How Is The For Honor Single Player Campaign?

Avatar image for vespuche
vespuche

1078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By vespuche
Member since 2007 • 1078 Posts

So for all you guys that picked up For Honor yesterday, what do you think of single player?

I'm not really excited about multiplayer, but a good campaign would be awesome.

May pick the game up after the price drops if solo play is any good. :)

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
hrt_rulz01

22375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 hrt_rulz01
Member since 2006 • 22375 Posts

Yeah curious about this too...

Avatar image for Ish_basic
Ish_basic

5051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Ish_basic
Member since 2002 • 5051 Posts

I just played the Knights chapter, which is the first. There were 6 missions. So i'm guessing there will be six missions in the other two chapters, the next of which is centered on the Vikings. Despite focusing on the different cultures, the story seems to be connected through each one. Think of it as the sort of ripples war causes. The chapters introduce you to the game mechanics as well as each class, with the story switching viewpoints from one character to the next, each character belonging to a separate class.

It was okay. If you like the combat, you'll enjoy the missions well enough, but I probably wouldn't pay full price if I was only interested in the campaign. There's nothing really memorable in the level design, objectives or story so far. The game puts you on a linear path and you kill whatever is put in front of you. The mechanics are enjoyable for dueling, but kind of fall apart when fighting multiple enemies. It uses an arkham style tactic to deal with it, but is no where near as smooth and if the timing of the attacks is similar, you're typically not going to be able to block them both outside of a few choice class-based abilities.

But I do think it would be wrong to call it an MP tutorial. In fact, i WISH they had included some of the objectives from the campaign in the multiplayer. For example, one chapter you are escorting a battering ram up to a city's gates...and this sequence is very similar to convoy escorts in Overwatch...after you break the door down you have to capture the city and kill a VIP. This easily could have made for an excellent siege mode in multiplayer, but despite having the framework for it in the campaign, the devs couldn't figure out more than deathmatch and capture-and-hold for mp.

Overall the game is kinda like that. A lot of going through the motions and missed opportunities.

Avatar image for MarcRecon
MarcRecon

8191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 4

#4  Edited By MarcRecon
Member since 2009 • 8191 Posts

@Ish_basic said:

I just played the Knights chapter, which is the first. There were 6 missions. So i'm guessing there will be six missions in the other two chapters, the next of which is centered on the Vikings. Despite focusing on the different cultures, the story seems to be connected through each one. Think of it as the sort of ripples war causes. The chapters introduce you to the game mechanics as well as each class, with the story switching viewpoints from one character to the next, each character belonging to a separate class.

It was okay. If you like the combat, you'll enjoy the missions well enough, but I probably wouldn't pay full price if I was only interested in the campaign. There's nothing really memorable in the level design, objectives or story so far. The game puts you on a linear path and you kill whatever is put in front of you. The mechanics are enjoyable for dueling, but kind of fall apart when fighting multiple enemies. It uses an arkham style tactic to deal with it, but is no where near as smooth and if the timing of the attacks is similar, you're typically not going to be able to block them both outside of a few choice class-based abilities.

But I do think it would be wrong to call it an MP tutorial. In fact, i WISH they had included some of the objectives from the campaign in the multiplayer. For example, one chapter you are escorting a battering ram up to a city's gates...and this sequence is very similar to convoy escorts in Overwatch...after you break the door down you have to capture the city and kill a VIP. This easily could have made for an excellent siege mode in multiplayer, but despite having the framework for it in the campaign, the devs couldn't figure out more than deathmatch and capture-and-hold for mp.

Overall the game is kinda like that. A lot of going through the motions and missed opportunities.

That's what I heard from a few friends who bought FH, it wasn't great, but it was good enough to serve as a building block for a sequel.

Avatar image for Macutchi
Macutchi

10436

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 Macutchi
Member since 2007 • 10436 Posts

@Ish_basic: interesting, thanks. i hold off buying anything new by ubisoft for exactly the kind of reasons you describe.

A lot of going through the motions and missed opportunities.

if ever a sentence summed up modern ubisoft...

Avatar image for deactivated-5c18005f903a1
deactivated-5c18005f903a1

4626

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 deactivated-5c18005f903a1
Member since 2016 • 4626 Posts

Pretty sure this game has been billed from day one as primarily a MP game with a SP that is really just a tutorial for the MP. So if you are looking for a SP game then it is best to look at something else. Plenty of SP game out there to satisfy you.