign that makes it a good game on it's own or you need an actual military campaign and war going on that the players can affect, ence why I mentioned Planetside before.

Melee weapons are a hunk of metal you swing around hoping not to hit armor, another hunk of metal you wear. They can have whatever shape you want, it's still "get near and swing it" for all of them.
Even ranged weapons are not much different from "propel a projectile roughly every 2-3 seconds in that direction" and armor is just "this stops some damage".
Compare it with Sci-Fi where you can have weapons that are used in very different circustances or different types of armor like regenerating shields, etc.

You could go with extra autism and mention things like arrow types that penetrate more and cause more bleeding or arrows that can penetrate armor, as well as use different metals to differenciate weapons and armor or go full autist with the combat system to actually make the weapons feel different.
But that's not gonna happen because it doesn't have any appeal for the majority.

"cuck" just means "thing I don't like" now, it lost it's meaning much like "fag" or "goon" or "weeb". At most it's used by faggots that prefer their favorite fetish to be used instead of an offensive word like "faggot", but overall it doesn't mean anything anymore.
So no, it wasn't right at all.

He claimed that those were weird choices when in reality its typical stuff. It felt like OP wasn't really putting effort into the thread. That and most of the early replies were just short posts with nothing particularly interesting being said. Thats why i called it a shit thread, but…
Well, tbh, most of the actual good discussion that is happening in the thread started after my initial post. It seems like now there is some good discussion. I guess it isn't a shit thread after all.

The rage mechanic was pretty bullshit in my opinion.
You gain it based on blocking attacks. When you end up in a 1v2 scenario blocking becomes easier since all you have to do lock onto one guy and block left or right depending where the other guy is standing. After blocking 3 or 4 attacks you'll have it up and it is a free interrupt, knocking down whoever tries to attack you when you use it. You now deal a fuckton of damage and depending on the character can get two or three free un-interruptable hits in that will likely kill.
When I ended up in 2v1 situations I just refused to attack the guy and just spam feints even though we had the man advantage so I wouldn't be giving the guy a free rage art and let him get the free "clutch"

It's not just from blocking attacks, it also builds whenever they take damage and very slowly over time when there are just enough people in the vicinity. You can also super easily fuck over people in 2v1s by using more guard breaks instead of attacks or spamming knockback moves like the warlord's headbutt, the warden's shoulder charge, the conquerer's shieldbash or any of the unblockable moves.

if you're playing the 5v5 gamemode, after every battle you gain one army to place on any of the contested provinces on the map, and at the end of any given "turn" which i think is 24 hours whoever has more armies there takes the province, and the army holding the most provinces at the end of a period of time gets some free resources
it really isn't. imagine mount and blade, but instead of just chaining left-right-left-up you're chaining left quick attack-they block-right strong attack-they weren't expecting that-up strong attack-they blocked it but it drained their stamina-shield bash-push-regroup. it adds a lot of options to the flow of any particular battle, as if you're really whooping ass you can choose to really push on an enemy but you're risking exhaustion, or you can play it slow and let them make the first move/mistake. it sounds simple in theory but i really like how each character has their own block timing/counter timing, so the character with the shield feels a lot easier to defend with than the weeb with the katana, and defending against an enemy's attacks really depends on how well you've read their telegraphs
it's not as bad as you think either. 1v1 even as the defensive character i like best chances are excellent that i wouldn't get a rage proc, but if it happens it's the end of the goddamn world for them and frankly it should be, they pushed too hard and left themselves open. i also like that when you do get ganged up on rage is a lot easier to accumulate, because like i said you're going to get groupganked at least 50% of the time, and being able to hulk out and push them back would be literally impossible otherwise unless they're awful players. that said i feel like there could be a more elegant solution to that problem, but i can't think of one

sorta offtopic but I wish people would quit with this 1080/30 vs. 720/60 shit. ```To be clear,``` I don't support one over the other; the point is that the argument is based on a flawed premise to begin with.

The idea is that by lowering the render resolution you reduce the per-frame demands on the hardware and thus can run at a higher framerate. it sorta made sense back in the previous generation because those consoles were sharply limited by their graphics processors (more accurately: their GPU memory bandwidth) when running at HD resolutions. that meant that running a game at 600p could really net you some extra frames.

in the current generation of consoles, even the Xbox One is still way way way more limited by its shitty little netbook CPUs than by its graphics processor, and that's true doubly for the PS4 and many times over for the PS4 Pro (which actually has a very fast graphics chip, similar to RX 480.)

what this means is, lowering the resolution does fuckall. you're still gonna have a shitty 30fps game, it will just look worse. the framerate is going to be limited by the CPUs, not by the GPUs. even if you drop shit to 320x240 you're still never going to go over a certain framerate because the little tiny tablet-tier CPUs can only put out work so fast.

certain parts of games are really easy to parallelize (run on multiple processors) – particularly graphics and physics – but those parts of games are already running on a massively parallel co-processor, the graphics chip, which has thousands of really simple and dumb "cores." the parts of a game that are not easy to parallelize are running on the CPU and because they're not easy to parallelize you need a CPU with the maximum single-threaded execution performance.

I love the Jaguar CPU, it's amazing in so many ways, but it is just shit garbage for a gaming processor because it was never intended to be used that way. it is fucking terrible at single-threaded execution performance and even moreso given the low clock rate (1.6 GHz in PS4, 1.76 GHz in XB1, 2.1 GHZ in PS4P). it's a slow CPU running at a slow clock rate and having more of them doesn't help matters. These are tiny chips where you can fit four of them at 1.6 GHz in a 10-watt power envelope. Compare that to two Intel cores at 3.9 GHz which runs a 51W power envelope and you begin to see the problem perhaps?? they're dinky little chips like smartphone processors, though slightly better than that because they do have wide SIMD.

point is, quit posting this "durr muh 1080p60 on ps4 pro" or "muh 720p60 instead of 1080p30" because it's just fucking ignorant. the next-gen consoles can't do 60fps with the kind of complex games you want to play.

BUILD A PC YOU FAGGOTS

no niggers and you can't see anyone's faces so who knows about ugly masculine women

I played the game in the beta and i found it amusing. I really thought wow this is a lot of fun even tough some things need tweaking, i see the high potential this game has so it automaticly hit me in the feels that ubisoft did it. Because i know any other half starved indie developer would have done it better than them. Ubisoft often has very very good ideas but since they cant see beyound their big fat jew nose its gonna suck.

If they can hold themself back halfway decent its gonna be a good game. But i feel/know they gonna fuck this really fun to play game up somehow. Anyway if the g2a price is ok im gonna buy it and play it for as long the fun lasts. Propably the first jew dlc with op chars so that all the lil kids buy them

Yeah, that's what I feared, that the rage mechanic would be exploited to win fights easily but at the same time, it would require a real boring way of playing to achieve it, forcing your oponent to play in a shitty way too if he doesn't want to make you angry.

That seems retarded. Not just under-used as fuck but like the other user said, it's gonna develop into a Vannu-Everyone else situation.
Why bother to win games as the faction that has less players and holds less regions, therefore winning less resources? Join the biggest one and win more instead.

It still sounds a lot like Souls PvP, not that it's necessairly a bad thing (as long as it doesn't devolve into rage tornadoes)

Except it doesn't actually make sense to powerup the defender because of this. Stamina is supposed to be the punishment for overly-committing, it's a resource you spend and when you need it to defend, it's not there.

Rage should be the oposite, something that goes up when you deal or suffer damage, increasing the damage you deal but possibly making it harder for you to defend by increasing the time it takes to raise a block or dodge. It should be something dynamic that has it's advantages and disadvantages, not necessarily be a powerup but something that plays in favour of smart players, both the attackers and the defenders.

Lots of people know little about tech and still talk their ass off about it.
But in the case of "muh 4k", it's just another strawman to belittle "the oposition". It's not about standards or anything like it, in one sentence you'll see consoles mocked for being just underpowered PCs but in another sentence you'll read someone talking about how "graphics don't matter".

The important here is to mock anyone that thinks this is a good point to argue in favour of anything, because it really isn't.

Remenber not to pay more than 20$ for it if you are actually gonna buy it.
I honestly doubt the game is gonna live much longer than Evolve since it does need a beefy computer most normalfags don't have and a very active playerbase which just isn't gonna show up.
If you pay more for it, you're gonna feel disapointed when it finnaly dies.