Chivalry Medieval Warfare VS For Honor

[KillaMePlease]

For me, For Honor seems to be exactly the same as Chivalry Medieval Warfare, just with 3rd person instead. Am I right?

[Sai Kyouji]

IMO, Chivalry Medieval Warfare's combat is more sophisticated and free.
You can spin and drag to make your attacks more effective there.

For Honor is more about theatricality.

[Vault Traveler]

Chivalry is a good game. For Honor is a good game. But they arent quite comparable.

[Katz]

Mount & Blade is better.

[KiM!]

No, For Honor combat is not the swordplay you think of when you think of Chivalry and Mount & Blade. For Honor is like Assassin's Creed, you lock onto an enemy, and from there on, it resembles more of a third person fighting game than a swordplay simulator, there are combos, parrys, blocks, counters. And it is not phisically based like those games, in For Honor once you do something you are locked into the animation, it feels more scripted. The only thing remotely resembling the swordplay you are thinking of, is the directional blocking and the directional attacking.

[Rodi]

For me it's like comparing Street Fighter II with Street Fighter V.

[Monky Games]

Chivalry's Network Communication is SUPERIOR in every way to For Honor. And Chiv is at least 5 years older than For Honor. For Honor's network play is just laughable.

[Spills51]

2 completely different games. Not e\ven in the same ballpark.

[Smug Kot]

you can spin to win in chilvary totally better than for honor.

[Raidden]

Touch Fluffy Tail původně napsal:

you can spin to win in chilvary totally better than for honor.

You can mash buttons and win in For honor, totally better then chivalry