"Facts". Gosh! Haha.
-
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.
Angry Joe The Order 1886 Review.
- Thread starter Crossing Eden
- Start date
"Facts". Gosh! Haha.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
He's showing the lycan comes from different angles, unlike as shown in Joe's review. If you move around more it forces the lycan to move of course. Obviously he misses the point. The Lycan still does the exact same thing, and the strategy is the same. You are just more likely to get yourself a bit disoriented and loose track of where you are relative to the lycan.
i was smiling through the whole thing but the last line got me guffawing
AcademicSaucer
Member
Wow, maybe the devs expected everyone to move like a headless chicken in the lycan fights , so they wouldnt notice their lazy AI
Strange this thread is So long his opinion is no more valid than any one here. Maybe worst he complains about AI, but he's getting destroyed by it. Even on hard this game wasn't that hard. Also it's a 3rd person shooter how else was it supposed to play? I just wanna see if he calls other 3rd person shooter mechanics generic.
Lol, as someone who did exactly that, it didn't help matters any. For whatever reason, I was just terrible a pressing the x button that day
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Reviews for media are tough yo. It's a hard balance between trying to apply some objective analysis, understanding, and criticism of a game's operations, structure, and functions, while at the same time providing what is ultimately a subjective viewpoint on enjoyment and emotional resonance. Honestly, this is my personal grievance with both most reviews and fan response to reviews (positive and negative). People are generally pretty shitty at finding the perfect balance and responding attempts at that balance with empathy and understanding. The whole "X/10" scoring system is a nasty contributor to this, trying to apply a measurement to something that ultimately cannot be measured.
That being said, the Vile Self review is poor for basically these reasons; it's a long whine about many subjective perspectives from other reviews, proclaiming them wrong because they don't match his own subjective opinion, while applying objectivity in form of a positive to components that are subjective. Two examples of this being highlighting the "QTE options" in the lycan knife fights and his perspective of beating the game 100% being "acquire all trophies". The latter is easily contested because on no fucking planet is "get all trophies/achievement" an agreeable consensus for judging game length and replay value, and the former is open to more interesting analysis (largely negative) that he doesn't bother to explore. That doesn't discredit stronger parts of his review and analysis, but it just puts him on the same page as every review he whines about; strengths in critique, and glaring weaknesses/mistakes in the balance of subjectivity vs. objectivity.
End of the day I think The Order is, if anything, definitively polarising amongst both "professional critics" and people playing it. The idea that the official thread is a bastion of positivity is an outright lie. It's just as mixed in there too. And I dunno, I have a thing for games that get people talking, arguing, and thinking. Of all things, The Order is at least accomplishing that.
That being said, the Vile Self review is poor for basically these reasons; it's a long whine about many subjective perspectives from other reviews, proclaiming them wrong because they don't match his own subjective opinion, while applying objectivity in form of a positive to components that are subjective. Two examples of this being highlighting the "QTE options" in the lycan knife fights and his perspective of beating the game 100% being "acquire all trophies". The latter is easily contested because on no fucking planet is "get all trophies/achievement" an agreeable consensus for judging game length and replay value, and the former is open to more interesting analysis (largely negative) that he doesn't bother to explore. That doesn't discredit stronger parts of his review and analysis, but it just puts him on the same page as every review he whines about; strengths in critique, and glaring weaknesses/mistakes in the balance of subjectivity vs. objectivity.
End of the day I think The Order is, if anything, definitively polarising amongst both "professional critics" and people playing it. The idea that the official thread is a bastion of positivity is an outright lie. It's just as mixed in there too. And I dunno, I have a thing for games that get people talking, arguing, and thinking. Of all things, The Order is at least accomplishing that.
Yes we can see you "thought it was amazing". Let's just stick to disagreeing instead of insulting people just because they have legitimate criticisms that they explain in detail about a game you like.
Joe's a hard worker, and he deserves a hell of a lot more than some lame personal attack or dismissal like that
Brad Grenz
Member
We're getting to a point where generalists can't be expected to cover the whole industry anymore. You probably shouldn't assign a game like The Order to a reviewer who resents the idea of cinematic games the same way you shouldn't let a reviewer who makes passive-aggressive "sportsball" jokes on twitter cover Madden for you.
freenudemacusers
Member
well as someone who watched cliffy b play 25 minutes of the game, I'd say watching angry joe was roughly as interactive an experience.
So the answer is to only give games to critics who would like them? I know the industry would like that.
Really? Is this something that happens in any other field? I don't think it happens in movie reviews, in any case.
Moreover, is there any evidence that reviewers of The Order resent the idea of cinematic games, rather than just thinking that The Order is not a good game, period?
Corronchilejano
Member
Oh wow, we haven't heard that one before.
Not going to name it.
I do believe, however, this game lives and dies by its ambience, even if it lacks interactivity. Just because of that it should've at least gotten a 6. I mean, he left it at the same level as Colonial Marines.
Brad Grenz
Member
You think it doesn't? Do you think the same people who review YA novels are assigned Chuck Palahniuk books?
Why not, wouldn't a variety of viewpoints help readers/viewers?
Yes, I know in music and film most people review a bit of everything even outside their comfort zone.
I don't know; I do know that Roger Ebert reviewed both kids movies and adult movies, and nobody thought that the fact that he gave some movies mediocre reviews was indicative of his inability to review movies of that genre rather than him either not liking it or that movie actually being mediocre.
The problem is it's a bad even for a cinematic game. Plenty of people who like those sorta games have voiced their opinion on how bad the story, characters and pacing are.
I don't think a cinematic third person cover shooter is so far out of the comfort zone for most games reviewers that this is the issue.
Exploratory
Banned
Who the hell cares? So he can be like every other reviewer thats 5 minutes long and doesnt go in depth whatsoever? Fuck that.
EatinOlives
Member
He didn't really repeat himself on anything. The only time that was "wasted" was the little skits he had, but that was probably not more than 2 or 3 minutes.
It's like some people just truly cannot comprehend how someone could talk about a game for half an hour. I understand if a video is needlessly long but this one really didn't seem like it. Each of the points raised were valid, and yes there quite a bit of them.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
While I do think a review should be assigned to the person most informed and equipped to provide the highest quality analysis, ideally a professional critic has the capacity to do so across a wide diversity of genres, as is the standard of critics in other mediums. Whether or not professional games critics are up to that task is open to debate. All perspectives are relevant though. I think it's less about "does this person like/dislike the genre" and more about the arguments they actually make, the substance of their critique and how they articulate it. Someone might loathe cinematic games and give The Order a scathing review, but the substance of their critique can still be strong, explaining (convincingly so) what they did not like and why, even if you found your experience different.
I think sometimes in cases like this, where a game receives a very negative review and the fan instead adored it, there's an assumption the critic isn't fit to review the game at all, is objectively wrong, or "doesn't understand it". As if all negative critique is clearly from someone who dislikes the genre, and that if someone who did enjoy the genre reviewed it the response would be completely different. And often that isn't true. I don't really like Joe's review to be perfectly honest, and I feel a lot of his critique is very subjective (that's okay) as the type of game The Order is just isn't for him, but his examples of the atrocious AI are spot on and hard to objectively argue against.
I discussed this with a friend of mine who loved all the lycan encounters. And even though I really enjoyed The Order, I can't deny how I naturally emotionally resonate with certain pieces of the game versus him. And for me, in the case of the lycan encounters, the horrible AI and their total failure to compliment the level design and game mechanics was obvious within a few seconds of the very first, and in turn that naturally dampened my enjoyment of them. He didn't seem to spot it, or maybe didn't care, and found them intense and exciting. I'd love to have felt the same way, but in order for me to do so I'd have to artificially weaken my play, forcing myself to play bad, so the encounters provide that similar level of intensity. An intensity I otherwise felt satisfactory when in standard shootouts as they weren't completely broken in my favour.
Stuff like that is an interesting point of discussion even with mixed opinions, because there's substance in discussing why each person felt they way they did, irrespective of how attached they are to this particular genre.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
so...you mean like playing the game super drunk? like this awesome video posted by FeiRR?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFhu6AlXaVs
Messofanego
Banned
Wait, FeiRR, don't tell you were going to use your video as proof that the Lycan AI was good compared to Dead Space 2?
Oh wait...look at all dis backfire...
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Whelp! That about wraps it up.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
FeiRR is achieving legendary status with this thread, lol.
Thanks for this post I'll give it a read and I still plan on playing it if I can borrow it from a friend of buy a disk version for cheaper.
Maxwell House
Member
But many other people, like me, find his long reviews hilarious and very entertaining...which is why he makes them that length.
Brad Grenz
Member
Movie reviews are such a small time commitment, and people knew not to take his opinions of children's movies very seriously.
Having actually played the game to completion I can tell you none of that is true. The story and characters are exceptional, and the pacing is intentionally measured. The story is a slow burn. If you want to rush through you might resent the game's insistence upon that, or you might have wanted a Michael Bay movie instead, but that's not the same as it being "poor".
You'd think, but far too many reviews belie a clear disdain for everything the game is trying to be, to the point where their complaints are so exaggerated as to be laughable.
FeiRR
Banned
No, that wasn't my intention and I wrote it explicitly a few pages back. I see there's no point discussing anything more complicated than 'lol, lmao' and Internet memes here.
I had this happen too! XD
I watched a playthrough, it looked pretty damn poor to me. And yes I didn't play it, but we're talking about the cinematic aspect, watching it is enough to form an opinion.
Brad Grenz
Member
And that's where you're wrong.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
but seriously, you're video clip backfired so hard as it contradicted everything you posted prior to it. thus the responses. you do indeed understand that right?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Your other posts were nonsense, too, but this one bothered me.
You don't get to dictate the terms. Games can be educational, or provide some other experience that wouldn't be categorized as entertainment. Some people can derive entertainment from a dictionary, too.
The Silver
Member
Order seems like it should've just been a Heavy Rain type game instead of being a generic shooter.
If you're gonna go full blown "cinematic" "filmic" whatever then go with a genre and gameplay style that compliments it, if your primary gameplay is that of a 3rd person shooter then it damn well better be a good designed one that flows well with the game.
If you're gonna go full blown "cinematic" "filmic" whatever then go with a genre and gameplay style that compliments it, if your primary gameplay is that of a 3rd person shooter then it damn well better be a good designed one that flows well with the game.
Messofanego
Banned
but seriously, you're video clip backfired so hard as it contradicted everything you posted prior to it. thus the responses. you do indeed understand that right?
The self awareness might take a day or two to kick in
They actually demonstrate a clear disdain for the game the Order is.
The problem isn't that reviewers don't understand the Order, or don't like the Order's genre.
The problem is they don't like the Order.
Wtffffff how can this thread keep on going? The game is clearly flawed. Sony published a flawed game and so what? Hopefully the sequel will fix those flaws and the game will receive a 6/10.
Honestly paying $60 for a linear, story driven (with an average story at best), "generic" tps that lasts 7 hours and have no replay value, no multiplayer, no "challenge mode" no nothing is kinda ridiculous. Obviously if you do truly enjoy the shory and graphics, good for you!
And to make it all sound more compelling the game is more about hunting rebels than what the initial reveal hinted? Combined with horrible ai (at times), excessive amount of QTEs and auto fail stealth segments.
Honest as hell if I where to make a purchase of this game and I looked up all the pros and cons of the game, put them up against each other it would be really hard to make the purchase.
The redeeming factors for this game is clearly only meant for a very limited amount of "gamers".
However feel free to defend something that have otherwise been said to be average at best by the entire industry and most gamers.
Honestly paying $60 for a linear, story driven (with an average story at best), "generic" tps that lasts 7 hours and have no replay value, no multiplayer, no "challenge mode" no nothing is kinda ridiculous. Obviously if you do truly enjoy the shory and graphics, good for you!
And to make it all sound more compelling the game is more about hunting rebels than what the initial reveal hinted? Combined with horrible ai (at times), excessive amount of QTEs and auto fail stealth segments.
Honest as hell if I where to make a purchase of this game and I looked up all the pros and cons of the game, put them up against each other it would be really hard to make the purchase.
The redeeming factors for this game is clearly only meant for a very limited amount of "gamers".
However feel free to defend something that have otherwise been said to be average at best by the entire industry and most gamers.
RipperGrim
Member
The YouTube comments for that video is really insightful as to what people would say on GAF if GAF wasn't so heavily modded, it's a little disheartening really.
No, it isn't. You're discussing story, characterization, and pacing. None of which requires you to play the game to make a judgement on. Maybe if the game characterizaed its cast through gameplay you'd have an argument, but it doesn't. It characterizes its cast through cutscenes and dialogue, none of which you need to play the game to experience.
Nizz
Member
Not to single out Joe but I feel this is a problem with a lot of reviews today. It's like I want to get a general feeling from reviewers on a certain game I'm interested in but so many reviews (particularly video reviews) feature game spoilers that sometimes I feel just who is the review for?
Sometimes it feels more like reviews are for people who have already played the game and you're just watching to see who maybe can articulate what you feel about said game or comparing "notes" to an extent. Most of the time I check GAF to get a general feeling also and most people here are good about not spoiling things. But as far as pro reviewers or people with a large following just who is the review for? Doesn't feel like it's for people who haven't played the game. At least without spoiling some cool moments.
Yes, the score is unfair, because, I believe gameplay alone can't dictate the overall score (I mean, solely set the score). This game can't get a below five score as an overall package. You may have a field day with me as I haven't played the game (lol) but here's my thinking:
Let's give the gameplay a 3 out of 10, to be conservative. A 1/10 gameplay should be reserved for broken piece of shit gameplay, a 2/10 is for slightly less broken piece of shit.. Hope you'll agree with me. So yes, I'll assume the gameplay gets below that a mediocre game would get, which would be 5/10 in an ideal world. I'll not be giving 4/10 becasue I want to go as low as possible.. Gameplay should include the fun factor.
Then this game has top tier visuals and sound design, very cool physics, elements that are important to a game. I know it's not an average, but can't those awesome elements bring the overal score just 2 points higher?
I think Angry Joe was pissed for the missed potential of the game, that he gave a reactionary score. The imbalance between gameplay quality and all the rest had so big gap (for him, of course, I think I'll like the game from what I've seen all around), that he gave the game an extra punishment on the score scale.
Let's give the gameplay a 3 out of 10, to be conservative. A 1/10 gameplay should be reserved for broken piece of shit gameplay, a 2/10 is for slightly less broken piece of shit.. Hope you'll agree with me. So yes, I'll assume the gameplay gets below that a mediocre game would get, which would be 5/10 in an ideal world. I'll not be giving 4/10 becasue I want to go as low as possible.. Gameplay should include the fun factor.
Then this game has top tier visuals and sound design, very cool physics, elements that are important to a game. I know it's not an average, but can't those awesome elements bring the overal score just 2 points higher?
I think Angry Joe was pissed for the missed potential of the game, that he gave a reactionary score. The imbalance between gameplay quality and all the rest had so big gap (for him, of course, I think I'll like the game from what I've seen all around), that he gave the game an extra punishment on the score scale.
Messofanego
Banned
Can't tell if serious post...
So, say you hated a game so much to its very core but it also happens to be mostly functional and looks like a videogame. That game has to automatically get an average rating of 5 no matter how bad your experience with a game was?
And there you go.
What are the cool physics?
I think he's trying to turn it into some sort of formula.
I disagree myself.
If I went to a restaurant, and across the board everything was of a high standard, except for the fact that they served me up a literal nugget of shit, I'd still rate the restaurant well under 5 out of 10.
Elements don't exist in a vacuum. Bad elements can drag good ones down and vice versa.
Most things are not just a sum of their parts.
Maxwell House
Member
How can you possibly think you can tell a reviewer on what scale he/she can score the games they play? That's preposterous.
Angry Joe went into detail and specifics of why he gave it a 4/10. It isn't as if the score at the end of the review didn't match up with what he was saying about the game during the 30+ minute review.
And gameplay can dictate the entire score if it is bad enough.
Wasn't this game supposed to be about the order tackling lycans and other worldly beings. Now we are seeing the defence that there's only 2 sections that you fight them So it's not that bad. This game deserves the low scores. I don't need to play it to see that. Ive played enough games for enough years to know what's not great. I'll still give it a short go at some point just to see the tech. I really quiet liked ryse in the end. Didn't ryse score less than the order. We need to make threads in defence of ryse lol