Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums

Phils For Honor/playthrough and review.


Recommended Posts

 

I think the review in and of it self was pretty well produced. And I can see why phil choose to give the game a bad review, and a 5/10
But I also have to say that I disagree with it. Because my experiences with the game have been a little bit different. Phil did review this for the PS4 so there is of course a big difference with my experience, as I played it on a pc.
Not only that, but the internet infrastructure in USA also seem to be a lot worse compared to what it is in my region of europe. So there will be significant differences with latency and stability.
So much so, that the game for me have preformed very much better then what is the case for phil.
I can play the game at 60FPS with no problem, and with really good latency online. I mean I am actually surprised over how well the peer 2 peer is working In my region.
I don't know if a windows pc handles the network connection p2p better than a PS4, or if it is just the bad architecture of the american internet that does this.
Because we know phl have a very good internet, and that the NAT had a green light. Yet we all saw how bad the connectivity was.
The only real comparison I have Is from playing MGO. Which also had a P2P solution. Which did not work so well. There may have been various reason for that. Like different netcode, less players, and inherently different game.
But from my perspective for honor preformed much better online then what I expected.   I haven't experienced any lag. Except for a few seconds when a player disconnects. 
So whatever these Ubisoft guys did it seem to be working surprisingly well. 
I played with a few friends of mine over skype, and they also had no worries when it came to the online part. 
Ironically we all used Playstation controllers. Because the game is just that much better using a controller setup, rather than a keyboard and mouse. 
The complaints in the text chat of the game was no whining about the game being bad, but there was a bit of whining about other players performances. 

Even though the  game has micro transactions and  the "dominion" (the moba looking game mod) version of the game might be a bit pay to win. The Gear stats don't have anything to say in "duel", and "brawl". Which is more direct combat.
In  dominion I would say even if you can "buy" a better character  your skill is more important then what gear you have on. 
And with a bit of patience you would be able to get a high level character with excellent gear not having to pay anything. It is also a bit fun with the constant loot and drops you get. It makes the game a little les bland, and adds to the variation. Something a person who likes lootboxes In other games should be able to relate to. It is also a bit more excitement to it when it  isn't only Aesthetic in my opinion.  You get the full version of the game when you buy it. And using money on micro transactions would only give you a slight edge in the beginning. That would diminish over time. It would be more for people who are impatient, and want something right away rather than having to grind to get it. 

The singleplayer campaign was maybe not the most riveting story. And do have some major room for improvement. But it was really good in giving the player some time to get familiar with the game and the mechanics. It does add some more value to the game, to like have some understanding of the lore. Even if it is really retarded. 
But no story, no matter how good it is can make sense of vikings, knights, and samurais fighting each other, with a over representation of brutal, and strong, women.
That is really silly regardless of how you spin it.
A plus to the campaign is that it had multiplayer coop option.

The game may have some balancing issues. And bugs, But when something is made under the ubisoft banner it is really something you are used to at this point. 
It seem like they are unable to make the game finished when they release it. I have also played Rainbow 6 siege and The division. And they where also not finished at launch. 
It was fully functional and working. But Did also have some bugs and issues that where not fixed before the game was released. 
Most game developers these days does this, but ubisoft does seem extra greedy. 
They do how ever makes some really decent games. And in the end the bugs and errors are usually not anything more then something that annoys you slightly in the end. 
You support their business the next time they pull the same shit, so this will probably not be anything they change. 

I really enjoyed this game. And it is really disappointing to see how bad it preforms on the PS4. It's not that my computer is that much more powerful. At least I don't think so. 
I have a AMD phenom II 955 4 core cpu clocked at 3800ghz
8GB of ram 
A Nvidia gtx970 strix
And the game installed to a 2TB standard HDD. 
The game runs smooth at 60FPS, both online, and singleplayer, I like the gameplay mechanics. And it  is something new and different. I would give this game a 9/10
I don't know what failed with the PS4 version. If it is Sony that is at fault or Ubisoft. But something clearly went wrong. Because Even if the game looks almost the same, the PS4 edition clearly is lacking.  Phil is really good blaming the game developers, and ultimately they are the once that are responsible for this travesty. 
But are not American internet, and Sony also a bit responsible, or is this purely Ubisoft that didn't make the game properly for the playstation 4? 





 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What hurt this game is that its 30fps when the entire game is based on reactions, some  classes are extremely quick and the only way you'd be able to react is if there is minimal delay and smooth framerate. I can count countless times I have blocked or did something only for it not to matter because there was delay and worst of all the game starts chopping up like crazy which makes it not fun at all. I played the Alpha/beta and now the game and I can seriously say I am very disappointed. 

 

I hate to say it but if EA made this game it would of been 60fps and would have dedicated servers, oh well let's hope the developers listen and fix these issues.

 

 

Edited by FloydMayweather
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chachamaru said:

Sorry but I dont take phil's review seriously tbh. I only watched them for fun. When i really need to watch a game review i go to other channels.

Btw, if ur that serious on 60fps u would know better to get the game on PC, or if u arent in the PC masterrace yet u should ve joined them long ago.

Stop talking smack, current gen SHOULD be able to handle at least 40fps, 30fps is a fucking joke buddy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, FloydMayweather said:

What hurt this game is that its 30fps when the entire game is based on reactions, some  classes are extremely quick and the only way you'd be able to react is if there is minimal delay and smooth framerate. I can count countless times I have blocked or did something only for it not to matter because there was delay and worst of all the game starts chopping up like crazy which makes it not fun at all. I played the Alpha/beta and now the game and I can seriously say I am very disappointed. 

 

I hate to say it but if EA made this game it would of been 60fps and would have dedicated servers, oh well let's hope the developers listen and fix these issues.

 

 

Did you also play on the PS4? And is from the united states? 30 fps might be bad enough in and of it self as you say. But the connectivity also seem to be a problem for some. 
Issues I haven't encountered when I play the game on PC In my region. 
This game really seem to be a hit or miss. Some people like me, have not had any performance issues. 
And I simply love the game. 
I know peer to peer isn't the best solution for online gaming. But for the people I played with and my self it works fine. 
But what is the contributing factor that the game fails on some platform and not on others. 
Are Peer to peer just incompatible with playstation? Was the game poorly made for playstation? 
Does other platforms also have this problem? IS it just so easy that Ubisoft made a bad job programming it for the playstation??
Or is it more to it then that?
 


 

Edited by BrightSideViking
Link to post
Share on other sites

His review was completely wrong, and the reason why he gave it a bad review is because he couldn't understand basic mechanics.

8 hours ago, Chachamaru said:

Sorry but I dont take phil's review seriously tbh. I only watched them for fun. When i really need to watch a game review i go to other channels.

You are a wise man.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I remember when Duke Nukem Forever came out Phil defended the games poor performance on consoles saying that reviewers should have bought the game on PC instead. He also said the reviewer didn't have the right background and wasn't a good representative of who the game was marketed for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, no, no, no.

First off, magical man, fuck off. Anyone who watched my coverage of the game knows I understand the basic mechanics, so nice talking out of your asshole.

The negatives in my review (P2P connectivity, 30fps or lower framerate on consoles, a broken Revenge system that's already failed in other competitive games, and a pay/play-to-win loot system) are all factually correct, and have nothing whatsoever to do with my mastery of the combat system. In fact, not one did I ever say in the review that the combat system was inconsistent or too difficult to learn - what I said was, the P2P connectivity and low framerate made it much more difficult than it needed to be, and that for a competitive game, those things were completely unacceptable.

Please, PLEASE, use your heads. Don't fanboy out for this game and completely ignore 4 perfectly valid, factually-backed design flaws because you think it's cool to lop off a few heads. Especially if you're playing on PC, which negates 1-2 of those flaws entirely to begin with and is clearly the superior version that the game devs were intending to be the "Best" one getting full 60fps.

2 hours ago, Pochomex said:

Hmm, I remember when Duke Nukem Forever came out Phil defended the games poor performance on consoles saying that reviewers should have bought the game on PC instead. He also said the reviewer didn't have the right background and wasn't a good representative of who the game was marketed for.

Right, and it's a completely different situation. Duke Nukem Forever began in the 1990s being developed as a PC game and ALWAYS was supposed to be one. It was only poorly ported to consoles upon its final release, leading to the many issues reviewers complained about - but we all KNEW that those versions would be awful in comparison to a game that was originally being developed exclusively for PC.

For Honor, since its inception, was supposed to be cross-platform. And cross-platform games should always be a similar experience regardless of what platform you play the game on. This is not the case at ALL with For Honor, where the PC version is far more playable than any console port.

In addition, many reviewers of Duke Nukem Forever were younger in age, and had never even played the original games (the girl I called out for in PSN magazine was in her early 20s, and intern and blatantly admitted she had no frame of reference for her review). I've played every major competitive AAA game that's been released in the last 8 or so years on consoles. For Honor was directly marketed to me for years and I was accepted both into the alpha and beta phases. I'm pretty sure I was the right person to review the game, lol.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to BSV saying "I don't know what failed with the PS4 version. If it is Sony that is at fault or Ubisoft. But something clearly went wrong. Because Even if the game looks almost the same, the PS4 edition clearly is lacking.  Phil is really good blaming the game developers, and ultimately they are the once that are responsible for this travesty. 
But are not American internet, and Sony also a bit responsible, or is this purely Ubisoft that didn't make the game properly for the playstation 4? ", they had an open alpha, and an open beta in which they could test out their game and make it a 60 fps masterpiece. There are of course two options. Ethier there is a limitation of the ps4 such that ubisoft can't make a 60 fps multiplayer game or ubisoft made an inferior game because they didn't care about their shitty port to the ps4. Yet we see even in uncharted 4 that we can have a 60 fps multiplayer game in multiplayer. Yet there is still no excuse for for honor to have a 30 fps single player. I do not doubt that porting a ps4 multiplayer game in 60 fps has its challenges. It does, but I don't think ubisoft put enough effort into meeting it, and with fighting games as is the style of for honor it is so important to have a high framerate. In my opinnion the alpha and the beta should have been enough to work out any quirks and make this work in 60 fps, but they didn't make it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got For Honor on the Xbox One. And I have had almost no performance issues. As a matter of fact I only had frame drops when someone left a match with the connection readjusting. 

I too disagree with Phil.. But not on most of his points.. But the importance of those points. 30fps in my experience was fine. 60 would have been great, but 30 is not a deal breaker. And with my connection not having issues I know that when I died it was my fault and not due to lag or frame drops. Not to mention For Honor is a slow methodical game.. Which relies less on having quick reaction times like other games. This is why I believe 30 works fine. Many other game's are 30 with thier online multiplayer that are action and reaction.

The game is also not pay 2 win as far as I can tell (i've played about 20 hours)... All pieces of gear have a stat cost.. As in one stat goes up but another goes down, you cannot strong arm your way to victory. A skilled player with no gear will always beat a player thinking thier gear will win them a fight.

I also disagree with the revenge system being a problem. It's not from my experience. It hardly can occur in 1v1 fights, and is designed to help decent players survive from being ganked by 2 to 4 other players. You can't really take advantage of revenge if you are a bad player as a skilled player can easily block and avoid revenge attacks. Just because revenge has failed in other games does not make it fail in this one.. Especially with the uniqueness of the games structure and mechanics. I feel this is the exception.

So looking at Phil's review I don't believe those points are heavy enough to deter the game's quality as strongly as he suggests. The flaws the game has from my experience are not huge problems. The combat system is unique and original. And with that, very enjoyable. The amount of depth is great. And none of the flaws he mentioned has soiled my experience with For Honor. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DeepDrive said:

 I do not doubt that porting a ps4 multiplayer game in 60 fps has its challenges. It does, but I don't think ubisoft put enough effort into meeting it, and with fighting games as is the style of for honor it is so important to have a high framerate. 

Well, we can speculate, and my speculation here is that so many people are STILL buying these games in 30fps on consoles that the game developers are no longer going to put ANY effort into trying to get a higher framerate if it's any kind of difficulty at all. If people are buying the hell out of your current products, why bother trying to improve them? And this is the point I'm trying to make: does 30fps RUIN For Honor? No, but it sure as hell would be a better game if it ran at 60fps. And guess what? Ubisoft AGREES because the PC version DOES run at 60fps! It would be one thing if the game was framelocked at 30fps on ALL versions, but it's not. Therefore, Ubisoft KNEW that 60fps was superior, and gave it to the PC gamers who would complain if they didn't get it; but they blatantly took advantage of console gamers and KNOWINGLY gave them the inferior product, because they don't tend to complain.

Moral of the story: if console gamers demanded the same treatment as PC gamers, we'd get it. But we don't, instead we let these companies give us underperforming shit for the same price as the superior PC versions. If we'd put a stop to that, they'd quickly find a way to pump out that 60fps on consoles too! But why bother when we keep lining their pockets with our money anyway???

JUST like I said with SFV: we all collectively agree it's shit, but people are still promoting it/playing it like crazy. Capcom will have NO incentive to improve if we still promote and play a game that is known to be factually inferior to all previous installments of the series, but some people are just too dumb to get it as they've bought into the hype of the FGC. For Honor on consoles is EXACTLY the same situation.

25 minutes ago, RichterTryhard said:

I too disagree with Phil.. But not on most of his points.. But the importance of those points.

This is an incredibly mature attitude to have, and I applaud you for it. As a reviewer, all I can do is present evidence to an argument; it's up to each individual to decide if that argument is appropriate to their own specific tastes and judgement. If the 4 critical flaws with For Honor (on consoles) are not big issues for you, then by all means, you'll probably love the game. I say as much in my review: that it's tons of fun with friends and people playing on PC are having a way better experience, so the game isn't all bad at all. 

Thanks for having a level head, unlike about half of the moronic commenters on the review who think the entire world is black/white and that if I say anything negative about a game, it means it's either HORRIBLE, or I'm Horribly wrong. God forbid different people have DIFFERENT tastes and perspectives!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree with phil on the revenge mode at all..and heres why

Guard breaking. You told me that they are very easily reversable..but not only is it overwhelming the #1 thing people are complaining about being too hard to counter.. There are irreversible guard breaks in the game..you'd have to dodge them. Some of which are extremely hard to do. And trying to dodge them will leave you open to being attacked...but if you don't try to dodge them then you're open to a nice combo. If someone mixes you up with a combo that includes a GB, or hell GB with feints or cancels.. you'll need great reaction time to counter it. But hey if thats very easy to you then congrats! You're better than 99% of people at it and would win $ in tournaments aha.

The only time it seems to be beneficial to just block is when you're fighting more than one person so you can survive and hopefully get revenge mode. But if the players were smart they'd guard break you, do unblockable moves(if they have them),etc..In fact this has happend to me a few times already...my plan of just blocking to get revenge mode ruined by those two counters to blocking. When the game first came out I actually tried to block alot..but as time went on I realized that it was getting me killed by unblockable attacks and guard breaks, so now I'm forced to get better at dodging or parrying.

I'm winning so much more now than when I was just blocking(and I'd consider myself above average in blocking) Also, don't forget people can feint and cancel moves..as players get better and start to realize the more advance systems in place its going to get even harder than it already is for people who just block(if there is anyone above level 10 that does? lol). Its hard enough to try to just block a lightning fast char or a hard hitter with unblockables, mixs ups, guard breaks as is.

TL:DR Fighting against someone who just blocks is day 1-3 stuff...If someone wants to try turtling against me then go ahead LOL. Easy and quick match for me. My combined lvl is 30 and I have yet to experience someone just blocking, no attacking in 1 v 1 or even hear about it being a thing.. with the way I fight my opponent will have to kill me or they will die quickly.. there are too many counters to just block...yet alone just to get revenge mode that I could just kite for 5 seconds.. Its people with a great mix up game that I'm worried about.

 

Edited by Thaimasker
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ilscuro said:

Unlike Phil I enjoyed For Honour, but then again i'm a typical gamer, and Phil isn't, i play games for fun, whereas Phil has to rush through games so as to get onto the next release.

This is all in my opinion of course.

 

Its a beta so there's bound to be problems. Knowing how Phil is he'd rush in the game not really knowing how the game works. He could just chill out and take it at a slow pace

 

But hey, what do I know? According to Phil I'm an elitist trying to force him to change. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some research to find out about the connectivity problem phil have. Because this seem to be a recurring problem. No matter what What game it is. And what the solution is on the online gameplay. And it might be a component that the PS4 has some disadvantages when it comes to networking. But From what I can find out, that should have nothing to do with the hardware. But the programming and the software. 
However I have just skimmed the surface of this, so I can't really say so much about it. And it don't seem to be the biggest factor. 
The real issue that I could find ample information about was the Internet, and how bad it is  in America.  This shouldn't really be news to anyone, And have had discussions about it on the forums here before. With american users complaining about their internet. 
Phil has a decent internet yes. But most americans don't even have access to more than one provider. And it it often times not very good. 
So if we compare this to water. It doesn't matter if phil gets an aqueduct when the people he plays with in general get their water through a straw.  
And until they improve the internet capabilities in america. This problem would not be better. No matter What settings phil does. 

Here is an interesting article about the issue http://www.businessinsider.com/why-us-internet-services-stink-2016-1?r=US&IR=T&IR=T

I know some people are not fans of P2P networking when it comes to online gameplay but If not everything we do with multimedia is going to end up in a cloud somewhere.I think it would be the best solution. When the internet infrastructure is as good at it should be. 
If eveyone have really good internet connectivity it shouldn't be a real issue. 
Running servers for online games is not the best idea in the long term. 
This is because playing on a server is not free. And it have to be hosted somewhere. 
And if the game is not going to have an online component when it is not so popular anymore. P2P is going to have to be the solution you pick. 
Because a game company can't be expected to pay for hosting the servers indefinitely. 
That is not to say that there shouldn't be possible to do both. And run a dedicated server if you want to host one. 
But like I said p2p would be the future as long as we keep having the hardware we play on at home. 
 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ilscuro said:

Unlike Phil I enjoyed For Honour, but then again i'm a typical gamer, and Phil isn't, i play games for fun, whereas Phil has to rush through games so as to get onto the next release.

This is all in my opinion of course.

 

 

4 hours ago, Soleil said:

Its a beta so there's bound to be problems. Knowing how Phil is he'd rush in the game not really knowing how the game works. He could just chill out and take it at a slow pace

 

But hey, what do I know? According to Phil I'm an elitist trying to force him to change. 

LOL you two are not even trying XD

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...