I hate to say it, because well, I really didn't need another game I can delve into ass first, however this game is really enjoyable. I very much enjoy the way the combat works. I haven't played much, but it has pulled me in. I'm not sure how much staying power it will have with me, but as long as I can get the same number of hours as dollars i paid for it, I call it a win. Also knights win all the things, because I'm writing this fanfic, and as the author the one I like most wins
Where were you for this?... http://www.theskjaldborg.com/index.php?threads/headcount-for-honor.11556/ (you really should check the Announcement & Events subforum more often) At one point we had considered getting organized for the game, but Ubisoft's insistence on piling on the bullshit over an otherwise good game made us lose interest in it (at least as a $60 purchase). The sad part is that the general consensus believes that most of the casual players will abandon the game in less than four months and there isn't enough going on with the game outside of PVP to make it attractive to new players.
I think its problem is going to be that lots of casuals will leave fairly soon, and only the hardcore will remain. That will then discourage new people from picking it up because they will get their asses handed to them right out of the gate.
This is a prime example of why i think this game will take a while to be relegated to nothing but tryhards. Too much of a tom foolery factor right now
fantastic I sincerely hope the game does well. I just can't personally justify spending $60 for what is essentially a 2-8 MP arena game.
So much amusement to be had when youtubers fight it out in a historical grudge match. Honestly historically speaking it's a toss up, if you put conditions on the fight you might be able to favor one group over another, but then you're not talking about real world, you're talking about some variety of arena. Even those things we can say are typical of each group is going to be up in the air the second combat ensues because every one of them wants to win and live and if a group of samurai show up for some reason, discover that their arrows are having limited effect because of the knights shields and they're dropping left and right, I guarantee you if they can they're going to figure out how to work a shield pretty damn quick. If the vikings are getting cut down by arrows and they don't have as many bows as the enemy, well they'll probably just hop back on the ship, circle around somewhere and come back with more bows or surprise them. Hell, real vikings would probably just move to the next village and screw them twice as hard for the trouble And if the knights are somehow feeling the fatigue of wearing all that 'heavy' armor well you know, they put buckles in that shit for a reason, every single one of the supposed weaknesses of each faction is only a weakness as long as that faction fails to recognize the problem and address it, sure, some might stand on tradition over practicality, but when the arrows rain down and your friends are dying left and right I guarantee you there'll be some who adapt to survive. though that doesn't necessarily mean they'll succeed XD
Vikings did use armor, used shields, and used those shields in the same way Romans did to protect themselves from arrow volleys. Vikings also had crucible steel swords. Well the rich ones. Which are the strongest of the period. Have to remember these knights did fight Vikings and got there asses kicked in. For the most part
Something else I noticed that they failed to address was how often these different warriors actually went to war. My guess is that depending on how peaceful the times were, knights and samurai could go for years or even decades without seeing a real battle with only their backyard training and tournaments to keep their skills sharp. These certainly helped keep them sharp, but it was no replacement for real war experience. By comparison, the vikings (at least by my general recollection) were a people who believed in raiding and pillaging as a cornerstone of their society. Peace or war would have had no effect on their readiness for battle. To be fair, these are all based off unscientific assumptions of my own, but I'm curious if there is data to show that the average viking warrior had more real battle experience than your average knight or samurai. That would certainly count for something in a fight.
Vikings for the most part are just Scandinavian farmers at the time that are taught war from a young age. Back then everyone was expected to help defend there village or attack a enemy. When life was good with food and people being very plentiful, viking raids normally took place because they had the resources to do so. The beginning raids are thought to most likely be retaliation for christian attacks on villages because at the time it was, for Christians it was kill all pagans and if any lived a attack it was convert to Christianity or die. The first raids actually brought in lots of gold and silver because churches had been raided and at the time are very rich. So the raids most likely continued for more glory and riches.
I didn't say anything about them having or not having armor or shields, just that supposedly the one side has bows and the other side doesn't (which was a supposed weakness, I pretty much ignored everything they said about them not wearing armor because that's just dumb, sure you'd have the few guys who're either mad or just really damn good, but even those guys would tuck it in behind the shieldwall when the arrows start flying... well, the ones that were good, the mad, you never can tell...) And honestly, in melee combat a shield is worth way more than people give it credit for, armor is really a last resort for those blows you can't see coming because even if the armor stops you from being killed, a solid enough strike could break bone or cause bruising or even internal bleeding. And the idea of wearing mail without something thick underneath in COMBAT just makes me shiver, I've seen pictures of what mail does to your tender flesh, and I'm pretty sure when your instructor said to 'become one with your armor' that isn't what he had in mind.
Ya'll keep debating this historical shit that literally has no relevance to the game at all. It's a video game, it doesn't have to make sense. The only thing that matters is; Is it fun?
A large component of our concept of knighthood developed in Norman France. The Norman French were descended partially from vikings who settled there and intermingled culturally with the Franks. You typical 10th century viking and 10th century Norman/Frankish knight would have been pretty similar, save that the knight would own a horse and the viking was more likely to have a boat. By the 13th century (the arms and armor represented in this game), the northern Danes and Swedes would have been technologically on the same level as the French and German knights. Ubisoft had to borrow across 3 centuries of european history to make two geographically local and culturally mingled groups appear technologically different.
general consensus is its fun, but shallow. not worth $60. wait for it to go on sale, but expect most of the player base to have moved on by then.
You can't just call them a Viking if they aren't a historically accurate Viking. That just breeds ignorance We could talk about battlefield 1 with all its historically inaccurate depiction of WW1.
Hollister... where have you been? There is such a thing as artistic licensing. We've already gone over this. BF1 is practically a parody of WW1. Why do you even feel the need to dissect it? It's like a music snob complaining in detail about why Justin Bieber's music is shitty. Enough already. We get it. If people want to wank on about how much they know about medieval combat, maybe one of you should make a new thread in Off Topic? Much of this has very little bearing on the actual game For Honor.
