For Honor Reviews
Even though For Honor's core combat is essentially an elaborate quick-time event sequence in disguise, the production values and novelty factor are high enough that there is still a good deal of fun to be had here.
There are lots of bad things that can be said for Ubisoft's newest idea, with the most annoying one being its poor single-player portion. For those looking for the best medieval-themed PvP melee fighting game, however, it just can't get any better than this. For Honor is not flawless, but it's the current King of the Hill.
For Honor is a truly engaging experience when you're out on the battlefield, and playing mind-games with your opponents. It goes beyond its contemporaries by adding depth to combat in a way that feels true to reality. But all of its niceties threaten to be overshadowed by the poor taste of the non-playable elements, which seem to be becoming a bit of norm with top-tier video games.
For Honor is fun game to play, and a gorgeous game to look at. If you have an interest in medieval sword fights or fighting games, you definitely should pick this one up. For everyone else, I'd still say you can't go wrong with it, though perhaps wait until the first DLC is out which will add in some more play modes.
The ingredients for a great game are all there in For Honor, and many of those ingredients are put to good use. However, it is by no means a perfect game, and many of its flaws are fatal. There is an audience for For Honor, but it might be more niche than Ubisoft was expecting.
For Honor brings us a surprisingly deep and downright fun co-op / multiplayer fighter held back from greatness by an incoherent, mundane single-player campaign and the use of peer to peer networking for online matches.
Does Ubisoft's new medieval fighting game do enough to impress?
For Honor is, most of all, a fun game, and it is a game that has some real depth and soul to it.
I would like to love For Honor with all my heart because I spend with this game many good hours, but I can't. Network connection based on P2P is the worse thing that Ubisoft could choose for this game. If it gets fixed some time later, we will get a very good, addictive game.
Review in Polish | Read full review
For Honor feels like both a triumph and a failure in some senses. On one hand, it's an exceedingly genuine melee combat experience that manages to leverage the wild and varied styles of the knights, Vikings and samurai in a comprehensive package. The single player is great, if not terse. The multiplayer well designed. On the other, it's let down by consistently disappointing server and networking issues. These can be fixed in the future, no doubt, but for now, For Honor has some more territory to conquer before it becomes truly great.
Packed with tense, weapon-based action, For Honor is a fun combat title that shines in its many multiplayer modes. That said, its online requirement and loot system dim its shine a bit.
An inventive premise and surprisingly deep combat system sits at the core of what could've been a great game—if so many technical issues didn't surround it and detract so much from the whole of the experience.
The campaign's story falls to earth with a thud, and technical problems are currently marring its online component, but For Honor's masterful presentation and combat rescue it from mediocrity. Given a few patches, it'll be a force to be reckoned with.
Judging by how Ubisoft has handled support for past multiplayer games (like Rainbow Six Siege), I’m confident that some of For Honor‘s issues will get rectified down the line. Gameplay can be tweaked, matchmaking enhanced, and better modes can all be added over time. However, as the game stands right now it’s more of a proof of concept than a fully realized idea. There’s a great base to build upon mechanically, but it’s too rough around the edges to shine as bright as it should.
For Honor is a unique game with an outstanding combat system. The problems it faces are its release window (I mean look at the games currently out or on the horizon!) and the dedication it requires. Casual players need not apply, as you will be slaughtered endlessly on the battlefield. I feel like For Honor will get a smaller, but highly dedicated fan base as it goes on, but for those looking for an approachable experience will likely fall on their own blade.
Ultimately, For Honor doesn't focus on making sense or being historically accurate, it just puts cool stuff in a field and tells it to go out and fight. Everything outside of playing online sucks, like microtransactions, customization options and single-player. Hell, the multiplayer itself sometimes sucks when it pairs you with a badly selected host player. However, when the game is working and you're murdering a single human player while screaming "FOOOOOOOOOOOR HOOOOOOOOOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOR" at their corpse, it's pretty damn rewarding.
For Honor's multiplayer is special, but as a whole it's let down by the less good single player, sometimes dodgy matchmaking, and a surfeit of microtransactions. The combat, though, is fantastic — it's gutsy and weighty, and you feel like a badass.
A tense, tactical medieval brawler that will reward anyone with the patience and will to master it.
If you can ignore the glaring connectivity issues, there is strength in For Honor’s arms. It’s multi-layered combat is its biggest selling point, which demands patience, wit, and intelligence to excel. Its moments of failures and successes resulting from it are some of the best I have had, but I only wish that they come in more often and consistently. Not everything works for For Honor, but there is tremendous potential. Right now, at launch, For Honor is a game envisioned by its developers. Now it’s up to the community to mold it into something of their own.
Review in Arabic | Read full review