• 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 Order 1886 Review Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

IKizzLE

Member
Unskippable cutscenes should be banned from every game moving forward. Hated it in Destiny, and seems to be used in The Order just to extend length.

Absolutely destroys replayability.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
Ah pointing out something is now a defense? glad to see you are on the offense with nothing to back up what a good game design should be. Please let us know what a good game design should because it sounds like you are an expert. Go ahead...

The "if you are not an X then you can't criticize X" is a stupid thing, and it has always been.

"You can't criticize that movie because you are not a movie maker."
"You can't criticize that restaurant because you are not a chef."
"You can't criticize that music because you are not a musician."
"You can't criticize that car because you are not a car maker."
"You can't criticize that book because you are not a novelist."

etc etc.

It's stupid.
 

Vroadstar

Member
So you think someone has to work on a great game in order to have a valid opinion on game design? That would shut down half the discussion on gaf. And I don't see how I moves the goalposts re: the complet experience thing.

Having a valid opinion is one thing, but opining on a game's game design because you watched it on YT compared to people who actually played and enjoyed it -QTE's and all - is much more valid would you say?
 

GVA1987

Member
But you can't.

Say all you want about 50% of the game being cutscenes and QTEs, but the other 50% is far more engaging and varied than YouTube "Let's Plays" will show you.

YouTubers seem to just run through all the gun sections either guns a blazing or stop and popping; pretty standard, right? Makes the game look boring.

Know what I did.. snip.

A fantastic rebuttal to my comment. The other person attacking myself and anyone disagreeing with them does not deserve a response.

I completely agree with you and there is no way you can get 'the exact same' experience watching a game compared to playing it. However I do feel that in many cases you can get quite a good idea of what a game is like by watching it.
 

MercuryLS

Banned
I'll agree with this, but I do hope whoever worked on this tech and art design gets another chance to work on a big budget game. They are amazingly talented.

It's obvious RAD has talent when it comes to game design based on their PSP games. I don't understand what happened here, they went off the rails trying to make a movie-game thing. Put way too much emphasis on visuals and seemingly forgot to include compelling gameplay scenarios. If you look at something like TLOU, ND got it right, fantastic cinematic and storytelling with tons of great gameplay. That's how you do cinematic big budget games.
 

GVA1987

Member
Unskippable cutscenes should be banned from every game moving forward. Hated it in Destiny, and seems to be used in The Order just to extend length.

Absolutely destroys replayability.

Although I will say in this game the cutscenes add so much to the game I wouldn't want to skip them anyway. The option would be nice though...
 

AngryMoth

Member
Having a valid opinion is one thing, but opining on a game's game design because you watched it on YT compared to people who actually played and enjoyed it -QTE's and all - is much more valid would you say?
In this specific instance regarding QTE's, no I don't think that. You are welcome to disagree
 

Vroadstar

Member
The "if you are not an X then you can't criticize X" is a stupid thing, and it has always been.

"You can't criticize that movie because you are not a movie maker."
"You can't criticize that restaurant because you are not a chef."
"You can't criticize that music because you are not a musician."
"You can't criticize that car because you are not a car maker."
"You can't criticize that book because you are not a novelist."

etc etc.

It's stupid.

Oh seems you missed another thing

"You can't criticize a game because you haven't played it"

How's that for stupid?
 

Toxi

Banned
Ah pointing out something is now a defense? glad to see you are on the offense with nothing to back up what a good game design should be. Please let us know what a good game design should because it sounds like you are an expert. Go ahead...
Oh my God you're digging in your heels and actually defending that idiotic argument.

No, one does not have to be a good game designer to recognize good game design.
Oh seems you missed another thing

"You can't criticize a game because you haven't played it"

How's that for stupid?
Maybe if you had actually said that, people wouldn't be jumping down your throat.
 

Steel

Banned
But once again, why aren't you capable of judging that game based on footage of someone else playing it, whether or not you think it's worth your time?

I didn't say that, I'm not defending The Order don't get me wrong. Just saying I find the whole "I'll watch the whole thing on Youtube rather than play it" thing ridiculous.
 

GVA1987

Member
Oh seems you missed another thing

"You can't criticize a game because you haven't played it"

How's that for stupid?

I said I wouldn't comment but here I am. Glutton for punishment.

But you're making wild accusations people haven't played it. At this point I think you should just accept not everyone shares your opinion about their consumption of games. And move on.

I would say so.

Me too actually. You can see the love they have poured into the game. Any developer who works as hard as they have deserve to be paid for what they have produced.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
Oh seems you missed another thing

"You can't criticize a game because you haven't played it"

How's that for stupid?

You said/implied that one can't comment on a "good game design" if one is not a "game designer" or "an expert" or some sort of rubbish.

Now that was stupid.
 
Ok, I've watched plenty of Alien Isolation videos but haven't actually played it. So based on my observations Alien Isolation is a dreadfully boring game of hiding, rummaging though drawers/lockers/etc and dealing with pita androids. There's an Alien in there, but there's no tense moments to go with it's appearance, or scares for that matter. The game has plenty of backtracking and overstays its welcome by being much longer than it should.

5/10 - A rental if that.

How did I do?
That's how I would summarize Alien: Isolation after having bought and played it.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Your profile is set to private. Can't view your trophies. But I'll assume you have trophies from the game. I assumed you ahadn't played because you were so vehement with your criticisms prior to release based on the youtube videos. Why would you purchase a game you were so up in arms about?

As far as your criticism goes let's break it down shall we?


What unexplained plot threads? There are some plot threads left unresolved at the end of the game but I don't recall any that go entirely unexplained. Unresolved plot threads are presumably to be addressed in further entries in the series.



Ths story is clearly not meant to be a one off. There is closure in the game it is just not complete and the credits scene makes it clear that the intention is to address the remainder in future releases. This game is the introduction to the franchise its now a contained one off game. Think of it like AC's current day storyline. It's something that has slowly developed over the course of multiple entries.



This I completely disagree with. Some the inspectable items in the game hint at character backstories that provide more depth to some characters motivations and it's clear that we are just touching the surface for some of the main characters. It all boils down to personal opinion on this front and in my opinion the characters are one of the strongest things about the game.



I suck at TPS in general so the game was fairly difficult for me but I really didnt see any questionable AI behavior except for a few occasions with companion AI. In my game I got rushed and flanked by enemies regularly and they used heavily armored units as a distraction to attempt to flank me. That doesnt seem like terrible AI to me. Certainly not the best out there but not terrible.



I really dont understand this complaint. It is a liner game. As per definition it is a genre that uses linear level design. Even despite that there are a handful of explorable areas and rooms that have no bearing on the main story line. Could there have been more? OF course but that's not what a linear game is about. This isn't an open world game its a story driven linear game and as such it will have linear level design. If that's not your cup of tea than of course you won't enjoy it. Some people do however.

and lack of any kind of gameplay variety, {/quote]

What does this even mean? It has shooting, it has stealth, it has some brutal knife fights, it has some qtes. For a third person shooter that seems pretty varied to me. What exactly were you expecting? In all honesty I think the game wouldve been better off just sticking to shooting and minimizing the other aspects but thats neither here nor there.



What misleading advertising? They never claimed the game was mostly werewolf fights. They showed werewolf gameplay in response to the clamoring for it online. Aside from their initial reveal trailer which was a reveal trailer and is meant to introduce the setting and general concept of the game they havent shown or talked up werewolf fights as being the main crux of the game. Certainly they have talked about half breeds being the main crux of the story which is why they were featured in the reveal trailer. If there is anything RAD is not guilty of it is misleading advertising.




This is again personal preference. I am personally on my second playthrough and I plan on having friends over to play the game as well. I will likely pick up and replay the game again when photomode comes out. Replay value does not rely solely on added game modes, padding, or collectables for some. To insist that the game has absolutely 0 replay value is to insist that your ideals of what replayable means are absolute. They are not. But hey dont tak emy word for it look at this guy



Is he wrong to enjoy replaying the game? Would you maintain that the game has 0 replay value for him?



Oh you mean the infiltration mission? Honestly that was one of my favorite parts of the entire game. The only complaint I have there is the necessity of killing all the guards to progress. That is a dumb design decision but having a stealth mission wherein discovery or ill timed takedowns spells game over is not a flaw. Some people dont like insta fail stealth missions that's perfectly fine but they arent bad just because you don't like them.



The use of intermediate and uneccesary cutscenes is a flaw and obviously a hallmark of inexperience on the part of RAD. It's actually something I commented on in my review here but while a bit disorienting and frustrating at times it never got to the point of ruining the game for me.



These are both valid points but hardly major complaints. One is a quality of life issue for people who wish to treasure hunt everything or get the platinum trophy the other is a minor immersion breaking annoyance that I also commented on my review as being amateurish in design. Their affect on the game as whole is quite minimal.



I cant remember needing to take cover while holding a lantern. In the one section where you fight whist holding one there is plentiful standing cover to maneuver behind. Certainly its a puzzling design decision but again this is not something that "broke" the game for me.

All in all the complaints and criticisms levied at this game seem completely overblown. especially since, unlike yourself, the most prolific and avid detractors appear to have never actually laid hands on the game and frankly it's infuriating. I'm getting sick of it and you bore the brunt of that so apologies for the overreaction it's just really depressing seeing the debut console title of such a promising developer get invariably shit on by people who speak with such absolute authority on the matter but have never actually played the game.
Three unexplained plot threads
1.
how does Nikolai know the rebel leader? 2.what do the vampires have to do with the Lycans, it's completely unexplained why Lucan sides with vampires, how are vampires protecting his kind? Since he's dead it'll likely never be explained,
3.How does the rebel leader know the knight? Persevao multiple times is also seen talking to him, and now he's dead.
Regarding the story ", you can have a story with a sequel in mind without leaving the game on a ridiculous cliffhanger with a shit ton of questions left hanging in the open with the main story also being rushed because we learn very little about the actual characters or why they do the things they do. And only some of the items have something to do with the actual plot, meanwhile there are completely useless things like some of the obvious stock photos, alchohol, a hammer etc. and concerning gameplay variety, the way the game is designed Id that you do the same things in basically every level, lock pick this, press triangle in this, climb this, mash x on this etc, it especially feels repetitive considering that nearly every action has a tutorial get repeated. Yes I know how to lock pick, yes I know how to fight the elder Lycan, yes I know how to use the thermite rifle, yes I know how to sprint, the game is so handholds that it believes that you may have forgotten how to move it or sprint. This leans into replay ability as well, it's not just about how fun the game is, it's the fact that the game will be almost exactly the same on repeat playthroughs, even objects that you've already collected, like the audio logs,will be in the same place instead of the game adjusting itself to remove them, not to mention random placement of forced walking segments, and the fact that the game will literally refuse to let you do things it hasn't taught you yet, oh look, my meter is filled up during the Lycan fight, wish I could use it, Nope, have to wait until the game teaches me again. Concerning the AI, just because you aren't good at this very easy game does not mean that the AI isn't almost completely behind dead with no variation on their tactics, even on hard difficulty. And the stealth sections are laughable, they really couldn't make an in-gane seamless animation of us taking out the enemy or even give us the option to choke instead of killing enemies because "there's no time." Not to mention that as soon as the characters get caught it turns into all out shooting gallery anarchy on both occasions of instafail stealth. And the game puts you in multiple areas where you're holding a lantern yet can't take cover while the enemies can. It's baffling.
 

Vroadstar

Member
Oh my God you're digging in your heels and actually defending that idiotic argument.

No, one does not have to be a good game designer to recognize good game design.

Maybe if you had actually said that, people wouldn't be jumping down your throat.

The point is, the poster I'm responding to is talking about good game design based on watching YT video, I think it's much more valid if you actually played it then talk about good game design wouldn't it?

No problem about people jumping on my throat, I'm a member of The Order defense force apparently : )
 

Anung

Un Rama
That's how I would summarize Alien: Isolation after having bought and played it.

post-30744-not-like-this-not-like-this-gi-DBvb.gif
 
Don't say that, I got it today! Although £15 bargain
I can understand why most people like the game, but I didn't, and that poster summarized how I felt about it perfectly. After having enjoyed Amnesia and A Machine for Pigs so much, I was really disappointed.

Guess you played on easy in daylight or something and have no love for the Alien movie.
Played on whatever the hardest difficulty was the night it launched, and while I really loved the overall atmosphere and how well they captured the older movies, the actual gameplay is terrible. Which is what the poster who I said summarized my opinions of the game perfectly mentioned.

I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion about Alien Isolation though.

Sorry.
 

QaaQer

Member
taken from the other thread, but relevant.

here is what i hate about reviewers today, especially the games media and where my problems lie.



1) they all have the same tastes, almost always. they all like one type of game over the other, they all seem to lean towards one genre over the other. which leads to...


2) all their reviews sound the same for every game. what do i mean by this? no one reviews a game like gran turismo the way they review other games they are familiar with or care about. when was the last time you have seen an in-depth review of street fighter from any of these major sites? you see, they respect the games that they don't care about, but they do not review them as concisely, as directly, and as clearly as other genres (i.e. tps, fps, action-adventure, etc.). they can't call out the negatives for those games because they're incompetent at them so they end up giving them higher scores or blatantly ignorant impressions. i have seen this in games like nba 2k, etc. where they don't scrutinize every detail because they do not care about it but at the same time they brush off any negatives or positives. how can a reviewer notice the bullet drops on battlefield but can't figure out how to do a simple drift in gran turismo? see, that is one of the problems here.

3) which is why i fear that our games will be funneled down to mostly the same game designs merged into one. we are already seeing it. rpg elements and stats in games, open world concepts, collectibles, filler content, etc. i do not want to play the same game masked in different genres. i want to play vastly different games that would offer me vastly different experiences. of course i am talking about the triple a space.

4) frankly, they are inconsistent and/or hypocrites. they do not apply the same standard across games, or even games in the same genre. they overlook things in a game and they scrutinize the same thing in other games. they fear the big publishers more than they stand up to them. they have business mixed in with integrity and that is not something that is 100% trustworthy. yes, even the new yorker has ads now to be able to stay afloat. still, it really is hard to believe that even though the games media say their editorial and sales are separate divisions, that one is not informed by the other and vice versa.


my advice? look at gaf impressions. they offer so much more. it's simple statistics. more data and info to look at, the better your prediction/outcome will be. why fixate on 5-10 reviews when you can have dozens. newsflash, gaf peeps have different tastes. in almost all ot threads there are people who will love, like, dislike, and hate the game.

Good post, esp about reviewers being a fairly homogeneous group with no specialities. Like you said, it is in part why big budget games are so samey.

I was thinking about Sim cit and how none of the initial day one reviews talked about how broken the simulation was. Why? Because a player could play 10 or 20 hours, get tonnes of positive feedback, and have a City that looked like it was working. There were no negative consequences for being bad. This, of course, was not what Sim players wanted. Did they build the game just to get good reviews? I really don't know.
 

RexNovis

Banned
That's a lol worthy accusation.

The point remains that you were blunt about your opinions on the game prior to release after watching youtube videos yet you still purchased it. Why? If you were so convinced it was a terrible game why would you waste your money on it? Seems to me you went in with a very negative impression and actively looked for any and everything that would suit such an outlook on the game.

The comparison with your impressions of ACU is apt because you went in with a very positive outlook and as a result completely dismissed the egregious technical issues the game presented upon release. Your impressions seem heavily influenced by your prerelease positive/negative bias. In short you see what you want to see and seemingly ignore everything else.

But this is all besides the point, the main problem with your prior statement is not that it is negative but that it is said with absolute authority as though it is not your opinion but fact. It's clearly your opinion. Surely your opinion is as valid as others who have played the game but it is most certainly not factual.

edit: just saw your response post will respond after I have time to delve into it
 

Skux

Member
In many forms of professional competition, judging committees have to regularly recalibrate their scores in order to ensure judges are awarding scores properly, and prevent "score creep".

If TLoU is a 9/10, what happens if we get a better game? It gets 9.1/10, easy, right? So you get better and better games which get 9.5 and eventually 10, but where do you go from there? 11 out of 10? No, you have to rebalance the scores to make them make sense.

Review score inflation has been an insidious problem for all of last gen and a shakeup like this, as well as with more publications dropping them altogether, was long overdue. I'm glad reviewers have had the sense to take into account reader feedback, take a good hard look at their scoring policy, and start giving us scores that better reflect public opinion. It's a shame The Order had to be the fall guy for it though, because I think it's actually a pretty good game.
 
In many forms of professional competition, judging committees have to regularly recalibrate their scores in order to ensure judges are awarding scores properly, and prevent "score creep".

If TLoU is a 9/10, what happens if we get a better game? It gets 9.1/10, easy, right? So you get better and better games which get 9.5 and eventually 10, but where do you go from there? 11 out of 10? No, you have to rebalance the scores to make them make sense.

Review score inflation has been an insidious problem for all of last gen and a shakeup like this, as well as with more publications dropping them altogether, was long overdue. I'm glad reviewers have had the sense to take into account reader feedback, take a good hard look at their scoring policy, and start giving us scores that better reflect public opinion. It's a shame The Order had to be the fall guy for it though, because it's a 6-7/10 in my book.
All of that is assuming that games are getting better just because the platforms are becoming more powerful and the budgets are vastly increasing.

Just because Ocarina of Time has a 99 on Metacritic doesn't mean that anything in the current generation scoring beneath that would have been received with higher ratings if it had released way back when.
 
In many forms of professional competition, judging committees have to regularly recalibrate their scores in order to ensure judges are awarding scores properly, and prevent "score creep".

If TLoU is a 9/10, what happens if we get a better game? It gets 9.1/10, easy, right? So you get better and better games which get 9.5 and eventually 10, but where do you go from there? 11 out of 10? No, you have to rebalance the scores to make them make sense.

Review score inflation has been an insidious problem for all of last gen and a shakeup like this, as well as with more publications dropping them altogether, was long overdue. I'm glad reviewers have had the sense to take into account reader feedback, take a good hard look at their scoring policy, and start giving us scores that better reflect public opinion. It's a shame The Order had to be the fall guy for it though, because I think it's actually a pretty good game.
I've seen quite a few people mention this...but I don't think reviewers all someone agreed that they will fix their scoring method starting with The Order.
I do agree that the scoring system isn't great though.
 

Shpeshal Nick

aka Collingwood
I'm sorry but this after your defense of UbiSoft's shittastic release of Unity is just so ironic. So tell me CrossingEden have you actually played the game? Or are you just taking youtube videos and critics who you lambasted for their treatment of ACU's word for it? If you haven't played it please cease speaking about the game with such absolute authority as you have none to do so.

In all fairness, as someone who still owns the game (for one more day) all his complaints are completely valid.
 

Vroadstar

Member
You said/implied that one can't comment on a "good game design" if one is not a "game designer" or "an expert" or some sort of rubbish.

Now that was stupid.

You know what's stupid, jumping on a discussion about good game design when one actually haven't played it. I guess you played The Order to have a good grasp about it's game design as well?

How's that rubbish? armchair game designers opining about a game design based on watching YT videos. Make sense right?
 

Skux

Member
I've seen quite a few people mention this...but I don't think reviewers all someone agreed that they will fix their scoring method starting with The Order.
I do agree that the scoring system isn't great though.

It feels like reviewers were waiting for a "bad" AAA game, and we haven't yet had one that you could outright say is bad, until now. Watch Dogs might have been disappointing relative to the hype, but the gameplay was there and it was competent.

But The Order has a laundry list of features that gamers love to label as "bad" - QTEs, unskippable cutscenes, lots of talk about a "cinematic experience", gameplay mechanics that aren't innovative, short play time with little replay value, etc. I feel like reviewers could finally feel safe about criticising a game because they knew the public would agree with them.
 

plufim

Member
So "playstation exclysive syndrome" hits again? Where some players swear black and blue for twelve months the flaws are inconsequential, until they suddenly admit it wasn't perfect?

See also Metal Gear Solid 4 and Gran Turismo 5.
 
So "playstation exclysive syndrome" hits again? Where some players swear black and blue for twelve months the flaws are inconsequential, until they suddenly admit it wasn't perfect?

See also Metal Gear Solid 4 and Gran Turismo 5.

MGS4 and GT5 were both sensational games.

Yes, they had shortcomings, but so do all AAA games.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
The point remains that you were blunt about your opinions on the game prior to release after watching youtube videos yet you still purchased it. Why? If you were so convinced it was a terrible game why would you waste your money on it? Seems to me you went in with a very negative impression and actively looked for any and everything that would suit such an outlook on the game.

The comparison with your impressions of ACU is apt because you went in with a very positive outlook and as a result completely dismissed the egregious technical issues the game presented upon release. Your impressions seem heavily influenced by your prerelease positive/negative bias. In short you see what you want to see and seemingly ignore everything else.

But this is all besides the point, the main problem with your prior statement is not that it is negative but that it is said with absolute authority as though it is not your opinion but fact. It's clearly your opinion. Surely your opinion is as valid as others who have played the game but it is most certainly not factual.

edit: just saw your response post will respond after I have time to delve into it
I didn't dismiss the technical issues of ACU, multiple times of the forum I specified that I feel for those who experienced them but hadn't experienced them myself. Secondly, I wasn't convinced that it was a terrible game, 65/100 isn't terrible, it's above average and for a triple A exclusive, a premise which I was hoping would hold up, I go into every game with an open mind ,especially those that I purchase, even if I get in on the joking part of the review thread. I was admittedly excited for the release of ACU, because it was the first next gen iteration of my favorite series, doesn't mean that I didn't notice any flaws, like the really half baked cover system.
 
So I finished the game a few hours ago and here are some of my thoughts. Also, I play games on default difficulty always. The first two chapters of the game are very slow. I was actually turned off by that. Once you get to chapter 3 that pacing picks up. The third person shooter mechanics are nothing new but I enjoyed all of Teslas weapons. I am not offended by quick time events so none of those bothered me at all. I actually dont understand why people get so pissed about them. Graphically this game sets a new bar but I figured we all already knew that. The story was predictable and fell apart towards the end so thats that. Overall I would give the game a 7/10. I really think there is a solid foundation with a lot to improve upon. I really love the time period and aesthetic of the game.(wrote this from my phone)
 

RexNovis

Banned
Three unexplained plot threads
1.
how does Nikolai know the rebel leader?

This is clearly addressed during the game. It is tesla's call when to explain to Greyson and he simply has yet to do that. That is far from a "plot thread" as it is fairly obvious what has happened
Tesla has decided to aid Lakshmi for the same reason he aids the knights to fight the halfbreeds but he knows that there is a double agent within the order so he can't risk revealing his involvment with the rebels or their true cause.

2.what do the vampires have to do with the Lycans, it's completely unexplained why Lucan sides with vampires, how are vampires protecting his kind? Since he's dead it'll likely never be explained,

Well
they are both presumably different forms of halfbreeds united against their opposition in order to survive and Lucan is a half breed so as explained in the game he feels a familial obligation to help his lycan brothers and sisters
Seems pretty self explanatory to me.
3.How does the rebel leader know the knight? Persevao multiple times is also seen talking to him, and now he's dead.

If you remember she mentioned in the game that she inherited her blackwater flask form an original knight of the round table. Its basically implied (and a bit hinted at by an audio log) that this other mysterious knight is in fact another one of the original members of the order who have broken ties similar to the one who gave the rebel leader her flask.
Regarding the story ", you can have a story with a sequel in mind without leaving the game on a ridiculous cliffhanger with a shit ton of questions left hanging in the open with the main story also being rushed because we learn very little about the actual characters or why they do the things they do.

Uhh it's not a cliffhanger?
He eliminated the double agent in the order and has a clear goal of revenge to seek in the followup.
not sure how that's a cliffhanger. As far as the characters go it's true theg ame does not shove information on the characters backstories down your throat it hints at them via audio logs and documents in the game world. For example
Lafeyette's involvement in french revolutions, Tesla's motivations as an inventor and member of the order/rebels etc etc
I prefer the subtle discovery of these things throughout the playthrough rather than going to talk them in the hub and have them spill their guts about their life story. Furthermore their actions throughout the game and their responses to different situations tell you a lot about their motivations as characters. To me the approach to characterization in this game was well done because it was realistic and not overtly exposition based like so many other games.

And only some of the items have something to do with the actual plot, meanwhile there are completely useless things like some of the obvious stock photos, alchohol, a hammer etc

Those are meant as immersion pieces things to show the authentic nature of the world you are in. A few of the photos actually do hint at story elements thanks to the people/things featured and the commentary on the back. Other objects are lore based such as
Darwins notes on the discovery of lycan skeletal remains

and concerning gameplay variety, the way the game is designed Id that you do the same things in basically every level, lock pick this, press triangle in this, climb this, mash x on this etc, it especially feels repetitive considering that nearly every action has a tutorial get repeated. Yes I know how to lock pick, yes I know how to fight the elder Lycan, yes I know how to use the thermite rifle, yes I know how to sprint, the game is so handholds that it believes that you may have forgotten how to move it or sprint.


As I stated in my initital response the tutorial prompt are indeed a flaw and annoying. They break immersion but outside of that are nothing more than a slight nuisance and not a game ruining flaw as some make them out to be. Every game has repeated elements. Unless you are going to sit here and tell me that AC doesnt have copy pasted mechanics and side missions throughout the game. You said gameplay want varied I listed examples of the variety of gameplay showing it was now you say it repeats too much. Ok well that's your opinion which you are entitled to but I never felt put off by their implementation. This is a personal opinion not a factual objective criticism as you made it out to be initially.

This leans into replay ability as well, it's not just about how fun the game is, it's the fact that the game will be almost exactly the same on repeat playthroughs, even objects that you've already collected, like the audio logs,will be in the same place instead of the game adjusting itself to remove them, not to mention random placement of forced walking segments, and the fact that the game will literally refuse to let you do things it hasn't taught you yet, oh look, my meter is filled up during the Lycan fight, wish I could use it, Nope, have to wait until the game teaches me again.

The story will be the same. The game will not be exactly the same. SO far I have noticed and discovered story related elements I missed during my intitial playthorgh. Furthermore the gunplay encounters have all played out very differently now that I am more comfortable and familiar with the controls. The restrictive game design decisions vis a vis drawing weapons and what not are indeed flaws with the game. They are amateurish and indicative of RADs inexperience developing full fledged console games But again while these are flaws they did little to diminish my enjoyment of the game as a whole. To say that these ruin the replayability of the game is rediculous. That is your opinion. It is not a fact. If you wish to express that opinion that is fine but state it as an opinion just as I state my dissenting opinion: valid but not absolute.

Concerning the AI, just because you aren't good at this very easy game does not mean that the AI isn't almost completely behind dead with no variation on their tactics, even on hard difficulty.

I specifically cited multiple advanced behaviors the AI exhibited in my playthrough. Your statement would have people beleive the AI is nearly non existent my examples show otherwise. As previously stated its not the most advanced ai by any stretch but it is a very far cry from the incompetence you imply.

And the stealth sections are laughable, they really couldn't make an in-gane seamless animation of us taking out the enemy or even give us the option to choke instead of killing enemies because "there's no time." Not to mention that as soon as the characters get caught it turns into all out shooting gallery anarchy on both occasions of instafail stealth.

I really dont understand why instafail stealth is such a horrible thing. Why is an instant failure state when you screw up in stealth any less valid than an instant failure state when you miss a jump platforming? Or do you think every platforming game needs prince of persia style rewind systems? The stealth sections are short and occur twice over the course of the entire game. If they really bothered you that much then fine. They didnt bother me in the slightest and they were relatively simple. I honestly enjoyed them. Especially the later one. As stated previously the only design decision that felt out of place and completely unnecessary to me was the necessity of killing all the guards to proceed.

The only reason Galahad would have to avoid killing them is at the behest of
Lucan
. earlier in the game Galahad makes a concerted effort not kill enemies for the same reason before he finds out what they are really doing. Once he knows there is no reason to hold back. Hence why
he tells Lucan "just trust me"
in regards to killing the guards. Complaining because they didnt implement non lethal takedowns seems absolutely absurd to me.

And the game puts you in multiple areas where you're holding a lantern yet can't take cover while the enemies can. It's baffling.

I directly addressed this complaint in my previous response. It is an odd design decision but they provide standing cover for the player in these areas to accomidate the absence of the ability to take crouching cover. It's a mild annoyance at most that is addressed by the presence of appropriate cover.

All I'm saying is that I feel many are being incredibly hyperbolic with their criticisms of the game and some, like yourself in the initial post, are claiming their criticism is universal and indisputably true for everyone. They are not. They are opinions and should be expressed as such.
 

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Just popped into say my "concern" over this game was founded. Impressions, videos, media, this can paint a fairly clear picture of where a game is headed. Loudninja posted my e3 impressions after I was banned asking why my thoughts had changed. I wasn't concern trolling, I wasn't trying to tear the game down, and honestly it wasn't that for much of anybody... the game was stagnant and lacked variation... they kept showing the samr thing because the game lacks variety. This isn't a "told you so" this is more trying to help people understand why fans genuinely interested in seeing this become a successful and viable franchise, started to voice concern and raise a lot of questions.
 

Apath

Member
How's that rubbish? armchair game designers opining about a game design based on watching YT videos. Make sense right?
Not sure I want to get involved with this, but there are some aspects of game design that can be judged from observation rather than playing. If someone is critiquing how gun play feels without playing the game first, that is stupid. Complaining about not being able to skip cut scenes or other design decisions that lead to a lack of replayability can be ascertained by watching someone else play.

It's not like this game exists in a vacuum; many elements in this game are present in others to varying degrees, and playing those games gives you an idea of what to expect here.
 

Brunobi02

Neo Member
Although I will say in this game the cutscenes add so much to the game I wouldn't want to skip them anyway. The option would be nice though...

Cutscenes should only be able to be skipped after you beat the game once. Cutscenes can convey a goal or porpuse to the gameplay, make you care/hate a character etc... They are part of the overall pace of the game.
 
Only on Act 6, but so far I've got to say that Ready At Dawn are geniuses for tricking thousands of shooter fans into playing an adventure game.

Seriously, my wife has been watching me play and multiple times she has commented "This is just like a point-and-click adventure game!", a genre she loves, and it made me change a lot of my perspective on some of the questionable game design choices and realize that almost all of them are adventure game tropes.

This is one of the best adventure games I've ever played.
 

Ishan

Junior Member
Only on Act 6, but so far I've got to say that Ready At Dawn are geniuses for tricking thousands of shooter fans into playing an adventure game.

Seriously, my wife has been watching me play and multiple times she has commented "This is just like a point-and-click adventure game!", a genre she loves, and it made me change a lot of my perspective on some of the questionable game design choices and realize that almost all of them are adventure game tropes.

This is one of the best adventure games I've ever played.

this is true. if you go into it thinking its a tps youll def be dissapointed. You have to think of it as a mismash of genres.
 

golem

Member
Only on Act 6, but so far I've got to say that Ready At Dawn are geniuses for tricking thousands of shooter fans into playing an adventure game.

Seriously, my wife has been watching me play and multiple times she has commented "This is just like a point-and-click adventure game!", a genre she loves, and it made me change a lot of my perspective on some of the questionable game design choices and realize that almost all of them are adventure game tropes.

This is one of the best adventure games I've ever played.
I must have missed the parts where i solved puzzles and had interesting conversations
 

Vroadstar

Member
Not sure I want to get involved with this, but there are some aspects of game design that can be judged from observation rather than playing. If someone is critiquing how gun play feels without playing the game first, that is stupid. Complaining about not being able to skip cut scenes or other design decisions that lead to a lack of replayability can be ascertained by watching someone else play.

It's not like this game exists in a vacuum; many elements in this game are present in others to varying degrees, and playing those games gives you an idea of what to expect here.

I agree with this. and I'm pressing x to give it a rest : D
 

Dawg

Member
Since people finally completed the game, how do you look back on my conclusion?

If you're not interested in a cinematic third-person shooter, then this game is probably not for you. With an average playing time of eight to ten hours, this is a game that only fans of the cinematic approach will appreciate. The story is a double edged sword. The way they tell it is impressive, but the story itself has a lot of inconsistencies and is only really good as a foundation for a potential sequel. The gameplay is standard third-person shooter stuff with a noticeable lack of challenge and a few minor faults like a disappointing melee system and a few animations (such as rolling) you can only use when the game wants you to. In terms of presentation, is is a clear winner. Far above all other games. It is an aspect that rightly deserves praise and hopefully it will encourage other developers to reach a similar level of detail. It makes the future of this generation look promising. As a whole, The Order 1886 is definitely worth playing and it turns out to be a nice introduction to a franchise we hope will have a bright future ahead of it. However, this game is not without its faults and we simple cannot deny the fact this game has less content than similar IPs in the genre. It is obvious this game has paid a heavy price to reach the immensely high production values. It is up to the player to decide whether it was
worth.

+ Graphics are CGI-quality
+ Strong design & presentation
+ Satisfying gunplay

- Inconsistent story
- Short, little replayability
- Lack of challenge
- Minor faults here and there

Final score: 75%

Sorry for linking this again. It's just happens that the OP actually included my conclusion about the graphics, not the game :p Anyway, while I still agree with many of its flaws, I still stand behind my final conclusion and score. I think the Forbes article explained it really well. Two years ago, this would have been a 80+ game. That doesn't mean I don't agree with the lower scores. On the contrary. I think you could read my review as a 6.5 - 7.5 score, but I ended up going for 7.5 because I really liked the experience. Personal and all.

Thing is, when you see reviews give this game a 2,5/10 or a 4/10, I think that's just too harsh. Opinions and all, but even with its flaws, I cannot see how you would rate this game under 50%. If you compare it with other games in that range, you'll find out said games are a lot more shitty, I think. Hell, I've played games much worse than The Order 1886 which aren't even close to a 4/10.

I do think it's important Ready At Dawn knows where they've made mistakes. I actually do want a sequel. I think it's an interesting universe and I love the art and presentation. If they learn from their mistakes, the sequel could be great. However, I feel like they should have gotten an average of around 70, maybe 75. Again, that's just personal. The way things are now, if you'd read the internet, you'd almost believe this game is utter shit and borderline scammy.
 
Since people finally completed the game, how do you look back on my conclusion?

I'm happy you got 8 hours out of it. I timed my run and ended up with 6 hours 16 minutes, playing on hard with aim assist off, and got every collectable besides three audio logs and one inspect item.

I was mulling between a 7 and 8/10 in my head, so 7.5 seems about right. Gunplay enthusiasts will get much more out of The Order than other types of players.
 

Jomjom

Banned
Yeah I'm not seeing eye to eye with some of these scores. I'm loving this game so far. It's definitely not a 1/10 or 2/10.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom