PDA

View Full Version : Add Male/Female version for every class



Barzah
10-31-2016, 01:15 PM
Yes this topic does exist and most likely being left & forgotten. Again, how hard can it be to create male/female version of the last 6 class since the only problem lies in the Valkyrie class which obv can be solved by changing the name when switching to male class (probably named it Gungnir or Fenrir).

PowerSenpai
10-31-2016, 01:18 PM
Yes this topic does exist and most likely being left & forgotten. Again, how hard can it be to create male/female version of the last 6 class since the only problem lies in the Valkyrie class which obv can be solved by changing the name when switching to male class (probably named it Gungnir or Fenrir).

This is just one example, but the valkyrie is a female norse warrior, having her have a male counterpart makes NO sense. It might be the same for other characters in the story, and they have too much of a time constraint to do that type of thing right now, or so i would guess.

N1GTHCR0W
10-31-2016, 03:04 PM
This is just one example, but the valkyrie is a female norse warrior, having her have a male counterpart makes NO sense. It might be the same for other characters in the story, and they have too much of a time constraint to do that type of thing right now, or so i would guess.


I do not agree with you rem

waraidako
10-31-2016, 05:42 PM
Gungnir is the name of a spear, and Fenrir is a wolf. Neither makes sense for a spear warrior. Put a wolf pelt on his head and call him an Ulfhedinn instead. The Ulfhednar were warriors dedicated to Odin, hence the spear connection. They went into battle wearing the skin of a wolf. (not just that, but that too) They're similar to berserkers in Norse lore.

That being said, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Reaper_Sykko
10-31-2016, 09:57 PM
who cares about the accurate name for the male one, the plot of the game is already innacurate or fantasy, if they really wanted to make a male valk they would have done it and they could still name it valk if they wanted to.

Dez_troi_aR
11-01-2016, 03:12 PM
I dont really have an opinion about the whole locked-gender-thing but i am surprised how many people have....

doesn't it make perfect sense that the ranks of warriors who fight with a spear or a dagger are more filled with female worriors, while heavy armor and giant clubs are worn/swung by males ?

Voidrek
11-01-2016, 05:21 PM
I dont really have an opinion about the whole locked-gender-thing but i am surprised how many people have....

doesn't it make perfect sense that the ranks of warriors who fight with a spear or a dagger are more filled with female worriors, while heavy armor and giant clubs are worn/swung by males ?

In all seriousness...no. No one seems to have a problem with a female conqueror or male Orochi so I doubt anyone would be upset if we got a male Peacekeeper or a female Lawbringer. On the other hand, I am actually personally upset that we aren't getting a male Nobushi (naginata) or a female Lawbringer (pole-axe). Both would have interested me as possible mains along with the male Kensei.

Now does that mean I am going to boycott the game? No, lol. But still, I would definitely prefer full options for every class just for the sheer variety it would add to the game. But I guess they were running out of dev time and had to make the call to focus on one gender for each of the remaining six classes. It sucks, but at this point I just want to see the new classes in action. Bring on the beta!

yodidlydo1862
11-02-2016, 08:06 AM
I think its fine to have some classes restricted by gender because there is a 50/50 split between male and female characters. each faction has one female and one male along with two characters who you can choose the gender for. A lot of games don't have any female characters to choose and some don't allow you to switch genders for their characters at all. overwatch/rainbow six seige and fighting games will have one character that is the only one to use certain types of weapons in the game.I think for honors approach is totally fair and reasonable the way it is.

ZuivrZilvr
11-02-2016, 03:34 PM
Definitely think there should not be any gender-locked classes. There are so many customization options, but they would be useless for me if I am forced to play the gender I don't like to play as.

Ultimately this is fantasy, why should our option be limited like this because of some historical accuracy that doesn't even really make sense here? The game is a lot more immersive for me if I can just play as male with whatever style suits me, and same for female for my girlfriend.

WinterHt
11-02-2016, 03:45 PM
Honestly, I also think it is fine the way it currently is. It is 50-50, and I don't care that much if character I control on screen is not the same gender as I am.

Yeah ideally it would be better if every character was possible to play as either gender but, life rarely goes according to ideal, and if Ubisoft decided this was their plan, I'm ok with it, as it doesn't take away much from what the game offers.

I also doubt the reason is historical accuracy, as the overall art direction takes in only historical inspiration, and isn't really have much to do with historical accuracy.

Cliffle
11-03-2016, 06:17 PM
I definitely want to play as a male Nobushi and Peacekeeper!

XavieroftheWind
11-03-2016, 11:50 PM
I fully expect it to be an add-in after launch. It's the obvious choice for DLC. I'd go for it.

Imgoingroguelol
11-04-2016, 04:10 AM
I fully expect it to be an add-in after launch. It's the obvious choice for DLC. I'd go for it.



That would be some weak DLC tbh. I'd much rather have that added in just as an update instead of a DLC package.

Voidrek
11-04-2016, 04:54 PM
That would be some weak DLC tbh. I'd much rather have that added in just as an update instead of a DLC package.

Maybe they could make it a small package deal for the DLC. So lets say they finish up work on the male Peacekeeper, they could make it a DLC along with an all new armor and weapon set for the Peacekeeper. Just shooting out ideas since I think creating the opposite gender for a class is probably a lot of work and they will be looking for some sort of compensation for that.

Would I be happy if they just added them in as free updates? Of course, but I wouldn't mind paying if it's definitely something that they legitimately worked on post-release rather than stuff that was cut from the game just to be sold to us later like other companies do. I also really want certain gender/class combos (male Nobushi, female Lawbringer) so I would definitely be all over that, even if it costs a little extra money.

But I guess we will see what happens. I want to see what their other DLC plans are going to be, though. New classes, maps, cosmetics, etc? Should be interesting.

iHunny
11-06-2016, 03:22 AM
I am against gender locks, a game with emphasis on personal customization this gender lock makes little sense.

waraidako
11-06-2016, 10:16 AM
I fully expect it to be an add-in after launch. It's the obvious choice for DLC. I'd go for it.

I have to question that reasoning. Do you really expect it to be added? Why? Because people want it? There are thousands of things people want for games that never happen. And it would make for a terribly boring DLC; instead of getting new content, we're basically getting reskins for half of the classes? People wouldn't care that it actually would take a lot of effort adding it. A lot of mocap goes into each of these characters, and then you'd have to redo all of the armour to fit a new skeleton. The amount of work to please the few people who care is just too much.

Adding entirely new characters would be way more profitable. New maps and modes would be even more profitable, and way cheaper.
I honestly don't see it happening, even if people want it.

Reaper_Sykko
11-17-2016, 11:35 PM
I been wondering ,is the gender lock thing even official? ppl are going crazy over it but the OP only stated that gamespot said that , for all we know its not even true , but correct me if I'm wrong because I don't check this forum often .

Reaper_Sykko
11-17-2016, 11:36 PM
actually I cant even find where I read that ther will be genderlock , but I know it was stated somewhere from gamespot , I just want to know if that fact was comfirmed by the developers.

VodkaSlam
11-18-2016, 04:08 AM
I know people want female versions of characters, but in this realm of Knights, Vikings, and Samurai. Female version of "all" makes no sense. Technically there are no Female Kensies, because Kensies are warlords and in those times are only men. Same goes for Vikings and Knights. BUT! there are female classes in all factions. So with that said...stop asking for it.

iHunny
11-18-2016, 10:11 PM
Technically there are no Female Kensies, because Kensies are warlords and in those times are only men.

But there is female Kenseis in this game so why limit other classes to just one gender?

yote224
11-19-2016, 05:57 AM
@sykko
Bio-Jade confirmed it on Twitter during the gamescom Q&A.

As for the topic at hand I've said my peace many a times now.
In short. The specific question about choosing gender was asked during E3 to which 3 ubi-folk replied "yes", proceeded to say "the female word for warrior is warrior" to which they received applause. The game has been promoting customization and the ability to be the warrior you want to be and it promotes distrust to backpedal like that where it intentional or a mishap.
I personally don't mind the gender lock but how they went about going back on what they initially said. A much better example of how to handle that was later displayed in their decision to cut split screen where they came outright and told us the bad news.
Yet this slogan of "female word for warrior is warrior" was again reiterated as early as the latest pre-alpha livestream so... in my opinion they should probably quit riding on that unless they feel like telling us what the female words for shugoki, lawbringer, and warlord are.

wydyadoit
11-23-2016, 01:19 AM
Honestly, I also think it is fine the way it currently is. It is 50-50, and I don't care that much if character I control on screen is not the same gender as I am.

Yeah ideally it would be better if every character was possible to play as either gender but, life rarely goes according to ideal, and if Ubisoft decided this was their plan, I'm ok with it, as it doesn't take away much from what the game offers.

I also doubt the reason is historical accuracy, as the overall art direction takes in only historical inspiration, and isn't really have much to do with historical accuracy.


personally i feel it actually does take away from what the game offers. reason being is that part of the main selling point for this game's multiplayer is the character customization and gear rewards. without the male/female counterparts for every class that defeats a lot of the purpose of that system. in fact it defeats the entire purpose of hiring 6 voice actors and actresses for the story mode.

if i had to guess what happened i'd say that they built the game around the multiplayer with the original 3 characters and after doing the recording sessions for the 6 voices in story mode they were fed up with it and decided it'd be easier just to ship it with only the currently designed male/female alter egos and then make the rest 1 gender only. personally im disappointed and i think they should have just made the game that way in the beginning because now there are going to be lots of halfway thought out creation processes similar to assassin creed's multiplayer customization.

needless to say im not happy. how hard is it to give a character hips and boobs or to reduce the hips and boobs? most of the grunts and groans are copy pasted anyway from what i've experienced.

as far as the argument for Valkyrie goes... this is a fictional game and those are warrior classifications that were designed specifically for this game with relatively no ties to actual history. IF you want to make the argument that valkyries should only be female then you'd better also make the argument that they cant be killed because valkyries were a myth. the vikings had women who fought maybe, but they were not valkyries. there have been women throughout the ages take up the same arms as men and sometimes do it better - the same goes for being knighted for a service to the queen/king, honing the edge and mind as a samurai, and protecting of ones homeland as a viking.

kensei, shugoki, and orochi - the title of sword saint was given only to men during the feudal era because it was illegal for women to even wield an actual sword. if a woman received training for martial arts it was usually because they were royalty, nobility, or striving for survival in the chaos. The ones that did receive the training were called onna-bugeisha and never used anything at all like the wakazashi, katana, odachi, or nodachi. instead they were closely tied to the naginata, a concealed weapon known as the kaiken, and the tanto. some also used bows and other ranged weapons because they were mostly the rear guard or issued orders to assassinate group leaders through seduction. in other words the only female samurai would be the one with the polearm - nuboshi.

knights have an even bigger problem because the term knight is ambiguous as can be. in all honesty for honor doesnt even incorporate anything about what it means to be a historical knight, but instead reaches out to the fictional ideas of knights. a knight is a person who has been given the title of knight - nothing more. it doesnt have to be a warrior. in all honesty if the queen so declares a cat knighted then by golly that cat is a knight. that doesnt mean he's about to mount a horse and go parading into battle with a lance and suit of armor shouting HALT YE FOUL DEMONS!

- so to that end the idea that valkyries are women only and should be women only blah blah blah is inherently invalid and does not apply. the real reason is it reduces production cost and speeds up development because the art department doesnt have to figure out a pleasant way to draw boobs on the shugoki and pecks on whatever class is being shipped without a male counterpart. same reason "the rookie" from Rainbow Six Siege is male only and assassin's creed unity didnt feature playable female assassins.

WinterHt
11-24-2016, 11:16 AM
Six voice actors for story mode voices male and female versions of 3 characters featured in story mode, so doesn't really have much to do with rest of the cast. Story mode only features Warden, Raider, and Orochi as playable protagonists, all of which can be chosen to be played either as male or female.

Women samurai, while not nearly as common as men, did actually exist, they did fight, and they did use swords as well as naginata.

Knight, originally very much meant the mounted and armoured warrior. It becoming a title and rank is a later period occurence, however since For Honor depicts a period where such style of combat is still a daily occurence, we can infer Knight means what it did mean in it's original historical context.

Doing high quality 3d models and textures, and on top of that animations for an AAA game does indeed equal to more than just increasing/decreasing hips and boobs unfortunately.

I mean, yes... it would be nicer if it was possible to choose gender of all characters, but, I just really don't see it as a big deal as it is personally.

Avlaen
12-02-2016, 02:59 PM
+1 i want a female lawbringer and female warlord. no reason they cant be female ;(

MisterWillow
12-02-2016, 07:14 PM
+1 i want a female lawbringer and female warlord. no reason they cant be female ;(

YES PLEASE
http://i67.tinypic.com/2iaap8j.jpg http://i65.tinypic.com/1dzmzq.jpg

DO
http://i63.tinypic.com/2e0obj7.jpg

WANT
https://media.giphy.com/media/ptchibU1D8uZO/giphy.gif

waraidako
12-03-2016, 05:01 PM
No helmets. #Triggered

Cliffle
12-03-2016, 05:15 PM
Using the "back in those times, females weren't allowed to..." argument is stale. This game so far isn't going for 100% realism or cultural accuracy.

Character customization is important for a lot of us. Gender locks are lame and should only be left to F2P Chinese MMOs.

Dez_troi_aR
12-03-2016, 05:35 PM
We have been discussing this for a long time now and we still haven't had any other source for this than this gamespot article here :
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/for-honor-builds-an-intimate-battlefield/1100-6442709/

The Author clearly states that:

Roughly half of these playable characters are female. Each of the three factions has four heroes each: one is a man, one is a woman, and two can be played as either man or woman.

But the whole thing seems to be based upon her experience while playing the game somewhere. She's not quoting a Developer.
On the one hand this makes me wonder if we are debating in vain on the other hand i am quite sure that our more enlightened community members with some access to the developers would have already cleared things up if we were chasing a phantom, wouldn't they ?

However, there is still no reliable source, if i am not mistaken.

Dez_troi_aR
12-03-2016, 05:39 PM
@sykko
Bio-Jade confirmed it on Twitter during the gamescom Q&A.

Oh, all right.... should have read your posts properly first

MisterWillow
12-03-2016, 10:27 PM
No helmets. #Triggered

That is one of the show's disappointments.

I can overlook it, though, just because I like what's going on so much. :D

MisterWillow
12-06-2016, 05:06 AM
Really okay with all the other classes about femal version, but I can't imagine a women inside that "metall block" swinging a heavy haliberd and throwing enemies around ...

Most men ... even trained and muscular men, woulnd't be able to run with all that weight and further more fight and take hits under this pressure.

Couple of things.

1. Armour is not that heavy.

As has been pointed out several times on this forum, modern military service members (including women) carry more weight today solely on their backs than entire suits of armour weigh once distributed over your entire body. Even if Lawbringer armour is heavier than Warden armour, it wouldn't equal a woman being unable to wear it... well, at least that specific suit, since she would have armour crafted to the specifications of her body.

2. Halberds/poleaxes aren't really that heavy either. Here, look (click (http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AA217&name=Arms+and+Armor+Burgundian+Poleaxe)). A real one. A little over 4 lbs. That's nothing, especially to someone who's been trained to use it.

3. Even if the weight were an issue, not all women are petite waifs. Case in point: Brienne of Tarth. Female weightlifters (could also be reference for female Shugoki). Female bodybuilders. Some women are just built larger than even average-sized men. And then you have someone like Samantha Wright, who's 5'2" and can lift 200lbs (https://www.instagram.com/p/BMY6MMhDlwY/?taken-by=pixiestrength&hl=en).

It just depends on the person, not the gender.

waraidako
12-06-2016, 04:01 PM
Hahaha funny joke, man. A full set of plate armour weighs around 15-25 kg.

120 kg is like Havel's set from Dark Souls.

https://67.media.tumblr.com/4e7e34a20ccd4604585aec711bb6b4d3/tumblr_o57zy2aWhn1s2r2pio1_r1_500.jpg

Voidrek
12-06-2016, 06:19 PM
I am pretty positive that whether a woman could or couldn't wear that type of armor has anything to do with there being no female Lawbringer. Besides, here is a pic of Apollyon wearing the armor of the Lawbringer she hunted down and killed:

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9xRvsKUBn1khSb1Mav8Khx-Kxiw=/156x0:1123x544/1600x900/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49845267/for-honor-screencap_1280.0.0.jpg

Doesn't seem like she is having any issues with it. Then there's also the Dark Souls series, as waraidako mentioned. They have armor sets like the Havel set that is even more bulky than the male Lawbringer armor. No one seemed to bat an eyelash that they were available to both male and female characters.

The real reason for gender locked classes is probably a lot more simple - lack of dev time. That's it...I believe if they had the time we would get every gender for every class. Before we learned about the last six classes being locked, all the devs seemed pretty enthusiastic about us being able to play any class as any gender....then this happened. So yeah, it seems the alternate genders for the remaining classes may have ended up on the cutting room floor, unfortunately.

waraidako
12-06-2016, 06:36 PM
A full armour set just 15-25kg? ^^

Did you know, that just a chain mail weights about 15kg in average.
A full plate armour definitely goes up!
And also remember that, you don't wear it on your naked skin.
In addition you wear soft materials and a leather/chainmail under it.

Here in Austria there is a famous medieval weaponry. There are tons and tons of weapons and armour from medieval ages. Common footmen full-plate armour with all it's belongings weights about 60-70kg.
Even heavier (mostly ceremonial) models for mounted knights weight about 110-130kg.
130kg was the very limit but still existant ;)

Just look at the Lawbringer's armour ... that kind of armour I could give my horse and would know it to be safe.
Look at how thick the metall is.

I bet in reality it wouldn't be under 110kg at least

I was going to write this whole thing about how you're wrong, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Good luck doing this in 110 kg armour.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

Voidrek
12-07-2016, 12:28 AM
Not sure what the big deal is with Holden Cross and why a woman couldn't wear a version of his armor. Similar to the Raider, she would be slightly thinner and slightly shorter, but other than that she would be pretty much the same.

Anyway, here is a video of a female character wearing Havel's Armor set from Dark Souls. This would be heavier than Holden Cross' armor and I don't see anyone complaining about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCzWf2W_Tqo

And like I said, Apollyon is a woman who tracked down and murdered a Lawbringer and took his armor. Here she is in the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6GGoTxvGzk&feature=youtu.be&t=206

I really don't see the problem, but you seem dead set on thinking otherwise even though the damn boss of this very videogame is a woman wearing a suit of Lawbringer armor, lol.

Voidrek
12-07-2016, 01:44 AM
It's part of her backstory that they mentioned at one of the masterclasses. Basically a Lawbringer allowed her village to be destroyed when she was younger. A few years later, she tracked him down and killed him.

But remember, if a female did become a Lawbringer, she would be getting custom made armor that would fit her, obviously. Just like the female Warden is slightly slimmer and not as bulky as the male Warden, the same would be for the female Lawbringer. We have to give the art team the benefit of the doubt that they would have come up with a female Lawbringer that looked great. Probably more bulky than the male Warden, but slightly less bulky than the male Lawbringer, if that makes sense?

But as I said, the more practical reason that we aren't getting a female Lawbringer is that they probably had to focus in on one gender for the remaining six classes to get the game done on time. That is why we also aren't getting male Nobushi or Peacekeepers. I guess they could come up with lore reasons of why each of the remaining classes is locked to one gender or another, but I am thinking that if they had the time they would probably prefer to make each class open to either gender just to add more customization options to the multiplayer.

downfierce
12-07-2016, 08:28 AM
I'm actually glad some classes are gender locked just because it's funny as hell to see some people getting so annoyed by something that trivial.

wydyadoit
12-07-2016, 09:52 AM
Doing high quality 3d models and textures, and on top of that animations for an AAA game does indeed equal to more than just increasing/decreasing hips and boobs unfortunately.

I mean, yes... it would be nicer if it was possible to choose gender of all characters, but, I just really don't see it as a big deal as it is personally.

if the game comes out being 30 GB's or less you know it's not a AAA game. AAA games are 50+ GB's otherwise they're not worth the $$$ - see GTA V, ESO, and FFXV.
so i politely disagree with your assumption that the story, voice acting, and a couple cosmetic differences on 24 models is excessive. even Mortal kombat with a full roster of fighting characters is only 41 GB's. this game is going to be little more than a medieval overwatch at this point.

MisterWillow
12-07-2016, 10:01 AM
1. Armour is indeed heavy!
Look some documentaries before opposing that. Some years ago, I had that chance to put on some medieval armour pieces and run around with them. They are throughout tiring!
A full-plate armour of a heavy ride can weight up to 120kg.

Does that include the horse's armour as well, because 120 kg (~260 lbs) is ridiculous. That's slightly heavier than a majority of the men who would be wearing them (if we take 250 lbs [~113 kg] being the average weight of a common soldier). Such weight would indeed compromise their mobility and stamina. Fortunately---and even IF a suit of armour of that weight (that was actually intended to be used in battle)---your average suit of armour didn't even weigh half that, as the The Met museum explains (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm):

"An entire suit of field armor (that is, armor for battle) usually weighs between 45 and 55 lbs. (20 to 25 kg), with the helmet weighing between 4 and 8 lbs. (2 to 4 kg)—less than the full equipment of a fireman with oxygen gear, or what most modern soldiers have carried into battle since the nineteenth century. Moreover, while most modern equipment is chiefly suspended from the shoulders or waist, the weight of a well-fitted armor is distributed all over the body. It was not until the seventeenth century that the weight of field armor was greatly increased in order to render it bulletproof against ever more accurate firearms. At the same time, however, full armor became increasingly rare and only vital parts of the body, such as the head, torso, and hands, remained protected by metal plate."

Having said that, I did find this piece (http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=AB0072&name=Churburg+Suit+of+Armour) that comes in at a hefty 168 lbs (~76 kg), but that is based on a specific suit, which isn't necessarily representative of what your average footsoldier would be wearing, and still doesn't come close to your proposed weight.


And look at how the armour of the Lawbringer looks like ... reminds more of medieval horse armor, than of human armour.
The warden equipment weights nothing in comparison!

The armour itself doesn't look too much thicker than the Warden's honestly (pauldrons are bigger, and he's got the gorget, which makes it appear larger). The majority of the bulk comes from the person wearing it. A female version would, like the Conqueror, simply be slightly shorter and slightly slimmer. That's it.


2. This halberd is a light one, but we are talking about the ingame-ones.
We just saw two (one from the Lawbringer in the knight mission, second on the class trailer), and both were heavy models.

So 8 lbs? 10 lbs tops. Weapons are meant to be agile, and they fail at that if they're too heavy.

Also, if we're just going by in-game models, the Warden's sword is much thicker than an actual sword (for stylistic reasons). Were a sword made with that bulk, it would be very difficult to hold, much less control, and yet fem-Warden's there swinging away.


And it's not just about holding it, but running, fighting and getting hits with all that stuff.
Exhaustment at it's finest ^^

Maybe to someone who hasn't been training since they were 10 to hold, run, fight, and strike with any given weapon, but the game presents a world of warrior cultures, where people presumably train to fight from a very young age out of pure necessity.


3. Yes of course there are strong women, but not enough for this type.

I'm sorry, but what? If that were true there would be no female bodybuilding competitions, nor female weightlifting competitions, nor female martial arts tournaments. There's plenty of women who are that powerful, at least to populate some sort of order of law enforcers.


And it's proven that men have in average 33% more muscels than women do.

So what? Depends on the people being compared. I'm naturally very slim, and I'm sure you could find a dozen women who have more muscle mass than I do. All that means is that they're better suited to being a Lawbringer than I am.

These sorts of gross generalisations are meaningless.


Here in Austria there is a famous medieval weaponry. There are tons and tons of weapons and armour from medieval ages. Common footmen full-plate armour with all it's belongings weights about 60-70kg.
Even heavier (mostly ceremonial) models for mounted knights weight about 110-130kg.
130kg was the very limit but still existant ;)

Ceremonial armour could be any sort of weight/size/shape the armourer's commissioner wanted because half the time it was being worn for a specific ceremony that only lasted a couple hours and only involved standing in place and/or walking a short distance, and the other half it was kept on a pedestal for display. It in no way represents anything that would have been worn on a battlefield.

EDIT:

if the game comes out being 30 GB's or less you know it's not a AAA game. AAA games are 50+ GB's otherwise they're not worth the $$$ - see GTA V, ESO, and FFXV.

You mean open world games and rpgs are bigger than non open world games and rpgs?

Good to know. :cool:

waraidako
12-07-2016, 11:49 AM
Just because such a spongebob with questionable armour does all that stuff? ^^
Wouldn't suprise me if that was plastic with a bit aluminium.
This isn't a relyable source ...

It's pretty much an exact replica. It's hardened carbon steel, just like armour made back in the day.


This is Austria's most renomated medieval armour house. According to you they told us a big nonsense in their guiding tours.
I don't think they would ruin their good image with spreading nonsense among the visitors.

Good thing they never said it weighed 120kg then.


This is a short documentary from a VERY famous german documentary series about how exhausting medieval armour is.

Armour is exhausting for several reasons. Wearing an extra 25 kg for long periods of time adds to the stress, it would still be noticeable. But it's also the fact that you're wearing a gambeson/padded doublet, chain, and plate, and none of it breathes. It's like a furnace inside a suit of armour. You're sweating like a pig. But it's not meant to be comfortable, it's meant to keep you alive when people are shooting arrows at you and poking at you with spears.

Also, that documentary is garbage. I don't speak german, so I don't understand what they were saying, but from the images alone it's obvious that they think the entire weight of the armour is carried by your shoulders like some sort of metal backpack. Plate armour is affixed around your body to each part of it, so each part carries its own small weight. The breastplate and shoulder pauldrons, which is what you'd be carrying with your back, would weigh around 2.5 kg. That's it.


Here they talk about 45kg in their case, but armours differ.

Clearly. According to you, some people apparently wear two sets of 45 kg armour, and then two sets of chainmail ontop of that. Really the only way to get 120 kg of armour. That or 3cm thick cast iron plates.

45kg armour would be jousting armour. Which was made thicker and heavier for safety reasons, since jousting was a sport and mobility wasn't a concern. This type of armour would never have been used in real battle.


That's the actual armour of the Lawbringer. Seriously if that wouldn't weight at least the double of all the seen before, i would be really clueless.

Finally something we can agree on.


Just look at the Lawbringer's armour and how thick and massive the plates are in comparison to real armour plates from medieval times.

Just look at how large the hero characters are compared to the normal human-sized footsoldiers. Just look at the warden longsword and how thick and massive it is compared to a real longsword. It's a game, it's stylized. It's not meant to look realistic. The vikings are wearing fur and roughly stitched leather pieces ffs.

Real plate armour btw, is only 2 mm - 3 mm thick.

NexiKuro
12-07-2016, 07:07 PM
The reason we're not getting genders options for all classes is a most likely budget one.

Based on what I've seen the animation costs for this game are extremely high: almost all of it is motion capped meaning that you need an actor(s) for every gender to go through their full range of motions. And then you need the animation teams to take all those captures and turn them into ones that work for the game. Most likely editing them so that various keyframes can be used to switch from animation to animation. Judging by the fluidity i've seen in the game sofar we're likely talking about (tens of?) thousands of animations for every gender of every player character.

This means that gender locking half of the characters probably reduces their animation budget, likely to be their largest single expense, by some 20~%.

The adaption of armors and equipment from gender to gender is a lot of work, but not as much as remaking all of the animations from the ground up. Which is really your only option with mocapping.


So what likely happened is that they rand out of money and had to start cutting content. You need to also keep in mind that the game is published by Ubisoft which is known to be a pretty frugal and cold hearted publisher and For Honor isn't exactly a flagship title for them. Remember, this is the publisher that let Dark Hole Studios bankrupt themselves trying to give the fans what they wanted with Heroes of Might and Magic 6: they went over budget making the game and when they approached Ubisoft about it they were told that it was their problem.(Ubisoft wasn't contractually obligated to help them and didn't.)

So I think it's very likely that when the guys making For Honor approached them for a bigger budget so they could make the game they wanted to make Ubisoft declined.(though I'm sure that Ubisofts marketing team will gladly tell you that the entire company went all in on making this game as good as it could be) I also think that it's unlikely that the popularity of the Alpha for this game would have influenced the top at Ubisoft into investing more into this title, other than the marketing, and that probably would have come too late anyway.


As a side note, this is the only reason I can see for the gender locking. Realism has nothing to do with it.(or with the setting/lore in game for that matter lol) The dev's have been very inclusive right from the start and the genderlocking kind of breaks with their stance on the topic. Which is probably why people care so much about it and why threads like this are common.

Dez_troi_aR
12-07-2016, 07:28 PM
I'm actually glad some classes are gender locked just because it's funny as hell to see some people getting so annoyed by something that trivial.
Can relate :D

Dez_troi_aR
12-07-2016, 07:34 PM
The reason we're not getting genders options for all classes is a most likely budget one.

Based on what I've seen the animation costs for this game are extremely high: almost all of it is motion capped meaning that you need an actor(s) for every gender to go through their full range of motions. And then you need the animation teams to take all those captures and turn them into ones that work for the game. Most likely editing them so that various keyframes can be used to switch from animation to animation. Judging by the fluidity i've seen in the game sofar we're likely talking about (tens of?) thousands of animations for every gender of every player character.

This means that gender locking half of the characters probably reduces their animation budget, likely to be their largest single expense, by some 20~%.

The adaption of armors and equipment from gender to gender is a lot of work, but not as much as remaking all of the animations from the ground up. Which is really your only option with mocapping.


So what likely happened is that they rand out of money and had to start cutting content. You need to also keep in mind that the game is published by Ubisoft which is known to be a pretty frugal and cold hearted publisher and For Honor isn't exactly a flagship title for them. Remember, this is the publisher that let Dark Hole Studios bankrupt themselves trying to give the fans what they wanted with Heroes of Might and Magic 6: they went over budget making the game and when they approached Ubisoft about it they were told that it was their problem.(Ubisoft wasn't contractually obligated to help them and didn't.)

So I think it's very likely that when the guys making For Honor approached them for a bigger budget so they could make the game they wanted to make Ubisoft declined.(though I'm sure that Ubisofts marketing team will gladly tell you that the entire company went all in on making this game as good as it could be) I also think that it's unlikely that the popularity of the Alpha for this game would have influenced the top at Ubisoft into investing more into this title, other than the marketing, and that probably would have come too late anyway.


As a side note, this is the only reason I can see for the gender locking. Realism has nothing to do with it.(or with the setting/lore in game for that matter lol) The dev's have been very inclusive right from the start and the genderlocking kind of breaks with their stance on the topic. Which is probably why people care so much about it and why threads like this are common.

Your comment makes a lot of sense to me.
A lot more than the realism approach. You dont let a viking fight a samurai and then suddenly be like "Oh, i can't make a woman carry that much armor, IT'S NOT REALISTIC! " ;)

If budget is the reason, do you think they might implement it later, once the game brought some money in ?

wydyadoit
12-07-2016, 11:52 PM
Your comment makes a lot of sense to me.
A lot more than the realism approach. You dont let a viking fight a samurai and then suddenly be like "Oh, i can't make a woman carry that much armor, IT'S NOT REALISTIC! " ;)

If budget is the reason, do you think they might implement it later, once the game brought some money in ?

that's how 90% of ubisoft games dlc was invented.

wydyadoit
12-08-2016, 12:42 AM
You mean open world games and rpgs are bigger than non open world games and rpgs?

Good to know. :cool:

guy - ryze son of rome requires 34.9 GB before dlc and updates. this game is a very similar style as far as story goes with the difference being how multiplayer works. i didnt realize mortal kombat was open world. here all this time i thought i was making the comparison of a AAA title fighting game's content to other AAA titles. battlefield 1 = 45.3 GB before DLC and updates. dragon ball xenoverse 2 on the other hand is 13 GB. overwatch is 9 GB. dead rising 4 is 36.9 GB prior to DLC and updates. rise of the tomb raider is 22 GB. xcom 2 is 20.3 GB

if a game wants to wear the $60 price tag then there better be enough content on that disc to make it worthy to be blue ray. i dont pay an entire day's pay for cheap minimalism. i didnt buy a next gen console so i could play remakes of older titles and poor re-imaginings of older games divided between 4 bonus DLC packs that arent included in the initial purchase. i bought it so i could play games LIKE final fantasy 13 and L.A. noire on a single disc with better graphics. PS3 had blue-ray 10 years ago. it's time to start using it. tvs and monitors are already running in 4k yet some game companies are still designing 720p games. if you want to keep paying $40 for a copy of mario world 64 and $500 for a machine that has the potential to run a game like GTA V in 1080p and the new console versions that can actually run 4k on some games... be my guest.

when open beta launches and the game design is pretty much set in stone i'll know for sure if the gameplay is worth the $60+

Fatal-Feit
12-08-2016, 01:34 AM
The reason we're not getting genders options for all classes is a most likely budget one.

Based on what I've seen the animation costs for this game are extremely high: almost all of it is motion capped meaning that you need an actor(s) for every gender to go through their full range of motions. And then you need the animation teams to take all those captures and turn them into ones that work for the game. Most likely editing them so that various keyframes can be used to switch from animation to animation. Judging by the fluidity i've seen in the game sofar we're likely talking about (tens of?) thousands of animations for every gender of every player character.

This means that gender locking half of the characters probably reduces their animation budget, likely to be their largest single expense, by some 20~%.

The adaption of armors and equipment from gender to gender is a lot of work, but not as much as remaking all of the animations from the ground up. Which is really your only option with mocapping.


So what likely happened is that they rand out of money and had to start cutting content. You need to also keep in mind that the game is published by Ubisoft which is known to be a pretty frugal and cold hearted publisher and For Honor isn't exactly a flagship title for them. Remember, this is the publisher that let Dark Hole Studios bankrupt themselves trying to give the fans what they wanted with Heroes of Might and Magic 6: they went over budget making the game and when they approached Ubisoft about it they were told that it was their problem.(Ubisoft wasn't contractually obligated to help them and didn't.)

So I think it's very likely that when the guys making For Honor approached them for a bigger budget so they could make the game they wanted to make Ubisoft declined.(though I'm sure that Ubisofts marketing team will gladly tell you that the entire company went all in on making this game as good as it could be) I also think that it's unlikely that the popularity of the Alpha for this game would have influenced the top at Ubisoft into investing more into this title, other than the marketing, and that probably would have come too late anyway.


As a side note, this is the only reason I can see for the gender locking. Realism has nothing to do with it.(or with the setting/lore in game for that matter lol) The dev's have been very inclusive right from the start and the genderlocking kind of breaks with their stance on the topic. Which is probably why people care so much about it and why threads like this are common.

You. I like you.

I wish I can view everything as objectively as this.

wydyadoit
12-08-2016, 02:09 AM
The reason we're not getting genders options for all classes is a most likely budget one.

Based on what I've seen the animation costs for this game are extremely high: almost all of it is motion capped meaning that you need an actor(s) for every gender to go through their full range of motions. And then you need the animation teams to take all those captures and turn them into ones that work for the game. Most likely editing them so that various keyframes can be used to switch from animation to animation. Judging by the fluidity i've seen in the game sofar we're likely talking about (tens of?) thousands of animations for every gender of every player character.

This means that gender locking half of the characters probably reduces their animation budget, likely to be their largest single expense, by some 20~%.

The adaption of armors and equipment from gender to gender is a lot of work, but not as much as remaking all of the animations from the ground up. Which is really your only option with mocapping.


So what likely happened is that they rand out of money and had to start cutting content. You need to also keep in mind that the game is published by Ubisoft which is known to be a pretty frugal and cold hearted publisher and For Honor isn't exactly a flagship title for them. Remember, this is the publisher that let Dark Hole Studios bankrupt themselves trying to give the fans what they wanted with Heroes of Might and Magic 6: they went over budget making the game and when they approached Ubisoft about it they were told that it was their problem.(Ubisoft wasn't contractually obligated to help them and didn't.)

So I think it's very likely that when the guys making For Honor approached them for a bigger budget so they could make the game they wanted to make Ubisoft declined.(though I'm sure that Ubisofts marketing team will gladly tell you that the entire company went all in on making this game as good as it could be) I also think that it's unlikely that the popularity of the Alpha for this game would have influenced the top at Ubisoft into investing more into this title, other than the marketing, and that probably would have come too late anyway.


As a side note, this is the only reason I can see for the gender locking. Realism has nothing to do with it.(or with the setting/lore in game for that matter lol) The dev's have been very inclusive right from the start and the genderlocking kind of breaks with their stance on the topic. Which is probably why people care so much about it and why threads like this are common.

i agree with you 100% it's one reason i've started shying away form ubisoft games.

MisterWillow
12-08-2016, 04:21 AM
guy - ryze son of rome requires 34.9 GB before dlc and updates. this game is a very similar style as far as story goes with the difference being how multiplayer works. i didnt realize mortal kombat was open world. here all this time i thought i was making the comparison of a AAA title fighting game's content to other AAA titles. battlefield 1 = 45.3 GB before DLC and updates. dragon ball xenoverse 2 on the other hand is 13 GB. overwatch is 9 GB. dead rising 4 is 36.9 GB prior to DLC and updates. rise of the tomb raider is 22 GB. xcom 2 is 20.3 GB

if a game wants to wear the $60 price tag then there better be enough content on that disc to make it worthy to be blue ray. i dont pay an entire day's pay for cheap minimalism.

when open beta launches and the game design is pretty much set in stone i'll know for sure if the gameplay is worth the $60+

Equating game size with enjoyment and overall worth is asinine, because all you're paying for is an experience. Are you having enough fun to justify the price? That's it. By this point, I'm sure some people have logged more hours in Overwatch (and had more fun by extension) than GTA.

What's worth $60 is entirely subjective. As long as I'm entertained throughout the experience (and that experience lasts longer than a couple of hours), it's worth it to me personally, and in that respect, a great majority of 'AAA' games aren't. I often get bored in open world games because they're very often incredibly shallow. There's a lot to do, technically, but I'm very rarely given a compelling reason to do any of it, or they're large open spaces with not much going on in them beyond specific moments. Alternatively, they're often padded with a billion different collectibles to 'encourage' exploration, when they're often marked on your map.

Maybe some people require 500 hours of sandbox running-from-one-place-to-another-doing-menial-tasks-for-this-person-or-that (if they're not just roaming around figuring out how much chaos they can cause in the world) for a game to be worth it, and there's people who are perfectly happy with more focused experiences, or are satisfied with the conceptually simple, arguably repetitive, but mechanically complex experiences of fighting games.

There's absolutely no reason to disparage a game (especially one that's multiplayer focused) for their size.

wydyadoit
12-08-2016, 04:57 AM
Equating game size with enjoyment and overall worth is asinine, because all you're paying for is an experience. Are you having enough fun to justify the price? That's it. By this point, I'm sure some people have logged more hours in Overwatch (and had more fun by extension) than GTA.

What's worth $60 is entirely subjective. As long as I'm entertained throughout the experience (and that experience lasts longer than a couple of hours), it's worth it to me personally, and in that respect, a great majority of 'AAA' games aren't. I often get bored in open world games because they're very often incredibly shallow. There's a lot to do, technically, but I'm very rarely given a compelling reason to do any of it, or they're large open spaces with not much going on in them beyond specific moments. Alternatively, they're often padded with a billion different collectibles to 'encourage' exploration, when they're often marked on your map.

Maybe some people require 500 hours of sandbox running-from-one-place-to-another-doing-menial-tasks-for-this-person-or-that (if they're not just roaming around figuring out how much chaos they can cause in the world) for a game to be worth it, and there's people who are perfectly happy with more focused experiences, or are satisfied with the conceptually simple, arguably repetitive, but mechanically complex experiences of fighting games.

There's absolutely no reason to disparage a game (especially one that's multiplayer focused) for their size.

if that was true then why do people pay outrageous prices for faster cars when the speed limit is already set below certain fields? by your logic candy crush should have also been $60. while it's true that sandbox games and open world games require that amount of exploration and collecting neither of those things equates to a lot of data and is completely unrelated. battlefield 1 is an ONLINE FPS and mortal kombat is a 2D fighter. on the other hand you have dead rising 4 which is entirely open world single player and sandbox with tons of collecting and guess what - no GBs. quality over quantity sure, but smaller games deserve smaller price tags. i cant help how much a company outsources to the lowest bidder instead of taking the work on themselves. there's a reason GTA V was able to sell the copies it did. it's not because of the open world. it's because of the quality and the quantity being reasonably priced.

the full price tag for for honor is $100 plus the online fees and you get 7-15 ish hours of story and the repetitive multiplayer that has 12 characters with 7 or so gear customization similar to the division. that's 90% of the game and then you can buy a few costumes. for extra $. im good. i dont have that kind of money to throw away.

Dez_troi_aR
12-08-2016, 03:56 PM
if that was true then why do people pay outrageous prices for faster cars when the speed limit is already set below certain fields? by your logic candy crush should have also been $60. while it's true that sandbox games and open world games require that amount of exploration and collecting neither of those things equates to a lot of data and is completely unrelated. battlefield 1 is an ONLINE FPS and mortal kombat is a 2D fighter. on the other hand you have dead rising 4 which is entirely open world single player and sandbox with tons of collecting and guess what - no GBs. quality over quantity sure, but smaller games deserve smaller price tags. i cant help how much a company outsources to the lowest bidder instead of taking the work on themselves. there's a reason GTA V was able to sell the copies it did. it's not because of the open world. it's because of the quality and the quantity being reasonably priced.

the full price tag for for honor is $100 plus the online fees and you get 7-15 ish hours of story and the repetitive multiplayer that has 12 characters with 7 or so gear customization similar to the division. that's 90% of the game and then you can buy a few costumes. for extra $. im good. i dont have that kind of money to throw away.

I think your moving away from the topic. Willow basically said that scale is not the only indicator of quality and i have to agree.
While i personally like to flip every stone in massive open worlds, i got the most long-term motivation of my gaming live out of Starcraft, which is the same three matchups (if you have a mainrace), in the same maps, with the same strategies over and over and over again with the only reward rising up in leagues.

In relation to the time you spend ingame there is not that much content but what is there is perfectly finetuned. In my book, that would be an example of better quality that including 10000 useless units.

wydyadoit
12-08-2016, 04:13 PM
I think your moving away from the topic. Willow basically said that scale is not the only indicator of quality and i have to agree.
While i personally like to flip every stone in massive open worlds, i got the most long-term motivation of my gaming live out of Starcraft, which is the same three matchups (if you have a mainrace), in the same maps, with the same strategies over and over and over again with the only reward rising up in leagues.

In relation to the time you spend ingame there is not that much content but what is there is perfectly finetuned. In my book, that would be an example of better quality that including 10000 useless units.

no im actually not moving away from the main point. the point made was that characters are going to be gender locked. i said it was because of money. someone else said it was because of size and someone else said it was because of realism - which it is not. it's money and time. someone said AAA games take a lot of effort to make and that is why, but i said that smaller games arent AAA games and arent worth the money while listing a few AAA games that are worth the money and some that lacked content who then retorted by stating that RPGs and MMOs are obviously going to be bigger - i defended by naming more games with varying data sizes that were from multiple genres. the reply i got stated simply that more fun equals more money regardless of content to which i wholeheartedly disagree and gave references as to why that isnt true.

finally as a reply to your starcraft comment - starcraft is currently $14.99 for the entire game with updated graphics and dlc included brand new. the only reason why game companies get away with charging $60 for crap is because of supply and demand. if it was re-released tomorrow and cost $60 would you buy it?

Fatal-Feit
12-08-2016, 06:01 PM
no im actually not moving away from the main point. the point made was that characters are going to be gender locked. i said it was because of money. someone else said it was because of size and someone else said it was because of realism - which it is not. it's money and time.

Now, we don't exactly know that for sure. It's a very reasonable speculation, but there's zero evidence to back it up. For all we know, it could be a combination of things we've theorized. It's better to wait for confirmation or proof before passing judgement.

This reminds me of how everyone highly praised the Ezio Trilogy and demands Ubisoft develop more games like that but eventually criticizes the company for not giving their developers more development time when in actuality AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelation were all developed within the time span of a year each and the newer games, barring Rogue, have had 3-4 years.

wydyadoit
12-08-2016, 11:20 PM
Now, we don't exactly know that for sure. It's a very reasonable speculation, but there's zero evidence to back it up. For all we know, it could be a combination of things we've theorized. It's better to wait for confirmation or proof before passing judgement.

This reminds me of how everyone highly praised the Ezio Trilogy and demands Ubisoft develop more games like that but eventually criticizes the company for not giving their developers more development time when in actuality AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelation were all developed within the time span of a year each and the newer games, barring Rogue, have had 3-4 years.

i liked ac 2. that was about it for me with the ezio trilogy. however my younger brother said he preferred brotherhood. im not a fan of remakes as i believe backwards compatibility is the right way to go about those sort of things, but that was a different time. those were all 360 games back when linear gameplay was more common and games had to be made on DVD's instead of blue-ray.

the 360 is dead now so there is literally nothing holding back 3rd party developers other than of course the wii, but no one takes that seriously other than avid nintendo fans. games are designed with playstation and xbox in mind first and foremost and then PC follows because console gamers are more common and consoles are easier to develop content for as it doesnt have to be adjusted per GPU. ubisoft is in a weird transition phase where they're trying to adapt to the newer technology, but are being held back by their lack of creativity and investment/funding. ghost recon wild lands is proof of that awkwardness.

the answer to every data budget problem isnt necessarily just designing an open world.for honor had the right idea, but somewhere along the lines someone must have said no you cant do that because there's no reason why the creative director would have fallen back on so many of his promises unless deadlines werent being met, funding wasnt being met, or technological issues were popping up. for honor's core gameplay is great and well balanced for what it's worth, but there arent enough characters/customization/arenas to make it stand head above the crowd im sorry. even RB6 siege had more maps and characters.

it is entirely possible that the XBOX ONE just cant handle the minions. i saw the footage from people playing and to be honest it struggles with what particles were in the alpha. most likely after refining them they found that their animations were becoming too bulky and had to downsize them which caused further investment of time and money. ubisoft probably became displeased and cut funding. even though PS4 and XBOX ONE have the same GPU's to a point the way that PSN works is a lot cleaner than XBOX's LIVE. The ONE doesnt have enough cores to power through everything it tries to do when multi-tasking as well as having the networking speed divided instead of focused.

for honor will be another ryze son of rome with versus online instead of co-op online. the data will likely be between 30 and 40 GB's and most of it will be lighting and frames because the game is forcing itself to run at 60 FPS.

MisterWillow
12-09-2016, 02:42 AM
if that was true then why do people pay outrageous prices for faster cars when the speed limit is already set below certain fields?

Because they either are part of racing clubs, or they like showing off.


by your logic candy crush should have also been $60.

I doubt people actually have fun in Candy Crush. It's mainly played as a time-waster, or to fill time while sitting on a bus or in a waiting room or something.

Plus, something like Candy Crush is a poor example to use since, given the timers and whatnot that can be bypassed through payment, people have spent more than $60 on that---or at least free to play mobile games in general (apologies, never played CC, but I am familiar with the monetisation practises).


no GBs. quality over quantity sure, but smaller games deserve smaller price tags.

Because?

As long as it's a well crafted experience and I enjoy the vast majority of my time with it, I honestly don't care how big the game is. I'd honestly say I wouldn't have minded paying $50 at least for Journey, just because of how great it was, even though it was a two hour experience. I can replay it later, I can replay it a hundred thousand times and it doesn't stop being marvelous. Same for a game like Ico. I beat that in a little over 5 hours the first time (still trying to get the 2 hr trophy), and enjoyed my time with it so much that it was worth the $40-50 at the time (and continues to be).


there's a reason GTA V was able to sell the copies it did. it's not because of the open world. it's because of the quality and the quantity being reasonably priced.

It's because it's brand recognition more than anything. Whether it's the Rockstar or GTA name, people immediately want it and they play it. Of those people, there are people who genuinely like the series and want to know where the story goes and about the characters and whatnot, and there are others who instantly get their Wanted Level to 5 stars because they're only getting it to cause havoc, the same way people get Sim City to build something so they can see the devastation once they unleashing a disaster.

I get bored in GTA, so it's not worth the price.


the full price tag for for honor is $100 plus the online fees and you get 7-15 ish hours of story and the repetitive multiplayer that has 12 characters with 7 or so gear customization similar to the division. that's 90% of the game and then you can buy a few costumes. for extra $. im good. i dont have that kind of money to throw away.

All of that is subjective. The time I spent playing the alphas with 6 characters easily justifies the price for me.

wydyadoit
12-09-2016, 07:26 AM
Because they either are part of racing clubs, or they like showing off.



I doubt people actually have fun in Candy Crush. It's mainly played as a time-waster, or to fill time while sitting on a bus or in a waiting room or something.

Plus, something like Candy Crush is a poor example to use since, given the timers and whatnot that can be bypassed through payment, people have spent more than $60 on that---or at least free to play mobile games in general (apologies, never played CC, but I am familiar with the monetisation practises).



Because?

As long as it's a well crafted experience and I enjoy the vast majority of my time with it, I honestly don't care how big the game is. I'd honestly say I wouldn't have minded paying $50 at least for Journey, just because of how great it was, even though it was a two hour experience. I can replay it later, I can replay it a hundred thousand times and it doesn't stop being marvelous. Same for a game like Ico. I beat that in a little over 5 hours the first time (still trying to get the 2 hr trophy), and enjoyed my time with it so much that it was worth the $40-50 at the time (and continues to be).



It's because it's brand recognition more than anything. Whether it's the Rockstar or GTA name, people immediately want it and they play it. Of those people, there are people who genuinely like the series and want to know where the story goes and about the characters and whatnot, and there are others who instantly get their Wanted Level to 5 stars because they're only getting it to cause havoc, the same way people get Sim City to build something so they can see the devastation once they unleashing a disaster.

I get bored in GTA, so it's not worth the price.



All of that is subjective. The time I spent playing the alphas with 6 characters easily justifies the price for me.


i dont want to be rude, but you're a poor debater. most of your replies either did not help your stance or hurt your side.

you've obviously never sat in a luxury car before with a high powered engine. it has nothing to do with showing off or because they're part of racing clubs. those can be secondary reasons, but the primary reason is because they're usually featuring something unique that is appealing to the owner. more often than not the actual speed of the car is just a lucky outcome due to the improved motor or the high dollar body having its weight reduced for better gas mileage or handling. standard sedans can top roughly 180+ these days. that's triple most highways in america.

you also admitted to knowing very little about candy crush - which im grateful for your honesty because there's no point in debating about something you dont understand. if you would not pay $60 for candy crush then my point is valid. as for the fun of candy crush - yes it is and yes they do. that system of puzzles is one of the most enjoyed game formats of 30-40 year olds who grew up playing games like tetris. other games like bejeweled and so on are valued based on their replayability. if it wasnt fun and addicting game companies wouldnt keep making them.

smaller games deserve a smaller price tag because you as a consumer are paying a price that should be relative to the amount of effort that went into producing that product. if you're paying the same price regardless of effort then why should any company try to provide more than the bare minimum? companies that care about dollars will push out as many games that are just barely playable and other companies who actually want to create something pleasing to the eye will sit and pour money and effort into their product for years before finally releasing it.

not every rockstar game to date has had the amount of love and care that GTA has been given, but every game they've developed has been a stepping stone toward the next one. all of the features of gta have their roots in other rockstar games. manhunt, midnight club, l.a. noire, max payne, red dead redemption/revolver, the beer pong and ping pong games released for kinect and wii, and so on. they make the games themselves and design systems that can both be specialized or combined because they're so natural to do so with.

ubisoft does the same thing, but for some reason they're frequently letting games die out and never supporting their own investments or they're constantly changing formulas as if the last one didnt work. all of the tom clancy games used to be individualized and had their own followers and fan bases because the games catered to different types of play styles and it worked, but instead of making another title to fill the void created by mobas and tournament games they tried to mold their current formulas into something it wasnt and lost a lot of fans. there's a reason why the division was embraced - it had zero ties and expectations. the crew was the same way. even hawks had a relatively decent following for the genre and so did endwar. yet instead of releasing more versions of those games they've cut production and have tried to turn endwars into an F2P browser game and hawks was basically forgotten and combined into the other tom clancy games. assassin's creed is one of the few games left that they've stuck to their roots with fairly well, but even it is starting to get muddy. i dont know if you've ever played ghost recon future soldier or splinter cell black list, but those games were basically identical. splinter cell and ghost recon used to be extremely different. next year wild lands, for honor, and fractured but whole are all being released within the same time frame which will ultimately cause profits to suffer. those games are not going to be easy to buy because it's early spring and late winter in america and people will be saving up for vacation or paying extra on their heating and gas. just because they're not the same game doesnt mean that casual players wont purchase them if they were spread out more. video games are expensive and require a whole days pay to purchase and the average person will play a game for half a year before moving on. i've played and beaten the stick of truth and i'll be the first to tell you it wasnt worth $60. it was worth 39.99 and that's what i bought it for. the laughs were great and the acting was atrocious just like i expected, but the game lasted 6 hours - which is abysmal for an RPG open world even a southpark one. wild lands is going to be a just cause clone with 4 player co-op and has nothing i liked about ghost recon in it. i didnt buy just cause and im not buying wild lands. open world doesnt make a game better - content and quality does. at this point if ubisoft is having trouble footing bills and supporting larger games due to budget costs then they need to reduce their own spending by getting rid of the dumb Uplay system and start spacing out their games better.

simply put im not paying $100 as a fresh player to play a game with partial content if they cant even design 24 characters. games that run over budget and then arent supported have partial and gimmicky systems to compensate. they're not worth investing in if the company doesnt feel the need to invest. split screen was cut too you know and basically what you have now played since the start of the alpha will be what you play upon release with the additional rough 15 hours of story (and im being generous). oh and some gender locked characters for multiplayer. a game company should be worried about bringing in new players AND old testers. if the game isnt good enough for a tester to say "yes i approve of the price tag" then the game is a fail. for honor should have been an F2P moba like smite and they could have saved on the $ needed for the story mode. no one would have complained a bit.

iHunny
12-09-2016, 08:26 AM
Not a fan of capitals are you? It is really hard reading your posts. Please try make your posts easier to read or people like me will skipp them.

wydyadoit
12-09-2016, 08:57 AM
Not a fan of capitals are you? It is really hard reading your posts. Please try make your posts easier to read or people like me will skipp them.

personally i think that spelling and sentence structure far outweigh capitals and punctuation. for example who are you even talking to?

MisterWillow
12-09-2016, 09:43 AM
i dont want to be rude, but you're a poor debater. most of your replies either did not help your stance or hurt your side.

Says the guy doing nothing but stating subjectives and treating them as objectives.


you also admitted to knowing very little about candy crush - which im grateful for your honesty because there's no point in debating about something you dont understand. if you would not pay $60 for candy crush then my point is valid. as for the fun of candy crush - yes it is and yes they do. that system of puzzles is one of the most enjoyed game formats of 30-40 year olds who grew up playing games like tetris. other games like bejeweled and so on are valued based on their replayability. if it wasnt fun and addicting game companies wouldnt keep making them.

Generally people don't sit and play games like that for hours and hours and hours, though, and the people who do spend in excess of $60 on bypassing timers and buying lives. They're predominantly time-killers. They're fun, maybe, and you can pick them up and put them down without too much investment, but people play them for different reasons than AAA games.


smaller games deserve a smaller price tag because you as a consumer are paying a price that should be relative to the amount of effort that went into producing that product.

Who are you to judge what the value of someone's work is worth? I'm pretty sure the people who made Journey cared just as much and worked just as hard as the people making Skyrim.


if you're paying the same price regardless of effort then why should any company try to provide more than the bare minimum? companies that care about dollars will push out as many games that are just barely playable and other companies who actually want to create something pleasing to the eye will sit and pour money and effort into their product for years before finally releasing it.

Yet you have a game like Skyrim, which is a perfect example of a AAA game, and that was buggy on release---like unplayable buggy for some people. The PS3 version, in fact, had a very specific bug that affected the save file size (it increased every time any object in the world was moved by the player; which increased the loading in certain areas and affected framerate in others), so every time I would loot a dungeon, my save file would increase by a couple of MB, and by hour 10, I couldn't go down to Riften, and as a result of all this, I could never complete it.

Most people prefer Bethesda games on PC because the community can fix what Bethesda can't be bothered with.


not every rockstar game to date has had the amount of love and care that GTA has been given, but every game they've developed has been a stepping stone toward the next one. all of the features of gta have their roots in other rockstar games. manhunt, midnight club, l.a. noire, max payne, red dead redemption/revolver, the beer pong and ping pong games released for kinect and wii, and so on. they make the games themselves and design systems that can both be specialized or combined because they're so natural to do so with.

That's great for GTA. They still bore me to tears, and half the time they're being played by people who only want to hijack tanks and blow stuff up.


assassin's creed is one of the few games left that they've stuck to their roots with fairly well, but even it is starting to get muddy.

I stopped playing AC after Black Flag because they because stale. The basic formula for every game was exactly the same---start with a small area, learn some story, climb tower, uncover more map, learn more story, rinse repeat.

In fact, Ubisoft became a joke (though it's beginning to not be the case anymore) because all their major franchises followed this formula. Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Watch Dogs, even The Crew had towers that, once cleared, opened more of the map, and marked all the little collectibles on the map.


i've played and beaten the stick of truth and i'll be the first to tell you it wasnt worth $60. it was worth 39.99 and that's what i bought it for.

You're a precog? Cool.


simply put im not paying $100 as a fresh player to play a game with partial content if they cant even design 24 characters.

Okay, first, you're paying $60 unless you want a deluxe or special edition, so please don't inflate the price tag.

Second, the game feels fully featured even in the alpha with six characters and three maps. I could (and did) play that for hours, and in the interim between the end of the last test and the next one (to say nothing of release), I'm itching to play some more. The fact that we're getting six more characters and more maps (along with two additional modes), along with a campaign, is icing to me.


games that run over budget and then arent supported have partial and gimmicky systems to compensate.

You mean like towers you have to climb to reveal portions of the map and the collectibles contained within that pad out the experience?


they're not worth investing in if the company doesnt feel the need to invest. split screen was cut too you know and basically what you have now played since the start of the alpha will be what you play upon release with the additional rough 15 hours of story (and im being generous). oh and some gender locked characters for multiplayer.

Fine with me. Have had fun, and will most likely continue to have fun. I'll enjoy the narrative even if it's cheesy, and have hours of fun stomping people in Dominion with my gender-locked Warlord (even though I would really like a female version; please Ubi).


a game company should be worried about bringing in new players AND old testers. if the game isnt good enough for a tester to say "yes i approve of the price tag" then the game is a fail.

They should be worried about presenting an entertaining experience. That's all that matters at the end of the day.


for honor should have been an F2P moba like smite and they could have saved on the $ needed for the story mode. no one would have complained a bit.

While you're probably not wrong about people not complaining, I'm actually glad we're getting a story to give context to the world.

Fatal-Feit
12-09-2016, 12:03 PM
Second, the game feels fully featured even in the alpha with six characters and three maps. I could (and did) play that for hours, and in the interim between the end of the last test and the next one (to say nothing of release), I'm itching to play some more. The fact that we're getting six more characters and more maps (along with two additional modes), along with a campaign, is icing to me.

While I do agree that the quality of the content is far more valuable than its size, and perhaps you're simply exaggerating to make your point, but I do want to add that there IS a line that devs shouldn't cross in regards to quality over content. Paying $60 for a AAA game that can be fully experienced within 2 hours is stretching it.

As much as I love For Honor and value it as a game of a lifetime due to its originality, its alpha falls short on delivering the rich experience Overwatch presents (heck, even R6S). The meta is lacking and your skills are prone to hit a wall after a few training sessions. We might have been able to each milk 100 hours out of the alpha and call it an excellent experience that we're dying to have more of, but if we're being objective, the quality of the alpha is not worth $60 if that's what you mean by fully featured.

MisterWillow
12-10-2016, 02:30 AM
While I do agree that the quality of the content is far more valuable than its size, and perhaps you're simply exaggerating to make your point, but I do want to add that there IS a line that devs shouldn't cross in regards to quality over content. Paying $60 for a AAA game that can be fully experienced within 2 hours is stretching it.

As much as I love For Honor and value it as a game of a lifetime due to its originality, its alpha falls short on delivering the rich experience Overwatch presents (heck, even R6S). The meta is lacking and your skills are prone to hit a wall after a few training sessions. We might have been able to each milk 100 hours out of the alpha and call it an excellent experience that we're dying to have more of, but if we're being objective, the quality of the alpha is not worth $60 if that's what you mean by fully featured.

While I fully admit to the exaggeration, provided they continued to tune the balance, I could play just that forever.

To be absolutely fair and objective, you are of course correct that six characters and three maps does not constitute a $60 game for the vast majority of people, so if they released just the alpha as a full game and charged that amount, the amount of complaints would be apocalyptic. However, I do not agree with the proposition that if something doesn't have x number of characters (the example being 24) or can be played for x number of hours, or have x amount of things to do then its worth is somehow lesser, provided it actually is complete in terms of what the game designers wanted to achieve, which can obviously vary game to game.

Journey, Ico, Rez, Shadow Warrior (not 2), the latest Wolfenstein. To the person I've been debating, I'm guessing none of those 'deserve' to be $50-$60 (Journey's the outlier since it's $20, but I would have probably paid at least $40 because of the enjoyment I've gotten out of it), since they're only single-player and can all be beaten in a handful of hours. The experience presented is complete from a design point of view, but because they aren't open world with a billion collectibles or don't have multiplayer shoehorned into them they're somehow supposed to be viewed as inferior. That's asinine.

Twitch311
12-10-2016, 03:12 PM
the full price tag for for honor is $100 plus the online fees and you get 7-15 ish hours of story and the repetitive multiplayer that has 12 characters with 7 or so gear customization similar to the division. that's 90% of the game and then you can buy a few costumes. for extra $. im good. i dont have that kind of money to throw away.

Rofl............ Don't play many fighting games do you?

The entire point of fighting games is mastery through repetition. For example i am garbage at Street Fighter V, but i still managed to put in my 90 hours in the game on just One character and still don't know half the match ups as well as i should. And im looking for a new character now cause after i have progressed to my current skill lvl i have decided the actions in the game that are most rewarding mentally are not available on the character im currently playing.

Also no For Honor can't be free to play. The game cost WAY too much to make for that model.

Dez_troi_aR
12-10-2016, 04:06 PM
Rofl............ Don't play many fighting games do you?

The entire point of fighting games is mastery through repetition. For example i am garbage at Street Fighter V, but i still managed to put in my 90 hours in the game on just One character and still don't know half the match ups as well as i should. And im looking for a new character now cause after i have progressed to my current skill lvl i have decided the actions in the game that are most rewarding mentally are not available on the character im currently playing.

Also no For Honor can't be free to play. The game cost WAY too much to make for that model.

Agreed.
Most Multiplayer games aren't about massive content. Multiplayer is not like a singleplayer game you happen to play with other people, it's more like sports.
Nobody would look at a soccer game and then be like "Are you kidding me? 22 people and a ball is not enough content. Maybe if there were 200 people involved and the ball would be available in more different colours i would buy a ticket".
Strange comparison ? Nope.

wydyadoit
12-10-2016, 05:57 PM
Rofl............ Don't play many fighting games do you?

The entire point of fighting games is mastery through repetition. For example i am garbage at Street Fighter V, but i still managed to put in my 90 hours in the game on just One character and still don't know half the match ups as well as i should. And im looking for a new character now cause after i have progressed to my current skill lvl i have decided the actions in the game that are most rewarding mentally are not available on the character im currently playing.

Also no For Honor can't be free to play. The game cost WAY too much to make for that model.

Agreed.
Most Multiplayer games aren't about massive content. Multiplayer is not like a singleplayer game you happen to play with other people, it's more like sports.
Nobody would look at a soccer game and then be like "Are you kidding me? 22 people and a ball is not enough content. Maybe if there were 200 people involved and the ball would be available in more different colours i would buy a ticket".
Strange comparison ? Nope.

i actually play several fighting games including but not limited to street fighter, mortal kombat, soul caliber, dead or alive, and a few anime fighters as well. all of those games are different sizes and all of those games are different quality, but MOST of those games either offer a massive roster, immensely diverse fighting styles, or a character creation system. the ones that do not (mostly anime fighters) have to pay large sums of money for licensing and voice actors in order to provide a believable and immersive combat experience. for honor has a single player campaign that spans 3 stories with characters we've never heard of before that are all admittedly generic and really required little to no fleshing out. it was a wasted investment since they've only dipped their toes into the water. that is not my fault. that is poor business practice and shouldnt be the consumers burden to bear.

using soccer as an example isnt wrong when comparing a fighting game, but the way you're comparing however is wrong. if fifa released a soccer game with 22 players and a ball you wouldnt buy it for $60 even IF the ball could be changed to more colors and 200 NPC's were lined up in the stands. when fifa releases their soccer games they contain several teams with several layers of stats and customization as well as a career mode, a vs mode, a splitscreen feature, exibition, several different stadiums and weather, some soccer games even have trading card games inside of the game and more. if you're going to make a comparison you have to format it correctly and not just build it up with unrelated content to try and support your views. even fifa street had a massive amount of content and it was one of the smaller games.

that tower nonsense that has been in farcry, assassin's creed, etc. was just proof that ubisoft is lacking in creativity. that is what i meant by making a game open world doesnt make it better. the reason why those features keep spilling over into their other games is because people buy their games even though it's been copy pasted to death. that was my point on the splinter cell vs ghost recon part with the tom clancy games. by the way if you hated assassin creed and farcry's towers you might as well not even consider wild lands because those are back - along with the pointless collectibles. instead of having the original ghost recon formula with specialized soldiers that can be permanently lost divided between 2 squads and the tactical and realistic vs multiplayer now you have a game that mimics 4 player farcry and just cause.

for honor could have been free to play if they didnt waste their money hiring cheap actors and actresses for a story that wasnt needed. now you have 3 characters that are gender fluid and customizeable in their entirety for the most part while the rest of the cast are not. it wouldnt be so bad if it wasnt so obvious that the original intent to make all 12 characters multi gendered, but because the orochi and the berserker also have their own gender palette swaps it's just going to feel strange and ruin players immersion. on top of that co-op which was originally stated as "being naturally included" in the campaign mode was also cut. why was co-op cut? that doesnt require any additional models or voice acting. all it requires is for them to do what resident evil did with ada wongs chapter in resident evil 6. spawn in a second playable model and dont give it any voice lines. that's easy so that means either the game is barely functional on certain consoles or computer specs so the co-op had to be cut or the gameplay wasnt strong enough to be divided between two players without one feeling pointless. since boss battles were usually 1 character fighting another character that's most likely the reason. not enough content to be divided between the two players.

---------------------------------------------------------------

my point - because it's clear you're not able to understand my frustration - is that the game IS NOT a fighting game. fighting games are not known for their stories. this is a multi-player brawler similar to ryze son of rome. the difference is that the focus which was supposed to be on the multiplayer combat has been put into the story mode and the controls have been adjusted in such a way as to make the game feel unique. the story mode is going to be sub par in quality. the multiplayer is going to be repetitive and under developed. that is why it isn't worth the money. it would have been better off ditching the story than to cut multiplayer features, but the money was already spent on the story. ubisoft should have just ponied up the cash and then they could have made the story DLC for $20 instead of the dumb DLC they've got in mind.

block
roll
light attack
heavy attack
sprint
target opponent
shield bash

what makes this game unique is the RS modifier that affects the guard and attack stances in a rock paper scissors fashion. this game is closer to dark souls than it is to street fighter.

for this game to thrive as a true multiplayer title it will need a lot more than it has. this game doesnt even have a well thought out progression system or reward system. the loot drops make the game one sided based on who's a higher level. what fighting games require in skill and knowledge of a character this game makes a complete mockery of by adding in progressive stats that basically equate to "i've played longer so i'm stronger" instead of "i've learned more so i can outplay you" - that's actually one thing that makes me worried about injustice 2.

Twitch311
12-10-2016, 08:58 PM
i actually play several fighting games including but not limited to street fighter, mortal kombat, soul caliber, dead or alive, and a few anime fighters as well. all of those games are different sizes and all of those games are different quality, but MOST of those games either offer a massive roster, immensely diverse fighting styles, or a character creation system. the ones that do not (mostly anime fighters) have to pay large sums of money for licensing and voice actors in order to provide a believable and immersive combat experience. for honor has a single player campaign that spans 3 stories with characters we've never heard of before that are all admittedly generic and really required little to no fleshing out.



So you admit that you play only for single player, fair enough. I don't. Frankly i hope i can just play the knight the missions cause i don't care about the other factions at all.

also
it was a wasted investment since they've only dipped their toes into the water. that is not my fault. that is poor business practice and shouldnt be the consumers burden to bear. Is pure crap. They invested MILLIONS of dollars in the game building a completely new combat system from SCRATCH. If you actually payed attention to most fighters you would know they all pretty much just use an updated version of the old one system. Also we will see if this "poor business practice." (makes me laugh to even say it.) pays off.

Dez_troi_aR
12-10-2016, 10:42 PM
for honor has a single player campaign that spans 3 stories with characters we've never heard of before that are all admittedly generic and really required little to no fleshing out. it was a wasted investment since they've only dipped their toes into the water. that is not my fault. that is poor business practice and shouldnt be the consumers burden to bear.

I won't defend the campaign. I am glad that it is there and i am looking forward to it. But as you say, the characters seem to be very flat, the story predictable. But it also looks very "stylish" and fun to play and it will give some context to the world. If you buy ForHonor expecting a dramatic story pleasing your medieval-nerd's soul, than you might be dissapointed. But if you are looking for a high quality multiplayer experience and the game delivers (which most alpha testers already agree on), than the campaign is not "wasted money" but a very well done extra.


using soccer as an example isnt wrong when comparing a fighting game, but the way you're comparing however is wrong. if fifa released a soccer game with 22 players and a ball you wouldnt buy it for $60 even IF the ball could be changed to more colors and 200 NPC's were lined up in the stands. when fifa releases their soccer games they contain several teams with several layers of stats and customization as well as a career mode, a vs mode, a splitscreen feature, exibition, several different stadiums and weather, some soccer games even have trading card games inside of the game and more. if you're going to make a comparison you have to format it correctly and not just build it up with unrelated content to try and support your views. even fifa street had a massive amount of content and it was one of the smaller games.
And For Honor also doesn't give us just two guys hacking at each other but 12 different heroes with different weapons and fighting styles, perks (if you play dominion), several gamplay modes, different maps, a lot of customization options (hopefully only visual) and a single player campaign on top, which will include an online coop mode.
Though i am a purist here and think that the quality of the core gameplay, the 1v1 encounter, is what makes or breaks the game, i am very satisfied with the overall features included.
Besides, i was not comparing fighting games to soccer games but multiplayer to real life soccer in general. I don't know if you are in a soccer team, but if you will agree that it is unlikly for Ronaldo to wake up one day and say "this is boring, we need to deliver more content, lets include war-elephants tomorrow". The "soccer-core-gameplay" is fun and functional and if you like it you may enjoy it for a livetime. Same for games imo



for honor could have been free to play if they didnt waste their money hiring cheap actors and actresses for a story that wasnt needed
That is pretty speculative, isn't it ?
Besides, i am really not interested in free to play stuff. I am interested in a high quality multiplayer game which is worth it's money and which will keep me on my toes for a long time, eager for getting better rising up in leagues and improving my skill.
I can hop in and out of a f2p without hurting myself financially, true, but when i get bored after 2 weeks it will feel like wasted time. Bringing up the Starcraft example again: I was playing SC since i was an early teen and SC2 since release. Thats hundreds of hours of quality time and well worth the 60€.

.
now you have 3 characters that are gender fluid and customizeable in their entirety for the most part while the rest of the cast are not. it wouldnt be so bad if it wasnt so obvious that the original intent to make all 12 characters multi gendered, but because the orochi and the berserker also have their own gender palette swaps it's just going to feel strange and ruin players immersion. on top of that co-op which was originally stated as "being naturally included" in the campaign mode was also cut. why was co-op cut?

Noone is happy about less options. We can only speculate about the reasons for the gender locks but running out of time seems to be the most reasonable one for me. It doesn't affect the core gameplay and the reason why this game should be as great as we expect it to be, though.

I think you are wrong when assuming that coop was not harmonizing with the campaign gameplay mechanics, because there is still a coop included, just not via split screen. You have to use your internet connection for it. Lack of development time seems to be the most reasonable explantation again. Once more i think that noone is happy about something not included in the product but this doesn't affect the games strengths, too. I personally think, if you were exited for forhonor only because of the splitscreen then you where chasing a ghost. It would have been a nice addition, nothing more. It's still sad that it was cut.


my point - because it's clear you're not able to understand my frustration - is that the game IS NOT a fighting game. fighting games are not known for their stories. this is a multi-player brawler
I am looking forward to the duels most and from what i can say at this point i will play duels (and brawls) 80% of the time. In that mode the game comes closer to the fighting genre than to any other.


the difference is that the focus which was supposed to be on the multiplayer combat has been put into the story mode and the controls have been adjusted in such a way as to make the game feel unique[B]. the story mode is going to be sub par in quality. the multiplayer is going to be repetitive and under developed. that is why it isn't worth the money.
Pure speculation. From what we have seen in the alpha, the multiplayer doesn't lack quality at all.



for this game to thrive as a true multiplayer title it will need a lot more than it has. this game doesnt even have a well thought out progression system or reward system.
Since when do multiplayer titles need a progression system ?


the loot drops make the game one sided based on who's a higher level. what fighting games require in skill and knowledge of a character this game makes a complete mockery of by adding in progressive stats that basically equate to "i've played longer so i'm stronger" instead of "i've learned more so i can outplay you"
Totally agree with you here, drops and gear shouldn't have any influence on the duels, in my opinion. Having a better sword is a lousy way to win over a human opponent (in a skill based game).
That is the only serious concern i have because it affects the core of the game directly. Its a much more crucial topic than having 10 instead of 20 colours to choose from or if the campaign is 9 or 10 hours.

CaptainPwnet
12-10-2016, 11:15 PM
[QUOTE=wydyadoit;12101024

Totally agree with you here, drops and gear shouldn't have any influence on the duels, in my opinion. Having a better sword is a lousy way to win over a human opponent (in a skill based game).
That is the only serious concern i have because it affects the core of the game directly. Its a much more crucial topic than having 10 instead of 20 colours to choose from or if the campaign is 9 or 10 hours.

Well gear stats have no effect in the duel mode. This was actually relayed to the player in the alpha I believe. But Regardless in any game mode I think gear stats should have very minimal to 0 effect on your overall strength. They should be cosmetic primarily, and then maybe you can tweak your stats with gear like gain some attack at the cost of defense sort of thing. But not a progressive increase as you find better gear. This one thing could potentially kill the game in a few months after release if they don't get this right. So lets hope.

Twitch311
12-11-2016, 12:56 AM
] is that the game IS NOT a fighting game[/B]

Lol yes it is............... not all fighting games are 2d 1v1 lol Its a fighting game the same way dragonball Xenoverse is a fighting game. And why are you getting frustrated at people over the internet ROFL, i only doing this cause your funny.




Well gear stats have no effect in the duel mode. This was actually relayed to the player in the alpha I believe. But Regardless in any game mode I think gear stats should have very minimal to 0 effect on your overall strength. They should be cosmetic primarily, and then maybe you can tweak your stats with gear like gain some attack at the cost of defense sort of thing. But not a progressive increase as you find better gear. This one thing could potentially kill the game in a few months after release if they don't get this right. So lets hope.

I actually disagree with you here. As long as the gear you wish to obtain is easy enough to obtain then the ability to customize your character would be pretty sweet. Kinda like runes and masteries from LOL. Though im hoping you can buy the gear you want for in game money at launch.

wydyadoit
12-11-2016, 01:11 AM
So you admit that you play only for single player, fair enough. I don't. Frankly i hope i can just play the knight the missions cause i don't care about the other factions at all.

also Is pure crap. They invested MILLIONS of dollars in the game building a completely new combat system from SCRATCH. If you actually payed attention to most fighters you would know they all pretty much just use an updated version of the old one system. Also we will see if this "poor business practice." (makes me laugh to even say it.) pays off.

please explain how that equates to "i only play single player games"

i didnt realize this game was for honor the sequel to for glory. it's pretty easy to "build a new combat system from scratch" for a new series. much less so for something that has been set in stone for decades. the combat for this game is very similar to other games of the genre. if millions of dollars were invested into that part of the game then i think someone overpaid. most of the funding for this game went into hiring the voice actors/actresses, motion capture recording, and renting out segments to showcase their unfinished product.

------------

to everyone else : we'll see once it hit shelves i guess. it's not like the skill ceiling is going anywhere just because i miss out on day one drops. i'll borrow it from a friend or family member like i do with all other games and see if it's worth owning also.

waraidako
12-11-2016, 01:15 AM
I'm unsubscribing from this thread, this is cancer.

Dez_troi_aR
12-11-2016, 12:34 PM
I actually disagree with you here. As long as the gear you wish to obtain is easy enough to obtain then the ability to customize your character would be pretty sweet. Kinda like runes and masteries from LOL. Though im hoping you can buy the gear you want for in game money at launch.
If the gear stats dont have a real effect you wont care about them and just go for visuals. Besides, i didnt say that. dont know why but you placed my signature on pwnets citation.



I'm unsubscribing from this thread, this is cancer.
Ok, cya

Twitch311
12-11-2016, 11:47 PM
please explain how that equates to "i only play single player games"

.

All your whining is about the lack of single player content. Its pretty easy to see what your interested in.

Pope138
12-14-2016, 06:55 PM
As others have already said, the gender options are 50/50 per faction which is cool. I would love to be able to choose genders for each class, but not being able to for a few (per faction) does not hold the game back in any way imo.

CrestfallenNito
12-17-2016, 03:26 AM
If there can be female Raiders and Kenseis there's no reason there can't be male Nobushis, Peacekeeps, and Valkyries, as well as female Warlords, Shugokis and Lawbringers

JOW.Lane
12-17-2016, 09:53 PM
I simply believe most classes should be male ONLY, the fact ubi has given the ability to switch genders is probably to pander the the whole .01 % who take offense to not having that ability. I seriously doubt there were any female Samurai (OK maybe there ONE exception whatever), the Vikings there were for sure female fighters, and probably not too many female if at all any crusaders. Just my thoughts I'm perfectly fine with how it is, if you want a scantily clad female fighter go play skyrim.:p

bulltrup
12-17-2016, 11:27 PM
Oh come on, if they made a female version of the heavies (which are bulky as hell) they would get waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much flak. Think about it the Japanese heavy is like 300 pounds and a sumo wrestler and all the male/female counterparts are pretty much the same build. It wouldn't be worth them making the headlines of making fat women in a video game. Also who the hell cares about the gender locking? If you like the characters moves thats all that really matters imo. If anything it is immersion that the super agile ones are women and the super duper heavy fat ones are male.

KioTheSlayer
12-18-2016, 06:33 AM
I'm sorry, but if you have a problem with some classes not being allowed to be both genders then play another game. Its ridiculous to see people complain about female only characters all of a sudden but it's never been a problem with the thousands of other games that you could only play as a male. Of any of the things you could suggest changed in this game, this is by far the most ridiculous.

Free-Fall_
12-18-2016, 07:16 AM
If there can be female Raiders and Kenseis there's no reason there can't be male Nobushis, Peacekeeps, and Valkyries, as well as female Warlords, Shugokis and Lawbringers

Not sure about Nobushi, but I can't see why Peacekeepers cannot have a Male counterpart. Valkyrie remains Female, end of discussion for that. Either change the title or leave it be. Warlords? Again, change the title. Norse women were never once considered Warlords, whether this game is going for historical accuracy, or not. (which it sure as hell is not) Unless at some point the Norse did have women as Warlords, correct me if I'm wrong on that front.

Shugoki is brought up from an ancient guardian. Don't know the specifics, but I doubt there were female counterparts. Law Bringers I can see being both genders.

Free-Fall_
12-18-2016, 07:25 AM
I simply believe most classes should be male ONLY, the fact ubi has given the ability to switch genders is probably to pander the the whole .01 % who take offense to not having that ability. I seriously doubt there were any female Samurai (OK maybe there ONE exception whatever), the Vikings there were for sure female fighters, and probably not too many female if at all any crusaders. Just my thoughts I'm perfectly fine with how it is, if you want a scantily clad female fighter go play skyrim.:p

Why does this bug you so much? I don't understand the problem, both sides. Acting like morons.

Orochi would have made more sense to be called Shinobi and Kunoichi. Yes, there were indeed female "warriors". For the Norse? It wasn't common for women to go on raiding parties. They tend the farms, children, livestock, trading, etc.. In the Sagas you had Shieldmaidens that would accompany the men in battle. Whether this is actually true is up for debate.

Women likely took up specific roles that suited to them during the crusades.

Either way, why does it matter? This games far from any historical accuracy and thrives off nearly every single stereotype known to man.