PDA

View Full Version : What does this game actually feel like



BruteForrrce
06-19-2017, 02:07 PM
Marketed so well, when it comes to playing the game its absolutely horrible. The amount of times you will get frustrated due to amount of bugs in this game, character unbalances, and lack of response from Ubisoft is disgusting. It has been launched for so long, they even had an open beta, yet they cannot make a smooth and well functioning game. My god these developers are stealing if you ask me.

Ask yourself, how can they market it so well and deliver such a poorly developed game and so many unbalances?

I'd feel guilty deceiving people into thinking this is a proper game. Sorry not sorry.:mad:

Gray360UK
06-19-2017, 02:12 PM
Ask yourself, how can they market it so well and deliver such a poorly developed game and so many unbalances?


Being literal about this question, because marketing is a hell of a lot easier than producing the goods. Think of how many films / games have amazing trailers and then turn out to be crap (not saying For Honor is crap). I know you probably don't want a literal answer though ;)

DrExtrem
06-19-2017, 02:35 PM
But we have to admit.

The way they ****ed up this great concept is an achievement on its own. Champions league niveau.

kweassa1
06-19-2017, 02:39 PM
The concept's fine, game's fine, thx.

Cut away the exaggerations coming from the drama-queens and the only real blight upon the game are unstable connections usually the players themselves cause, and server outages that happen maybe once or twice per month.

EDG_Avocado
06-19-2017, 08:12 PM
agreed. The released version is straight up garbage. Worth 5$ max.

Shakti.
06-19-2017, 08:33 PM
Marketed so well, when it comes to playing the game its absolutely horrible. The amount of times you will get frustrated due to amount of bugs in this game, character unbalances, and lack of response from Ubisoft is disgusting. It has been launched for so long, they even had an open beta, yet they cannot make a smooth and well functioning game. My god these developers are stealing if you ask me.

Ask yourself, how can they market it so well and deliver such a poorly developed game and so many unbalances?

I'd feel guilty deceiving people into thinking this is a proper game. Sorry not sorry.:mad:

Welcome to for honor. Most rage inducing game since tetris.

DrExtrem
06-19-2017, 10:47 PM
Welcome to for honor. Most rage inducing game since tetris.

Nope. Tetris was fun from day one and far less rage inducing. I still have it together with the first gameboy.

Z however, was rage inducing, because it was extremely punishing.

Vakris_One
06-19-2017, 10:55 PM
Welcome to for honor. Most rage inducing game since tetris.
Pfffrt. Tenchu 3 and Injustice League are rage inducing. For Honor is like a calm ocean breeze compared to those two :)

Wolf-Heathen
06-20-2017, 02:32 AM
Marketed so well, when it comes to playing the game its absolutely horrible. The amount of times you will get frustrated due to amount of bugs in this game, character unbalances, and lack of response from Ubisoft is disgusting. It has been launched for so long, they even had an open beta, yet they cannot make a smooth and well functioning game. My god these developers are stealing if you ask me.

Ask yourself, how can they market it so well and deliver such a poorly developed game and so many unbalances?

I'd feel guilty deceiving people into thinking this is a proper game. Sorry not sorry.:mad:

Let's be real, that wasn't an open beta. That was a tech demo intended to promote the game. For Honor came out four days after the "beta" ended. There was no possible way that they could have taken in feedback, analyzed data, and made any changes for launch. This is why there were, and continue to be so many balance problems with the game. It was solely intended to hype people into pre-ordering the game and buying season passes.

You answered your own question, their focus has always been on marketing first, and developing second. They know there are a percentage of people that will blindly pre-order special editions and pay for season passes if Ubisoft can just cut together a sick trailer and pay for advertising to promote the game. I mean, they have been doing this with their games for some time now. It should come as no shock.
I didn't play the Division when it first came out, but I heard it was a mess of bugs, lacking content, virtually no end-game, and horribly mis-represented in terms of features at launch. Fast-forward to over a year from launch and patches, and people are saying it's only recently become a decent game. R6:Siege went through a similar experience. Extremely rocky launch, but after numerous post-launch patches and fixes, it's in a healthy state now.

People need to recognize that Ubisoft the publisher, doesn't care about the quality of the product at launch. They just want to make as much money as they can on broken promises, take your money and start developing another game to do it all over again. This is why I had no interest in Ubisoft's E3 presentation. No matter how interesting any game looks, its association with Ubisoft will drive many who have been burned previously by the company away.

Duuklah
06-20-2017, 04:35 AM
Getting raped with a rock salt covered *****

DrExtrem
06-20-2017, 07:06 AM
@ wolf-heathen

The division has not really become good. It is still a bag full of wasted opportunities and bad design decisions. People might be more favorable now, because it got a bad pvp mode. The folks that stayed, are predominantly dz-fans. The dz wad the main problem since day one, because it feels out of place - theme and gameplay wise. Adding a pure group-pve mode for it, would have been the right strategy but until this day, their are no plans to add it. Even if it would fit the theme of their own game.
Next problem is their combat system - a cover based tactical rpg-shooter, where not taking cover is often better - especially in pvp. Silly side strafing and abysmally bad networking, combi ed with crappy stats made pvp a cluster**** worthy of song.

The dlcs were partially good - the first one is actually nice but useless after hitting max rank. The second dlc transformed the gameplay to a survival game. cool idea. The third one was a mp-mode - something, that should have been in the game since day one. Problem with those dlcs are, that they added disconnected new modes and did not expand or alter the main games open world (open world game) or expanded it. The main games experience did not change. Underground is a random mission generator in a randomly generated underground themed environment. Nice but an extension of the existing subway and sewer system with random encounters and missions (interacting and overlapping with the top half of the map) would have been far better. Same with survival. The two hour mission (without respawn) is nice and special. The altered nap and the weather is really cool but its another wasted opportunity. A general alteration of the game world with the survival aspects would have been better again. The simply sold sophisticated mini games.

For honor is quite similar.

Wasted opportunities and levered out mechanics left and right.

guor6800
06-20-2017, 07:41 AM
Let's be real, that wasn't an open beta. That was a tech demo intended to promote the game. For Honor came out four days after the "beta" ended. There was no possible way that they could have taken in feedback, analyzed data, and made any changes for launch. This is why there were, and continue to be so many balance problems with the game. It was solely intended to hype people into pre-ordering the game and buying season passes.

You answered your own question, their focus has always been on marketing first, and developing second. They know there are a percentage of people that will blindly pre-order special editions and pay for season passes if Ubisoft can just cut together a sick trailer and pay for advertising to promote the game. I mean, they have been doing this with their games for some time now. It should come as no shock.
I didn't play the Division when it first came out, but I heard it was a mess of bugs, lacking content, virtually no end-game, and horribly mis-represented in terms of features at launch. Fast-forward to over a year from launch and patches, and people are saying it's only recently become a decent game. R6:Siege went through a similar experience. Extremely rocky launch, but after numerous post-launch patches and fixes, it's in a healthy state now.

People need to recognize that Ubisoft the publisher, doesn't care about the quality of the product at launch. They just want to make as much money as they can on broken promises, take your money and start developing another game to do it all over again. This is why I had no interest in Ubisoft's E3 presentation. No matter how interesting any game looks, its association with Ubisoft will drive many who have been burned previously by the company away.

I participated in closed beta which was about a month before launch. Pretty much the same problems. I have said it a million times. Wonderful project that is still in alpha state.Clearly not worth AAA price.