PDA

View Full Version : Lets talk about the old for honor (2015)



Ianoneshot
06-25-2017, 07:01 PM
The old For Honor (2015) "footage" is getting a lot of people to ask what happened? While this footage is not actual gameplay it still looks like it. I also found myself wondering the same thing. No doubt I like current for honor but this may be a fun game too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7wArqnKgg8&t=0s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1HkuGUaNBY

I (and others) wonder why the devs went the way they did now? I know that the defend/attack animations are too smooth, fluent, and slow that would make the game 'boring' to some extent. This gameplay of no hud besides your one bar health, game (objectives and score), and enemies to friends seems cool. Also the correct historical people and armor is also cool. Apparently you could have whatever armor plus whatever weapon. That seems really cool! The battle and video quality is god-like because its all an animation. Also the maps a historically accurate! This seems fun! Why did the devs leave this?

Also I would like to say another thing. In the opening cinematic you see the heroes of the old for honor progress to the current for honor. This made me spawn a story theory that the 2015 version of for honor was the past (aka before cataclysm). The current for honor takes place after 2015 for honor. So if the devs are making another for honor game how about a prologue; the 2015 for honor? I would make 2015 for honor if I had a crew, and didn't get a copyright claim because it has some of for honor's aspects.

EDIT!!!!!!!! ------> I am not saying "They lied to us," or "The promised this and now I'm mad." sorry if it seemed like that I wanted it to say stuff like that. I like for honor the way it is, and I'm just asking why was that taken out? Sorry if it sounded like this was some salty thing. I wonder; and it's okay to wonder.

Tillo.
06-25-2017, 08:05 PM
Classic Ubisoft downgrade ehm bait & switch:

https://youtu.be/xNter0oEYxc

Snickers-Bar
06-25-2017, 08:05 PM
Art and dark colors from the first video actaully looks awesome, but the combat nope.

RatedChaotic
06-25-2017, 09:35 PM
Speed the combat up with a few things from the now version and you had a gold mine UBI. Wish we had that map.

Ianoneshot
06-25-2017, 10:46 PM
Speed the combat up with a few things from the now version and you had a gold mine UBI. Wish we had that map.

Thats what I was like!

Ianoneshot
06-26-2017, 01:46 PM
Classic Ubisoft downgrade ehm bait & switch:

https://youtu.be/xNter0oEYxc

The "gameplay" looks like a real game but it's all animation. So this isn't really a downgrade because that was a animation for the developers from 3 years ago. Also the footage was released recently so the gameplay/target footage was not a bait.

kweassa1
06-26-2017, 01:52 PM
...and of course, I take none of you know what "concept video", "pre-alpha footage" and "mock-up" and "presentation" means.


*facepalm moment*


Get a job. One day you'll understand. :rolleyes:

DrExtrem
06-26-2017, 02:51 PM
That version had not enough anime character to sell it to younger players.

That concept looked far too serious and grim and probably was booted, because focus testing showed, that the target audience would get too small.

What a shame. Now we are stuck with ersatz-Naruto and the losers from asterix.

Gray360UK
06-26-2017, 02:53 PM
...and of course, I take none of you know what "concept video", "pre-alpha footage" and "mock-up" and "presentation" means.


*facepalm moment*


Get a job. One day you'll understand. :rolleyes:

I don't think that's fair.

I think everyone gets that the footage shown was not the finished product, only what could have been. That doesn't change the fact that many people (myself included) think that the old footage has a lot of elements that are missing from the finished product that could have made for a better game.

Do you always get what you are shown in pre-release footage? Hell no. For Honor is far from being the best example of a game not living up to the pre-release hype / footage (hello2u Aliens Colonial Marines). I doubt anyone here is dumb enough (well, maybe one or two) to believe you always get what they show you. But still, it's okay to be dissapointed when you see ideas and concepts and elements that look good that never made it into the final product.

kweassa1
06-26-2017, 03:07 PM
I don't think that's fair.

I think everyone gets that the footage shown was not the finished product, only what could have been. That doesn't change the fact that many people (myself included) think that the old footage has a lot of elements that are missing from the finished product that could have made for a better game.

Do you always get what you are shown in pre-release footage? Hell no. For Honor is far from being the best example of a game not living up to the pre-release hype / footage (hello2u Aliens Colonial Marines). I doubt anyone here is dumb enough (well, maybe one or two) to believe you always get what they show you. But still, it's okay to be dissapointed when you see ideas and concepts and elements that look good that never made it into the final product.

It's "pre-alpha" -- as in they've not even started coding it properly yet,

If anything's "unfair", it's the attitudes of these people which take stuff out of context, and twist it into use as a means to bash the developers for an offense they did not commit. That's the "unfair" attitude that should be first addressed and properly pointed out.

You think any of those people above writing garbage threads like this will make 100 mistakes about the game and even apologize for even 1 of those mistakes made? One little glitch and its complaint through the roof, constant bashing and dissing and bit*hing and moaning about how the devs are incompetent, and yet again and again, these people write up stuff like this and never for once compelled to think about what kind of injustice they are inflicting on the game's developers.

So naw, I don't think its "unfair". They've even addressed this specific issue during their vlogs a few weeks back... and they still contend the game was somehow 'downgraded" at a point where it didn't even exist yet.

Vakris_One
06-26-2017, 03:18 PM
All I see are proof of concept videos and a kind of pre-vis (albeit high quality) animation made to look like a representation of the desired gameplay. The For Honor we have now is simply a natural progression born from the process of fleshing out the proof of concept into a fully functional game.

It's like looking at the script of a movie and seeing it laid out in storyboard/pre-vis form and then seeing the finished film. Obviously a lot of things will look different and some things might have been added or cut, or switched around during editing but the core idea will remain the same.

Gray360UK
06-26-2017, 03:24 PM
it's the attitudes of these people which take stuff out of context

I don't think anyone did that though. The original post is littered with references to it being not actual gameplay. He's pretty reasonable. You're acting as if the post says 'They lied to us, they tricked us, they promised us ...' and apart from the one guy calling it a bait and switch (which it wasn't) no one is saying anything of the sort.

People are just seeing things they liked the concept of and wondering why it didn't make it into the final game. I have done that dozens of times in my gaming life. If you show me footage of being able to ride a dragon in a game and then I can't ride a dragon, it's okay for me to say 'Hey, what happened to being able to ride a dragon?' if I thought that looked cool. Is it a crime to change things? No. Who's saying it is? It is okay to see something cool that never made it and be a little bit dissapointed? Of course.

Most of the above comments include words like 'concept' so people are well aware that these were just ideas. If I show you my idea for a new vehicle and it looks like a Ferrari and then I turn up with the finished product and it looks like a tricycle, while I don't have to defend or explain why it's not a Ferrari, it's okay for someone who liked the Ferrari version to say 'Hey, I liked that other idea you had'

We know why things don't make it into games, time, money, technical issues, whatever. Not sure why this thread has annoyed you so much? Anyway, the above is how I see it, I know better than to try to change opinions on the internet ;) (most of the time).

Ianoneshot
06-27-2017, 02:19 AM
...and of course, I take none of you know what "concept video", "pre-alpha footage" and "mock-up" and "presentation" means.


*facepalm moment*


Get a job. One day you'll understand. :rolleyes:

concept/target footage = What they THOUGHT they where aiming for. before the product was even started.

pre-alpha footage = VERY early stage of the game, before the alpha test or state. So many things are bound to change.

presentation = Showing the product.

mock-up = replication of model.

I know very well what these mean, I thought it was good to dream a bit. Its not bad too every once in a while

plus I would get a job if it wasn't considered child labor. This doesn't mean I don't know how to make a game. I know its really difficult and hard.

(don't take this as a salty response)

T_Sesh
06-27-2017, 07:36 PM
The only real things "missing" in the final game from that concept video that I could see was the greater minion variety, and the capture points having siege weaponry. I can imagine the minion variety had to be reduced for performance reasons - simple enough. For the catapults and whatnot that we don't have in the main game, perhaps along with some kind of siege mode - its easy enough to imagine that the feats spun off the idea of the catapults and minion archers once they determined that a proper siege mode would be too expensive for the budget they were given. Had they not had a single player campaign, they might have been able to do a siege mode as we saw, but you know how people are - the main stream always wants a single player campaign.

Illyrian_King
06-27-2017, 07:57 PM
The "gameplay" looks like a real game but it's all animation. So this isn't really a downgrade because that was a animation for the developers from 3 years ago. Also the footage was released recently so the gameplay/target footage was not a bait.

Sorry to say it this way, but that's bullsh*t

The Devs could have programmed the whole game in completely other ways like they actually did. In all ways different (atmosphaere, combat system, class system, etc), but they threw that all away which was good and people complain about that!

That's 100% legit to critisize!

Tillo.
06-27-2017, 09:32 PM
Compared to other developers what Ubisoft shows at E3s is always different from the final releases.
Videos rendered in ultra 4k nasa type pcs with great visuals. Nobody argues about Ubi's great marketing team who can sell crap at full price and make the gaming community fight each other instead of demanding quality products for AAA games.

Jarl.Felix
06-27-2017, 11:11 PM
What a game it could have been ...

Realistic fight style, realistic set armors, realistic movements, far better game sounds and much more ....

Just polish it a bit more, speed up the game pace, go for dedicated servers ... and omg, game of the year..

Yet they came with this **** ... well ... "Ubisoft"

UbiJurassic
06-28-2017, 12:35 AM
This video was actually brought up on one of our Warriors Den streams (https://youtu.be/9NKgsMQGODA?t=27m4s). As you have already mentioned, the first video you linked was made in motion capture and is not actual gameplay. It was a visual to show the vision for the game without the constraints of developing it within a game engine. With the vision outlined in the cinematic, we started to develop the game around this vision and wanted to keep it as true as possible to it. However, as development progresses, design problems arise and there is a need for changes to be made that may compromise elements of the original vision. That's why For Honor today is different from For Honor as it was initially dreamt to be.

Ianoneshot
06-29-2017, 01:39 PM
This video was actually brought up on one of our Warriors Den streams (https://youtu.be/9NKgsMQGODA?t=27m4s). As you have already mentioned, the first video you linked was made in motion capture and is not actual gameplay. It was a visual to show the vision for the game without the constraints of developing it within a game engine. With the vision outlined in the cinematic, we started to develop the game around this vision and wanted to keep it as true as possible to it. However, as development progresses, design problems arise and there is a need for changes to be made that may compromise elements of the original vision. That's why For Honor today is different from For Honor as it was initially dreamt to be.

OK! now we know! This raised another question though. What where the design issues that led to a stop? I know the flued combat would never be a thing unless the guard mod tabs where all just one big circle. the point of mouse/joystick directs the area you are defending. This means it doesn't defend a lot of you're body but one part. Also I don't see what design issues would cause warden's idle to have his sword propped up on his/her shoulder pad. Also the Gothic armor...