bit-gamer.net

For Honor Review

Comments 1 to 11 of 11

Reply
Whalemeister 21st February 2017, 17:34 Quote
£39.99 Base Game.
£29.99 Season pass.
Microtransactions.
No dedicated servers.

No ****ing way!
GravitySmacked 21st February 2017, 18:04 Quote
I picked it up for £32 and it's decent enough but I don't know how long it will keep my attention for.

Probably until next week when Horizon Zero Dawn comes out
dstarr3 21st February 2017, 18:54 Quote
My rule about these primarily-multiplayer AAA games: When in doubt, wait a year. If it's good, it'll still have a player base. If it's rubbish, it won't. Certainly saved me from wasting money on Evolve. Whereas RS:Siege has been an amazing purchase.

If this really is good, I look forward to playing it in 2018. If it turns out to not, then I'll be glad to spend that $60 elsewhere.
GravitySmacked 21st February 2017, 20:35 Quote
The problem with that, for me anyway, is that after that amount of time, these games tend to consist of a hardcore player base and can become impenetrable.
Flexible_Lorry 21st February 2017, 21:00 Quote
Ahhh frippery. If it doesn't have it, it came out before 2005.
supermuchurios 21st February 2017, 23:47 Quote
Looks ass candy
Pete J 22nd February 2017, 08:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermuchurios
Looks ass candy
So...is that a good or bad thing? I'm going to assume it's good, because it looks pretty.

I'm not a fan of games set in the fantasy/history era as they usually involve some sort of magic/potion system that I quickly lose interest in, but this looks as though it's all violence and smashing stuff. I think I'll pick it up on sale.
Parge 22nd February 2017, 09:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalemeister
£39.99 Base Game.
£29.99 Season pass.
Microtransactions.
No dedicated servers.

No ****ing way!

Have to agree. I'm not against DLC at all but offering it up front, before reviews, for basically the full price of the game just doesn't work for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstarr3
My rule about these primarily-multiplayer AAA games: When in doubt, wait a year. If it's good, it'll still have a player base. If it's rubbish, it won't. Certainly saved me from wasting money on Evolve. Whereas RS:Siege has been an amazing purchase.

If this really is good, I look forward to playing it in 2018. If it turns out to not, then I'll be glad to spend that $60 elsewhere.

Good shout. For me personally, if its a game I really want and reviews are awesome, I'll jump in earlier - but for certain games (siege is a good example), I liked it on paper, reviews were generally good, but didn't want to pay full price and wanted to see how well it was supported after the first 6 months. Picked it up the other day for £15, after a years worth of bug fixes - game has never been in a better place. Perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GravitySmacked
The problem with that, for me anyway, is that after that amount of time, these games tend to consist of a hardcore player base and can become impenetrable.

I don't really think that is true nowadays. I've recently picked up a number of games and sure, you get owned for the first few hours, but matchmaking is generally pretty good nowadays overall.
Hex 22nd February 2017, 11:26 Quote
Having been fairly excited for this game, I have to admit I'm disappointed in it now it's out.

The decision to go, albeit a modified, p2p makes no sense to me. I have put enough hours into the game throughout the betas+ to know how to block and parry and time it right but sometimes the game flat out says 'NO!'. Usually, I'll have a game where I can't block/parry anything and can't even perform executions and then a player will leave and suddenly everything works again. But if I complain about latency... "there is no latency in this game, you just don't know how to play". Sure, that must be it. Then there's the rewind you get when someone disconnects, it brings corpses back to life more often than not which can throw you a bit and ruins any flow you had going.

Thankfully the issue with leaving players being replaced with very much alive, full health bots in all modes except Domination is being addressed in a future patch. Good. Because twice I've lost a match of Elimination because only 1 enemy was alive, everyone was focused on them and a dead player quit and was replaced by a full health bot that revived the rest of the team un-noticed and they slaughtered us.

The single player is where I'm most disappointed, though. They kept saying it wasn't tacked on, they'd been working on it from the start. Really?! Then why is it just a really prolonged tutorial with a paper thin story? Talking of tutorials, why on Earth did they think it was a good idea to force the mp tutorial before you even choose which mode you want to play?! Having played so much of the mp I wanted to dive straight into the campaign and found myself doing two almost identical tutorials back to back before I could play.

I'm interested to see how long it lasts as the number of sponsored streamers and the hours they are required to play drops. It has many similarities with the Assassin's Creed multiplayer games, so I'm not holding out a huge amount of hope for longevity. Not that I'm sure I'll want to keep playing with the community how it is right now! Help out a team mate? "I'm gonna report you! You should have HONOR, it's in the title! Stand and wait until I kill him!" Kick someone off a ledge/ladder? "I'm reporting you! It's called For HONOR! You're just cheesing. NO HONOR!" :| It's a game, neither of these are exploits. They are deliberate game mechanics and if you play with bots you will find they are the least honourable things around. If you want 1v1 choose Duel. If you don't want to be kicked off a ledge don't stand near one. ;)
DeckerdBR 22nd February 2017, 12:55 Quote
Why does the review not make mention of the lack of dedicated servers or the micro-transactions in a full price game?

Given how relevant those issues are to many gamer, i'm surprised at how infrequently they get mentioned in the BT reviews.

ACG (the youtuber) for example does cover more topics and im sure the BT reviews used to be more in-depth, surely one of the key benefits of a written review?
karsh 23rd February 2017, 18:05 Quote
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums