Support NeoGAF

[David___]

But you haven't played it? More accurately, it's a shit playthrough of a game you watched on youtube

What's funny is that even the youtuber who uploaded the playthrough said it was worth playing.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

No that isn't what that means.

Then please, explain.

 

[DanteGhost]

Haha I mean, it's a shit game. Imo not nearly worth the price. But to each his own. If thats your prerogative then go for it

How do you know is a shit game? Have you actually, you know, played it?

Because now watching a stream is exactly like playing a game. Oh what a time we live in.

 

[EL CUCO]

What exactly is wrong with his post?

So because someone says "They're super into writing" and yet didn't even finish the Youtube video to see where the "writing" takes them, they're free to say the story is crap? If you don't see what's wrong with that post, I don't have much I could say to you that would persuade you differently.

 

[DR2K]

I remember this arguement against Mirrors Edge. But as it turned out it the trials was the meaty portion of the game and it offered a ton of depth. Is there any other mode in the order that would do that?

 

[David___]

How do you know is a shit game? Have you actually, you know, played it?

He admitted himself he doesnt even have a PS4, so no.

 

[leng jai]

Just another lazy 1800 posts about a game that isn't out yet. Never change internet.

 

[Sub_Level]

Cinematic games never had anything to do with player agency. Games like Bioshock, LA Noire, GTAV, God of War are all cinematic. Cinematic means the games presentation shares similarities with movies or has an emphasis on spectacle, not that the game literally plays like watching a movie and is full of interactive cutscenes.

Cinematic was a term that was used before games like Heavy Rain or Uncharted were a thing. Not sure why people seem to have changed the meaning.

Well, regardless of the semantics you should be able to see how distinct Bayonetta is from Uncharted.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with <insert term denominating this type of game> and in fact I played tons of Uncharted 2 but I think the difference in games is pretty big and pretty obvious.

 

[family_guy]

Or you could just wait for the physical release and buy the movie for $20+. Then all that other crap is obsolete.

True, you could wait until the movie is old news and/or risk it getting spoiled for you when everyone else is talking about it and watch it for less money. The same is true for video games. You can even create yet another LTTP thread and get a few hits before it dies off because no one cares anymore.

 

[Wensih]

*looks at the chart* Should remove that watermark

Nah. It's fitting.

 

[keltickennedy]

Is it? What other games would you put in the company of The Order?

To guess from these impressions I think of The Order like a shorter Max Payne 3, with more direct moment-to-moment action than something like Beyond: Two Souls. Thats just a gut sense from the impressions I've read but it still seems short.

Vanquish. Though if the combat in The Order is as tight as that...I wouldn't care if it was 2 hours.

 

[Dreamgazer]

I just realized I have no right to say anything in this thread since I've once complained about beating the swapper at nearly speed run speed on my first playthough...

 

[Exploratory]

Then please, explain.

A cinematic game is a game that's focus is weighed more on the cinematics than the gameplay. Like heavily weighed. But, and this is importsnt, it still tries to act like the gameplay is still as important or anywhere close to as importsnt as the cinematics.

That's why a game like The Walking Dead for example wouldn't be in that category. Bayo would definitely not be in that category.

 

[Ikuu]

Threads about exclusives are always the best, when do the reviews come out by the way?

 

[Wensih]

Vanquish. Though if the combat in The Order is as tight as that...I wouldn't care if it was 2 hours.

Vanquish wasn't interspersed with cutscenes that interrupt the flow of combat.

 

[FeiRR]

I don't think that's what he means. The person is rather general. It also doesn't make sense. If it's the same guy, why does it matter if it's reputable or not? If I can see the chapters and their numbers to go along with each video, then how is that any different than a media outlet doing it?

I consider opinions of people who didn't play games themselves but base their own judgement on videos made by somebody else to be useless. Those opinions are useless for me, not videos. There are multiple reasons why watching a game being played and playing it yourself aren't the same thing or even close. There's a different perception of time and immersion in both cases, different engagement and so on. That's why people still play games, not just watch them, which you can do now for free anytime. Do I really need to explain those things in a gaming forum? I'd think it should be obvious to people who consider gaming a hobby.

And to refer to what you said, I also find media outlet's impressions and reviews useless for similar reasons. They play games on easy, rush through them and generally do it because it's their job, not a hobby. They also mostly get those games for free. All that changes attitude and perception of what they assess and I find those very far from my own experiences. Game reviews are just a waste of time for me, I even once made a thread about it where some people agreed (and others disagreed).

but as the chart shows, preferences can vary among individuals

Congratulations, you've just discovered that Gaussian (normal) distribution describes the statistical preference of any given human crowd quite accurately.

 

[EventHorizon]

Cinematic games never had anything to do with player agency. Games like Bioshock, LA Noire, GTAV, God of War are all cinematic. Cinematic means the games presentation shares similarities with movies or has an emphasis on spectacle, not that the game literally plays like watching a movie and is full of interactive cutscenes.

Cinematic was a term that was used before games like Heavy Rain or Uncharted were a thing. Not sure why people seem to have changed the meaning.

Surely you can see that the cinematic element in Heavy Rain and The Order is of a totally different quality than say BioShock. Oh and at one time sprite graphics was the pinnacle of visual quality. Definitions change. Especially with fast moving technology.

 

[SunBroDave]

But you haven't played it? More accurately, it's a shit playthrough of a game you watched on youtube

More accurately, the game looked pretty, but not at all fun. It was boring, but a different boring then something like Ryse which I played. Ryse, also a super pretty game, was boring because you were doing the same thing over and over and over again: blocking and spamming X and Y and doing QTEs. The Order was super boring because the player just doesn't really do anything. He does a lot of walking from one cutscene to another, and there's hardly even any ambient dialogue like in Last of Us or Bioshock. The gameplay in The Order just seems super lame to me, and the story's nowhere good enough to make that experience worthwhile. Story fluctuates between cliche and boring. It's funny, because the game looks the most lifelike game I've ever seen, but the story is so shallow and bland that the game feels like one of the most lifeless I've ever seen.

EDIT:

Again, just giving my thoughts on a game that a lot of people are on the fence about getting, and for good reason. No one has to take my advice, but I don't know why you would blindly defend the game purely on the developer's word. My opinion is that it's not a good game, but who knows, maybe some of you will like it and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[keltickennedy]

Vanquish wasn't interspersed with cutscenes that interrupt the flow of combat.

Ahhhh...I see what he was getting at with the MP3 reference. (Also one of my favorite shooters)

More accurately, the game looked pretty, but not at all fun. It was boring, but a different boring then something like Ryse which I played. Ryse, also a super pretty game, was boring because you were doing the same thing over and over and over again: blocking and spamming X and doing QTEs.

If you were just spamming X in Ryse...sorry but you were doing it wrong. No shit that must of been boring and frustrating, having the enemies endlessly dodge your third X attack.

 

[DVPredator85]

I asked the other poster, too, but why do you think his thoughts about the story would change if he had been holding the controller instead of simply watching it?

What exactly is wrong with his post?

Watching someone play is not the same as playing. Seriously, what's wrong with his post? Aside from making assumptions about a game for which he doesn't own the platform its being released on. How do you judge a game's story, when you personally are not being immersed in the game itself? I saw a bunch of people play Journey and I thought it was a bore. When I finally got my hands on the game, it turned out to be one of my favorite PS3 games.

I still think you simply can't criticize a videogame without playing it. One thing is to say that it's not your thing, or that it doesn't interest you, but to flat out say it's crap without even playing is just plain idiotic.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Well, regardless of the semantics you should be able to see how distinct Bayonetta is from Uncharted.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with <insert term denominating this type of game> and in fact I played tons of Uncharted 2 but I think the difference in games is pretty big and pretty obvious.

Any definition of "cinematic" that includes Bayonetta is worthless. Bayonetta is about gameplay depth just as much as it is about spectacle.

When people talk about cinematic games they're usually referring to games like God of War, Uncharted, or The Order: games where the main attraction is the story and the presentation, where the gameplay is uninteresting, and where the player progresses through the game in an absolutely linear fashion.

I wouldn't even include open world games like GTA as being "cinematic."

 

[rawd]

So many posts in this thread read like the fucking Playstation forums

 

[cormack12]

Amidst all the hand wringing and head shaking, I think we need to acknowledge that the developers have chosen to present the game in this way. What I mean by that is it would have been very easy to artificially extend the length of the game as many TPS's do by simply having wave based enemy encounters. By keeping the encounters short and tight they will have prioritised the pace and exposition of the story. The entirety of the debate and cyclical arguments will be very subjective for each person, and we won't really be in a position to comment until we've played it. I'd rather the game was honest and the developers confident enough to present it as so. But just let's wait and give it a chance instead of potentially harming what could be a very good experience.

 

[Hahs]

As a rather educated bankruptcy attorney who handles chapter 11 business reorganization and capitalization, I do not see a tiered pricing scheme as being a bad thing, or even something that would necessarily be implemented in the alpha portion of the game. Pricing is largely determined by the publisher, and happens as a result of what the board of directors for the publishing house feel they can get for the game. The idea that a developer determines pricing is wrong and shows a disconnect with business. The only way a developer impacts price decisions are how effective and efficient they are at producing content on a budget.

A tiered pricing system would be good for consumers, since it would hold publishers more accountable for their bottom line, and it would increase marketplace competiveness. We would see publishers asking developers to consolidate efforts and not overspend on certain things. (Like spending too much on voice actors by the line and not having enough capital for more worthwhile stuff. DESTINY I am lookin at you kid.)


What would be nice is if Congress passed a consumer protection reform that required board of directors to post production costs on each units clearly on the outside of the package, so we consumers would know just how much they are ripping us off.


Not that this is necessarily happening in this case.

I'm glad you posted this response, because it reminds of an article I read by the developers of the NES title MC Kids. By today's standards this is very different, but the principle should still apply - as far as value is measured:

You can also purchase a battery in your cartridge with the 8K of program RAM so it will be persistent (i.e., you can save your game) and you can purchase a timer interrupt if your product needs it for sound or special video tricks. Each of these cartridge extras raises the production price of your cartridge by a couple of dollars. If you plan to sell a hundred thousand or more cartridges, a couple of extra dollars per cartridge can really add up to lots of lost profit so usually you need to design your game to keep the cost as low as possible.

Programming MC Kids by Gregg Iz-Tavares and Dan Chang

What companies do this anymore? None I think. Everything is just lumped into one price regardless - which sucks when product/amenities can be eliminated with no price change.

What would be nice is if Congress passed a consumer protection reform that required board of directors to post production costs on each units clearly on the outside of the package, so we consumers would know just how much they are ripping us off

I concur.

 

[jacobeid]

Amidst all the hand wringing and head shaking, I think we need to acknowledge that the developers have chosen to present the game in this way. What I mean by that is it would have been very easy to artificially extend the length of the game as many TPS's do by simply having wave based enemy encounters. By keeping the encounters short and tight they will have prioritised the pace and exposition of the story. The entirety of the debate and cyclical arguments will be very subjective for each person, and we won't really be in a position to comment until we've played it. I'd rather the game was honest and the developers confident enough to present it as so. But just let's wait and give it a chance instead of potentially harming what could be a very good experience.

Your reason and logic are not welcome here. This is the internet.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

More accurately, the game looked pretty, but not at all fun. It was boring, but a different boring then something like Ryse which I played. Ryse, also a super pretty game, was boring because you were doing the same thing over and over and over again: blocking and spamming X and doing QTEs. The Order was super boring because the player just doesn't really do anything. He does a lot of walking from one cutscene to another, and there's hardly even any ambient dialogue like in Last of Us or Bioshock. The gameplay in The Order just seems super lame to me, and the story's nowhere good enough to make that experience worthwhile. Story fluctuates between cliche and boring. It's funny, because the game looks the most lifelike game I've ever seen, but the story is so shallow and bland that the game feels like one of the most lifeless I've ever seen.

Oh nvm

 

[Maxim726X]

I honestly don't understand the point of releasing a game like this today.

If you're an educated consumer, you'll wait until the game drops in price or for the inundation of used games hitting the market.

If you're not a savvy consumer, why would this be on your radar? The marketing campaign wasn't as fierce as say, Destiny, which clearly benefited from being so heavily marketed.

Not to say anything about the quality of the experience, I know that if the reviews are pretty good I'll eventually pick it up used for ~20 dollars, which honestly shouldn't take more than a few months to get to if the game is as long as being reported.

 

[jmdajr]

Each person will decide if it's worth it to them or not.

I can't get worked up about it though.

 

[DataGhost]

I consider opinions of people who didn't play games themselves but base their own judgement on videos made by somebody else to be useless. Those opinions are useless for me, not videos. There are multiple reasons why watching a game being played and playing it yourself aren't the same thing or even close. There's a different perception of time and immersion in both cases, different engagement and so on. That's why people still play games, not just watch them, which you can do now for free anytime. Do I really need to explain those things in a gaming forum? I'd think it should be obvious to people who consider gaming a hobby.

And to refer to what you said, I also find media outlet's impressions and reviews useless for similar reasons. They play games on easy, rush through them and generally do it because it's their job, not a hobby. They also mostly get those games for free. All that changes attitude and perception of what they assess and I find those very far from my own experiences. Game reviews are just a waste of time for me, I even once made a thread about it where some people agreed (and others disagreed).

That makes much more sense

 

[Tidus_Great]

length isn't a big factor. Journey was like 2 hours and one of the best games ever. It's like people here have never heard of quality >> quantity.

if you want 100 hours of generic filler play skyrim. The order is for those that appreciate a finely crafted experience.

 

[Kai Dracon]

There are different kinds of "quality". Metal Gear Rising takes six hours to play through once, but it is a complex toy designed to be played again and again with ever increasing abilities, new skills, and remixed scenarios.

I don't know if The Order will be a good or bad experience, but ever since the days of The Bouncer, there's been a good reason to see red flags when a developer tries to sell a short, content-light cinematic product with what look to be pedestrian interactive components that don't amount to much actual game.

This isn't a brave new world we can't judge until we've been there. It's so old hat it is practically cliche. Perhaps this product will be entertaining enough, but the developer's damage control is very evasive and sounds weak, with appeals to quality over quantity in an unqualified sense. If the Order is mostly QTE scenes that bookend very basic gameplay, and isn't very replayable after all, then yes it may be panned by a lot of people looking for a game over a cinematic story to experience once and then move on.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Watching someone play is not the same as playing. Seriously, what's wrong with his post? Aside from making assumptions about a game for which he doesn't own the platform its being released on. How do you judge a game's story, when you personally are not being immersed in the game itself? I saw a bunch of people play Journey and I thought it was a bore. When I finally got my hands on the game, it turned out to be one of my favorite PS3 games.

I still think you simply can't criticize a videogame without playing it. One thing is to say that it's not your thing, or that it doesn't interest you, but to flat out say it's crap without even playing is just plain idiotic.

That's probably because Journey is 100% about your personal experience with the game. It's not mostly cutscenes that show you a story. You make the story by playing it. You can't say that with a game like the order. It is what it is. Now, him calling it a bad game without playing it is bullshit, but his opinions on the story within the game are valid (even if I ultimately end up disagreeing with them). You don't need to be holding the controller to really "experience" a cutscene.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

length isn't a big factor. Journey was like 2 hours and one of the best games ever. It's like people here have never heard of quality >> quantity.

if you want 100 hours of generic filler play skyrim. The order is for those that appreciate a finely crafted experience.

Journey is one of the greatest games of all time. It also costs $15. If it cost $60 no one would like it.

 

[EventHorizon]

I consider opinions of people who didn't play games themselves but base their own judgement on videos made by somebody else to be useless. Those opinions are useless for me, not videos. There are multiple reasons why watching a game being played and playing it yourself aren't the same thing or even close. There's a different perception of time and immersion in both cases, different engagement and so on. That's why people still play games, not just watch them, which you can do now for free anytime. Do I really need to explain those things in a gaming forum? I'd think it should be obvious to people who consider gaming a hobby.

And to refer to what you said, I also find media outlet's impressions and reviews useless for similar reasons. They play games on easy, rush through them and generally do it because it's their job, not a hobby. They also mostly get those games for free. All that changes attitude and perception of what they assess and I find those very far from my own experiences. Game reviews are just a waste of time for me, I even once made a thread about it where some people agreed (and others disagreed).

What you say is true for normal game experiences, but for a game that is so based on prescripted element, watching a video can give a perfectly valid account of the game. For example the story is going to be the same. The game length will be the same for similar play styles. All the criticisms that The Order is getting can be pretty easily determined from a video.

 

[OnADock]

length isn't a big factor. Journey was like 2 hours and one of the best games ever. It's like people here have never heard of quality >> quantity.

if you want 100 hours of generic filler play skyrim. The order is for those that appreciate a finely crafted experience.

Journey wasn't a $60 game and a lot of people over the the spoiler thread don't seem to find a lot of quality in the story, which might might assume would be the most important aspect of a cinematic game.

 

[mrklaw]

Again, just giving my thoughts on a game that a lot of people are on the fence about getting, and for good reason. No one has to take my advice, but I don't know why you would blindly defend the game purely on the developer's word. My opinion is that it's not a good game, but who knows, maybe some of you will like it and there's nothing wrong with that.

Your opinion cannot be that the game is not good because you haven't played it. Your opinion can be that you think it looks like it might not be good,mout that's about it.

 

[jetjevons]

Watching someone play is not the same as playing.

Is this seriously where we're at?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

That's probably because Journey is 100% about your personal experience with the game. It's not mostly cutscenes that show you a story. You make the story by playing it. You can't say that with a game like the order. It is what it is. Now, him calling it a bad game without playing it is bullshit, but his opinions on the story within the game are valid (even if I ultimately end up disagreeing with them). You don't need to be holding the controller to really "experience" a cutscene.

I bought into this garbage and watched TLoU on YouTube instead of playing it. Then I got the remastered a few months ago. The feeling and impact of the cutscenes was wholly different when I was engaged with the content.

Engaging in any part of a game without playing it creates a major disconnect from how it was meant to be experienced. It's an inferior manner of consumption and gives you no real right to judge a game.

 

[Danneee]

Wow, GAF. Wow.

I'll be back after I've, you know, *played* the game myself and can form my own opinions. You all have fun now



Double, triple, quadruple wow.

The posting quality of some juniors recently is really baffling. Dude already admitted that they don't even own a PS4. +1 to the ignore list.

Why?! Apparently we don't need to play games anymore.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Your opinion cannot be that the game is not good because you haven't played it. Your opinion can be that you think it looks like it might not be good,mout that's about it.

The only part of The Order that people actually need to play to have an opinion about is the least important part: the gunplay. The Order will rise or fall on the back of its cinematic presentation, and that's something that you can absolutely judge from watching a YouTube video, in the same way that you could judge a film by watching it on your laptop.

I bought into this garbage and watched TLoU on YouTube instead of playing it. Then I got the remastered a few months ago. The feeling and impact of the cutscenes was wholly different when I was engaged with the content.

Engaging in any part of a game without playing it creates a major disconnect from how it was meant to be experienced. It's an inferior manner of consumption and gives you no real right to judge a game.

This is because the gameplay in The Last of Us is not peripheral to the story, it's an integral part of the story. It's a survival horror stealth game.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

It costs so much because the graphics are good. If it was anything else we'd be paying like 15-20$ xbl/psn game

 

[mrklaw]

The only part of The Order that people actually need to play to have an opinion about is the least important part: the gunplay. The Order will rise or fall on the back of its cinematic presentation, and that's something that you can absolutely judge from watching a YouTube video, in the same way that you could judge a film by watching it on your laptop.

That's the least important? Really? Christ.

 

[DVPredator85]

That's probably because Journey is 100% about your personal experience with the game. It's not mostly cutscenes that show you a story. You make the story by playing it. You can't say that with a game like the order. It is what it is. Now, him calling it a bad game without playing it is bullshit, but his opinions on the story within the game are valid (even if I ultimately end up disagreeing with them). You don't need to be holding the controller to really "experience" a cutscene.

I see your point, but I believe videogames in general tell their stories through a combination of exposition and immersion. You can appreciate a cut scene without holding the controller, but you can't fully experience a game's story if you, the player driving the narrative, is not in control.

 

[DVPredator85]

Is this seriously where we're at?

Yup

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I bought into this garbage and watched TLoU on YouTube instead of playing it. Then I got the remastered a few months ago. The feeling and impact of the cutscenes was wholly different when I was engaged with the content.

I'm not saying it's exactly the same, but it's pretty close, especially if you're watching the full playthrough in full screen and not just checking out the cutscenes divorced of context.

Saying you can't have an opinion about the writing/story of a game as shown through its cutscenes unless you're holding the controller is a bit of nonsense if you ask me.

 

[EL CUCO]

I bought into this garbage and watched TLoU on YouTube instead of playing it. Then I got the remastered a few months ago. The feeling and impact of the cutscenes was wholly different when I was engaged with the content.

Definitely. I was in the process of making a similar post but the thread is moving too fast for me while I'm at work lol

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Should have kept quiet, some of those responses are pretty embarrassing. Not sure what they were thinking bringing up Modern Warfare.

You really don't want to compare a game with strong multiplayer and co-op modes to one that lacks those modes entirely...

 

[badboy78660]

Threads about exclusives are always the best, when do the reviews come out by the way?

Embargo lifts 16 hours before release, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Freshmaker]

Is this seriously where we're at?

For judging a story, it's especially important to play it, and not watch or read it. It loses its visceral edge that being in the moment gives you or something.

 

[-MD-]

That's the least important? Really? Christ.

I believe the devs themselves said something like that.

Something to the effect of "we're focused on the story, we have gameplay because it's a video game and video games need gameplay". Someone got a screenshot or quote of that article?