• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

GitHyp: For Honor Lost Over Half of It's Playerbase in It's First Two Weeks on Steam

May 21, 2014
1,856
0
295
The PC market is very competitive, especially for multiplayer games, and I don't believe For Honor has any qualities beyond its production values that make it stand out compared to similar titles. There are much better melee-focused, even multiplayer, games such as Mount & Blade: Warband and Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. The lack of a server browser hurts it too, especially once the player base continues to drop.

The only thing those games have in common are aesthetics. They play nothing alike. There is a reason that you have to use fighting game terminology with For Honor... because while its aesthetic is chivalry, its more akin to something the FGC would play. There's no such thing as a vortex or 50/50 in M&B or Chivalry. Those games are rudimentary (albeit extremely fun! 765 hours in M&B and 40 in Chivalry) in their combat by comparison.

So with that said, there isn't a better game like this out because there aren't any like it. The base combat of For Honor is great and fairly unique.

The issues imo are server failures, and the massive launches of new titles. Horizon and Zelda took almost all the top streamers of For Honor (CohhCarnage, Retro Gaijin, No1Alex etc.) And its not going to stop soon. Mass Effect: Andromeda is going to be out soon and will hurt even more.

We'll see where things shake out after a few months when they implement competitive ranked modes. If Ubisoft is as diligent as they were with Siege, it will be ok.
 

sjay1994

Member
Dec 13, 2012
11,662
2
0
people abandoned unbalanced p2p garbage? no way! I mean who doesn't want to enjoy the sweet meta of revenge builds.

Yeah, the sheer stupidity going on in the 4v4 modes is making me want to drop the game. Which is a shame, because I genuinely do enjoy playing this game.

When a 108 peacekeeper/bersker can just hold down a point and 1 v 4 the entire team because they get revenge after getting hit 3 times by one person alone is fucking ludicrous.
 

Consequence

Member
Sep 19, 2013
653
0
0


Really too bad. Even if I don't think they nailed the execution, the game has good concepts and enough depth that I was hoping a good community would grow around it.
 

sjay1994

Member
Dec 13, 2012
11,662
2
0


Really too bad. Even if I don't think they nailed the execution, the game has good concepts and enough depth that I was hoping a good community would grow around it.

Well, ubisoft turned Siege and the Division around building healthy communities for them. I don't think they won't try to turn around for honor as well.
 

Arulan

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,712
3
0
United States
For Honor is actually quite different from those two games. The connectivity issues are probably its biggest problem.

I realize For Honor has other direct inspirations, such as Bushido Blade, but there are similarities to draw between those other games.

We are still doing this shit huh?
... Are you kidding me? Those games are spastic barf machines compared to For Honor.

I get it, the server browser missing isn't great, and I love Mount & Blade, but to call them better mechanically is disingenuous.

Doing what? I certainly can't say that people decided not to play For Honor, or stopped playing For Honor because of those games, but I will argue that their melee combat systems are significantly better, and that was one of the reasons I didn't bother with it beyond the beta. And it's a topic I've brought up before in previews of the game too. That I didn't believe a simplistic melee combat system (mostly due to the lock-on camera in combination with discrete directional attacks) would be well-suited to a competitive multiplayer game. That is my opinion though.
 

Artdayne

Member
Apr 29, 2015
1,366
1
0
I realize For Honor has other direct inspirations, such as Bushido Blade, but there are similarities to draw between those other games.




Doing what? I certainly can't say that people decided not to play For Honor, or stopped playing For Honor because of those games, but I will argue that their melee combat systems are significantly better, and that was one of the reasons I didn't bother with it beyond the beta. And it's a topic I've brought up before in previews of the game too. That I didn't believe a simplistic melee combat system would be well-suited to a competitive multiplayer game. That is my opinion though.

Could you elaborate on what makes M&B and Chivalry's melee systems "significantly better"?
 

GuitarAtomik

Member
Jun 13, 2008
18,046
1
0
I realize For Honor has other direct inspirations, such as Bushido Blade, but there are similarities to draw between those other games.

Doing what? I certainly can't say that people decided not to play For Honor, or stopped playing For Honor because of those games, but I will argue that their melee combat systems are significantly better, and that was one of the reasons I didn't bother with it beyond the beta. And it's a topic I've brought up before in previews of the game too. That I didn't believe a simplistic melee combat system (mostly due to the lock-on camera in combination with discrete directional attacks) would be well-suited to a competitive multiplayer game. That is my opinion though.

The fighting systems are so different that I don't think you could call one "better" than the other. You could enjoy one over the other, but they're apples and oranges. I also think you're mistaken in how "simplistic" the fighting system is. Even if you can describe it as that relative to whatever you're holding it up against, simplicity most definitely works in a competitive multiplayer game or else Smash Bros wouldn't be at Evo and Dive Kick wouldn't have worked.
 

El-Suave

Member
Apr 15, 2007
5,453
0
0
Germany
As others have already said that's probably mostly a function of so many great and long games coming out that compete for our attention.
I don't think there is a larger contingent of disappointed people among For Honor players than for other games. If anything the betas should have made people aware what they were buying.
 

deadscreensky

Member
Feb 25, 2016
2,329
31
0
Illinois
I'm not convinced this is a particularly unusual drop, but I will say I personally stopped playing much because I'm waiting for them to get the matchmaking servers in better shape. For Honor ran better even in early betas. I'm very disappointed in that, and while I'm sure it wasn't any sort of intentional deception it still smarts.

(It also convinced me not to buy Ghost Recon at launch.)

The game plays nothing like Mount & Blade or Chivalry. For Honor is a (fairly unique) fighting game, it's always been that. It's closer to Dead or Alive or even Power Stone than it is to either of those.
 

Auctopus

Member
Apr 6, 2014
13,921
2
385
Well, ubisoft turned Siege and the Division around building healthy communities for them. I don't think they won't try to turn around for honor as well.

Don't speak too soon for Siege. Ubi have been running off goodwill for far too long regarding that game's state. It's true they've made improvements and the core game is great but there are a ton of big problems with the game right now and Ubi seem almost silent to them.
 
May 21, 2014
1,856
0
295
I realize For Honor has other direct inspirations, such as Bushido Blade, but there are similarities to draw between those other games.

This is Mount and Blade melee combat.


This is For Honor


Whether you think one is more fun than the other is ok. But they don't fill the same niche. They feel completely different. The only thing similar is that you are hitting people with weapons in different directions. In that sense, Yakuza and Nidhogg are extremely similar too.
 

Carlius

Banned
May 29, 2014
3,550
2
0
36
game had so much potential to be awesome. its a grt game with so many faults, the netcode being a huge one. could not get into one single match at vrious points. annoying. also the fact that beginners like me would get matched with high level asses who would just pound me over and over.
 

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
Mar 10, 2007
24,183
0
1,410
Launching with the online in such a sorry state will doom any game. How could they even release it so fubar?
 

Arulan

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,712
3
0
United States
Could you elaborate on what makes M&B and Chivalry's melee systems "significantly better"?

I don't want to further derail this thread, but I'll try to sum it up.

As Alpha Centauri pointed out in his .gifs. Mount & Blade, and Chivalry for that matter, aren't flashy. They don't have fancy animations or look cool. What they excel at is mechanics and the skill-based combat that comes from completely free-from movement, swinging, parrying, and blocking. Thus, every attack, parry, or block must be manually aimed. That is, just because you know the opponent is swinging from the left, it doesn't mean you can block them. You have to connect your shield with the swing. Swinging, overheads, thrusting, and all manner of attacks aren't pre-defined. You can manipulate your attacks mid-swing, such as direction. One of the ways this is brought out is when fighting multiple opponents. A skilled player in either Mount & Blade or Chivalry can take on several opponents at the same time. The mechanics don't hinder this.

It's difficult to properly explain the nuance this brings, but it's perhaps similar to how a first-person shooter such as Counter Strike has a lot more depth and is more influenced by player-skill, due to how its mechanics work, when compared to something like SOCOM, or even Call of Duty (but SOCOM has the lock-on similarity, so I used that).
 
May 21, 2014
1,856
0
295
Launching with the online in such a sorry state will doom any game. How could they even release it so fubar?

Very good question. I don't think they anticipated the ragequit aspect and how that would tax their system. Things shit the bed as soon as 1 person quits to desktop. its like a 50/50 if the lobby crashes at that point. When everyone stays in the game, there are issues, but they are nowhere near as prevalent.

Believe it or not, I'd say instilling penalties for leaving games would help the servers tremendously.
 

Artdayne

Member
Apr 29, 2015
1,366
1
0
I don't want to further derail this thread, but I'll try to sum it up.

As Alpha Centauri pointed out in his .gifs. Mount & Blade, and Chivalry for that matter, aren't flashy. They don't have fancy animations or look cool. What they excel at is mechanics and the skill-based combat that comes from completely free-from movement, swinging, parrying, and blocking. Thus, every attack, parry, or block must be manually aimed. That is, just because you know the opponent is swinging from the left, it doesn't mean you can block them. You have to connect your shield with the swing. Swinging, overheads, thrusting, and all manner of attacks aren't pre-defined. You can manipulate your attacks mid-swing, such as direction. One of the ways this is brought out is when fighting multiple opponents. A skilled player in either Mount & Blade or Chivalry can take on several opponents at the same time. The mechanics don't hinder this.

It's difficult to properly explain the nuance this brings, but it's perhaps similar to how a first-person shooter such as Counter Strike has a lot more depth and is more influenced by player-skill, due to how its mechanics work, when compared to something like SOCOM, or even Call of Duty (but SOCOM has the lock-on similarity, so I used that).

They are very different games. Street Fighter doesn't have free form aiming either but I will comfortably stack up the complexity of its combat system with anything Chivalry or M&B has to offer.

I have always thought there are two things which determine how difficult a game is, firstly the skill cap of the combat system and secondly the size and quality of the player base. You can have the deepest skill system on the planet but if only a few thousand people are playing your game, the effect that skill cap has on a competitive multiplayer environment is greatly diminished.

Chivalry's combat system became a lot more complex when people spent more time with the game and understand all of the tech that made things more interesting, the same thing is happening with For Honor right now and much of it has to do with unlock mechanics. For Honor is still in its infancy, and also you can defeat multiple opponents in that game, I've done it many times. Occasionally the 1v3 even. If your opponents are equally as skilled as you though you should almost never win against multiple opponents because a numbers advantage should mean something. I'm not saying it doesn't in those games but lock on mechanics do not restrict fighting multiple opponents much at all because there are specific mechanics for dealing with multiple opponents.
 

Exploratory

Banned
Jan 9, 2014
7,449
0
0
New York
1. It's a really really busy time for games right now. Seems like every week theres a huge game coming out.

2. Seriously bad microtransactions and horrible connection issues drive people away.
 

Obliterator

Member
Apr 21, 2015
17,649
0
0
As many other have noted, this isn't all that steep of a drop.

I'm sure they would like better player retention but this isn't that out of the ordinary
 

PedroLumpy

Member
Jul 1, 2006
4,454
0
0
I'm playing on console, and the connection issues are still terrible. That and their dumb as fuck gear stat system, I wouldn't be surprised if the population takes a dive. The game is better without all the gearing nonsense, it boggles my mind that developers keep doing this to themselves. Fighting games are already nigh impossible to balance, let's add one more thing to make it even more difficult!

Duel/Brawl ftw.
 

Strakt

Member
Mar 24, 2015
2,679
1
0
How bout looking the reviews for this game. Most are complaining about the connection/lag issues. No wonder the playerbase is falling.

I actually play the game, no need to look at reviews. There are connection issues but they aren't as bad as people make them out to be. If the connection issues prevented people from playing at all, there wouldn't be 30-50k concurrent users (PC). There is a ton of room for improvement easily which they discussed in their dev stream (on all subjects). Posting shit like "durrr ubisoft durr" is just kinda dumb when you don't even play this game. Rainbow six is doing pretty well for itself as well as their new one wildlands.
 
Jul 25, 2010
1,963
1
585
ITT people, for some reason, attempt to compare a console game with a PC port to a PC-only game series

Like, no, bro. Even the steam numbers, IMO, are misleading. Everyone I know is playing this on PS4. It's the de facto official platform of the FGC thanks to SFV's exclusivity.