I also do understand, for that very reason, personal opinions can be unfair.
-
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
I also do understand, for that very reason, personal opinions can be unfair.
cleveridea
Member
I would score the game significantly higher but this is a great review, and he justified all of his negative points with game play examples.
I also liked that he commented on the "silence" of a character which really annoyed me.
Only thing I dont like about Joe's reviews are that he often includes major spoilers like endings, both in comments and sample video. Otherwise, awesome channel.
I also liked that he commented on the "silence" of a character which really annoyed me.
Only thing I dont like about Joe's reviews are that he often includes major spoilers like endings, both in comments and sample video. Otherwise, awesome channel.
I watch twitch streamers regularly every night, one of my regulars was playing it. So not out of the ordinary for me at all.
Sorta? It ended with
the classic Blade Runner(?), MGS3 *pull the trigger yourself* ending. Except in this case it didn't have any of the emotional weight
More of a minigame than a QTE. I thought those fights were actually fun, just wish it didn't have the dodge prompts on screen so the player had to pay more attention.
ha, thanks
DoomGyver
Member
I really wish he didn't compare the The Order to Gears of War. The only thing they have in common is being a third person shooter and good visuals (at their respective times of release). When Gears launched in 2006 it came with a the best console graphics of the time, a great story, co-op, fleshed out multiplayer modes and free DLC all for $60. There is no comparison. That was over eight years ago. Now in 2015 we get 4 hours of gameplay and 2 hours of cutscenes for $60. For shame.
Yes, making a youtube video is backbreaking labor. It's right up there with typing on a message board.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of his panning of the game's pace. I found its pacing to be one of its strongest points. No other game has ever ebbed and flowed with such conviction. That was a bold choice, which is why reception has been so polarized.
Had he loved the game as much as me I'd still have not wanted to watch his review. I'm more than content with the brevity of an 8 hour, single playthough campaign, but a 25 minute long review seems superfluous, especially since I don't enjoy his curmudgeonly schtick.
Feel free to continue watching his reviews. I'm just not of the youtube generation. I'd prefer more succinct reviews, with optimistic outlooks. Ones that come from erudite, well written perspectives instead of from troglodytes slinging the word 'fucking' around ad nauseam. Doing so, and pairing it with his angry personal, really devalues his opinion in my eyes.
Just because it's playable doesn't mean it's not shit. But that's what happens when you treat your employees like trash.
This thread is a fucking goldmine.
Melchiah
Member
Well, I don't think I would have enough interest to watch any stream for that long. I've only watched partial playthroughs of Demon's Souls and Outlast, because both of them were games I didn't find enjoyable to play myself, but only for an hour or two. I did find Outlast pretty enjoyable to watch though, as the player was very familiar with the game (he/she played on insane mode), and there wasn't much of going back and forth involved. It was like watching a horror film in a sense.
I showed my girlfriend the hospital section of The Order on my first playthrough, and she grew tired of me going back and forth, inspecting every corner and taking screenshots. It's not something that's very interesting to watch.
LordBaztion
Member
Whoa, that werewolf AI is a pretty low point.
Total insanity.
Your post are GOLD dude, ahahhahahhahahhaha. You need a tag or something.
In your opinion if he can not create a interesting video review then his points don't matter? How about coming up with counterpoints to his criticism instead of looking through a thesaurus. Your posts is the very definition of superfluous, you have said nothing about the review at all.
RipperGrim
Member
Just pointing out here that people take his name way too seriously, he doesn't scream and shout through his videos like people seem to think, he rationally explains his opinions with good arguments. I don't always 100% agree with him but he does actually do reviews quite well.
Haha, this is actually great! So much easier to process the text with my troglodyte brains now man, thanks
don't take it so personally dude lmao, I'm just having
fun!
Also gonna add here that yes, I agree with you, the angry raging shtick is stupid but what's great is that Angry Joe isn't like that! Hard to say why he chose to include the Angry part in his name, but whatever.
Well now. That certainly seems like a solid recommendation..
Never mind.
No fucking problem... wait you have more than one brain?
I'm jokingly saying I found The Order far more engaging and entertaining than he or his review. He's in the industry of entertainment. His mission should be to provide an entertaining review. The same way I've try to provide entertaining commentary here. He tries, and people obviously like him, but it failed on me.
As far as the review goes, I did mention the pacing issue. I think its the most unique feature of The Order. I can see why people would find it off-putting, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It really helps drive the narrative, makes the gameplay sections tense, and lets the beautiful atmosphere breathe. It's a very relaxing change from the average game. It does feel like a movie, and I've always cringed at the movement for games to be "cinematic," but The Order has shifted the foundation of my thinking. Now I wonder if the same weight could be applied to a project with a 90 minute length. And all this is coming from a guy who still loves 2D platformers with all gameplay and zero story.
Many of his other gripes are warranted, but I feel like most of the people are making mountains out of molehills. There stuck focusing on what RAD got wrong, instead of enjoying what they got right. I generally go into a game with an optimistic view. I disregard the majority of minor complaints if I enjoy the overall experience. It's a very refreshing approach. With the mediocre reviews I hampered my optimism, and braced for a mediocre experience. I was dumbfounded when I started playing the game and found it to be a clear example of a truly next gen game. It's unique, progressive and innovative in its design, and technically impressive.
At the end of the day the game is just polarizing. I found it to be one of my favorite experiences in gaming, others thought it was garbage. I seek to provide the antithesis to Angry Joe and the games detractors. I applaud RAD for their reckless ambition and really hope we see what they had in mind next.
(Also, I don't use a thesaurus when writing unless I find I'm repeating adjectives. I just enjoy using interesting jargon to create unique sentances. Sorry if it seems pretentious. Also, I'd love a tag.)
Common mistake I tend to make, brains are almost always referred to in plural form in Finnish for some reason.
And yes it's a common mistake cause I talk about brains all the time what the fuck, best kind of small talk
digitalrelic
Banned
I think it looks better than 100% of PC games. It's the best looking game I've ever seen.
I own a PC w an i7 4790k and GTX 980 FYI.
Messofanego
Banned
It helps to watch the video in question with this thread before saying something like this or you come off as ignorant. He's more disappointed the game doesn't do much with the world and mythos than being dismissive of the type of game it is. Angry Joe is all up for the premise of the game, not at all resentful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6NHKDh-Mo#t=8m21s
"They're just questionable inclusions, sort of like how instead of doing battle with Creatures of the Night from horror stories - you know, as we assume The Order would actually be doing - no, we're pulling guard duty for some powerful rich jackass."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6NHKDh-Mo#t=13m41s
"The more interesting aspect of the world's story like where do the lycans come from, who controls them...how does that shit even work? None of that is explored. And all of that would have made for a vastly more interesting storyline."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy6NHKDh-Mo#t=18m31s
"Despite it being absolutely stunning and beautiful to look at, despite the seamless cutscenes and interesting mythos..."
Also, he gave The Last of Us a 10/10 and that's a linear cinematic 3rd person shooter. Gave Max Payne 3 an 8/10.
It's not just the problem that there are too few lycan scenarios but also that they're bland and repetitive with bad AI that he highlights rather than leaving a great memorable impact from the few times they're present.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Why did The Order review thread get locked? Can't remember that happening for any other game before.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
There are definitely parts of other games that look better, in my opinion, but nothing is as consistent as The Order.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Nah, it's happened in the past. Just things running its course and people were getting pretty nasty, since for some reason there has to be a positive OT (though I feel that The Order OT, very much like Destiny nowadays, has a good balance) and some negative band-together thread.
Always found the behavior odd in both cases.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Ok, thanks. Yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about with dedicated positivity and negativity threads. Really disappointing that's it's come to that. Don't want to have to follow two threads to see what everyone is saying.
Melchiah
Member
I guess you missed the point of the latter quote, which was explained in the part that you cut out.
Watching someone go back and forth, snooping every corner, as often occurs on the first playthrough, definitely isn't as interesting to observe, particularly for someone who doesn't play games at all.
Another missed point. I was talking about reviews in general, with emphasis on movie reviews, like the one I replied to did as well.
AFAIK, AJ doesn't cover that field of entertainment, and like I said I wasn't talking about him, as I don't even know his stance, but reviews in general.
And that's why I mentioned the missing variety in my post.
Which is it? More tense or very relaxing?
I don't see how constantly taking control away from the player with cutscenes or having the player wander around and look at the backs of pieces of paper is good pacing.
Brad Grenz
Member
Then you have a terrible lack of imagination.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Video editing does take up a surprising amount of time and effort.
But yeah, it's a snap other than that.
I mean it entirely depends on the whole of the rest of the game. A lot of people seem to agree that in this case it ruins the pacing but in another game it could do wonders (like the slower sections of Half-Life 2).
Not the type of thread I usually speak up in, but a few things have jumped out at me here. Joe's review really (even moreso than his average one, I'd say) supports the points he's making about the game's traits, both good and bad with nearly incontrovertible examples of what he's talking about in-game. I'm really hard pressed to say he didn't give it a fair shake.
Some of the counterpoints I've seen have been reasonable (that he faulted the design of one combat encounter without trying various attempts to clear it first), while others have been fairly absurd (placing an unfair emphasis on gameplay..?).
A few things keep biting at me though. The first is this omnipresent notion of game reviewers not using "the whole scale." I think this concept began when recurrent, profitable franchises started putting out annual entries that never seem to wind up scoring below a 7.5 or (*gasp*) a 7.0.
But regardless of whether or not reviewers are particularly forgiving with regard to these games, the undying truth of the matter is that they had enough appeal at the start to make them into popular franchises. A fun factor. Once we're in "above average" territory, i.e. something above a 5/10, this tends to be what reviewers draw from in doling out the points.
The fact that these games score consistently in the upper register of the scale doesn't mean the lower isn't being used. Take Gamespot... there are reviewed games with essentially every interval of the scale at a reviewer's disposal in the Gamespot archives.
The reasons a game might wind up scoring below average when judged by any reviewer are many, but the idea that scores of 4/10 and below should be reserved for functionally broken games is beyond ludicrous. Some 2/10s, 3/10s and 4/10s that are reviewed have severe bugs and broken designs holding them back and would have otherwise scored higher; others are merely so boring and lackluster in their intended design that they earn no more, even if perfectly stable and bug-free.
In other words, a reviewer may choose whatever criteria they feel appropriate to determine their review score, the number ultimately reflecting nothing other than a quantification of their own feelings about a game.
This is why I used to love the old EGM style of reviews, which actually consisted of three or four separate mini-reviews, each by a different person and with its own score, with the highest accolades reserved for those games that averaged out among these different viewpoints to an 8, 9, or 10- having such universal appeal as to withstand the critiques of multiple voices. Things are different in the Metacritic era, and I do miss that, even if the "they don't use full scale" complaints don't quite resonate with me.
You want to see what it looks like when a truly broken game goes before a reviewer?
My point is: Gamespot gave The Order a 5/10. And there are a LOT of games in the spread between that 5 and the aforementioned 1.
For Angry Joe, The Order instead comes in one notch lower down. That shouldn't be a controversial or unacceptable notion, to anyone. He explains precisely how he arrived at this number to represent his viewpoint. Condemning this range to only be used for products with broken functionality is so restrictive as to make the idea of using a numerical scale even more meaningless than it already is.
The one last thing I wanted to revisit was that tweet from one of the founders of the developer that made The Order:
So I watched it (this review). The whole thing.
And... fuck. It isn't even a review, first of all- it's a rebuttal. From the very outset, it takes the position that critical reviews of the game are wrong and here's why. That's a terrible, meritless, cringeworthy approach to reviewing a game. It belies that the content of the review won't be primarily informed by the reviewer's own experience with the game, but a need to counter what other people have already said about it.
It only gets worse from there. The capstone, in my opinion, is this screengrab toward the very end:
I didn't really have any feelings one way or another about Ready at Dawn until seeing that tweet and watching that review. I know that having a lackluster reception must be very difficult for people who have poured their hearts into creating something. But by hitching their wagon to this guy, they've really generated a lot of ill will in me that wasn't there before. I mean, just take the hit. There's no reason to go out calling attention to the reviews that explicitly aim to stand against consensus in the first place, but when it includes as many abhorrent conclusions as this one... I've gone from neutral to actively wary of their future endeavors. :-/
Some of the counterpoints I've seen have been reasonable (that he faulted the design of one combat encounter without trying various attempts to clear it first), while others have been fairly absurd (placing an unfair emphasis on gameplay..?).
A few things keep biting at me though. The first is this omnipresent notion of game reviewers not using "the whole scale." I think this concept began when recurrent, profitable franchises started putting out annual entries that never seem to wind up scoring below a 7.5 or (*gasp*) a 7.0.
But regardless of whether or not reviewers are particularly forgiving with regard to these games, the undying truth of the matter is that they had enough appeal at the start to make them into popular franchises. A fun factor. Once we're in "above average" territory, i.e. something above a 5/10, this tends to be what reviewers draw from in doling out the points.
The fact that these games score consistently in the upper register of the scale doesn't mean the lower isn't being used. Take Gamespot... there are reviewed games with essentially every interval of the scale at a reviewer's disposal in the Gamespot archives.
These games just sort of suck, indiscriminately and hard. But someone had to review them. They are scarcely played and quickly forgotten, and it's easy to wind up with the impression that scores like this are never assigned, because we barely ever pay attention to them. I know, I know, the first Assassin's Creed is a terrible, embarrassing game and reviewers just couldn't wait to fellate Ubisoft upon its release. But let me assure you that there is a vast gulf in quality between a game like that and a game like Tony Hawk Ride- and games you can point to as guideposts for every marker in between.
The reasons a game might wind up scoring below average when judged by any reviewer are many, but the idea that scores of 4/10 and below should be reserved for functionally broken games is beyond ludicrous. Some 2/10s, 3/10s and 4/10s that are reviewed have severe bugs and broken designs holding them back and would have otherwise scored higher; others are merely so boring and lackluster in their intended design that they earn no more, even if perfectly stable and bug-free.
In other words, a reviewer may choose whatever criteria they feel appropriate to determine their review score, the number ultimately reflecting nothing other than a quantification of their own feelings about a game.
This is why I used to love the old EGM style of reviews, which actually consisted of three or four separate mini-reviews, each by a different person and with its own score, with the highest accolades reserved for those games that averaged out among these different viewpoints to an 8, 9, or 10- having such universal appeal as to withstand the critiques of multiple voices. Things are different in the Metacritic era, and I do miss that, even if the "they don't use full scale" complaints don't quite resonate with me.
You want to see what it looks like when a truly broken game goes before a reviewer?
Big Rigs is so deeply broken and obviously unfinished that it barely manages to squeeze itself within the confines of what qualifies under even the loosest definition of a "game." It barely has any expressed limits or goals, and lacks even the inclusion of a failure state despite being a racing game in theory. It earned that 1 point almost wholly due to the novelty of having such a hilariously unplayable product put on a reviewer's desk to be taken seriously. For broken games, being reviewed and scored at all is an absolute luxury.
My point is: Gamespot gave The Order a 5/10. And there are a LOT of games in the spread between that 5 and the aforementioned 1.
For Angry Joe, The Order instead comes in one notch lower down. That shouldn't be a controversial or unacceptable notion, to anyone. He explains precisely how he arrived at this number to represent his viewpoint. Condemning this range to only be used for products with broken functionality is so restrictive as to make the idea of using a numerical scale even more meaningless than it already is.
The one last thing I wanted to revisit was that tweet from one of the founders of the developer that made The Order:
I couldn't believe this... a dev making a personal stake in the critical reception of a game is unusual, but I had to know what it was that he felt significant enough to specifically call attention to, in a "here's the final word" sense.
So I watched it (this review). The whole thing.
And... fuck. It isn't even a review, first of all- it's a rebuttal. From the very outset, it takes the position that critical reviews of the game are wrong and here's why. That's a terrible, meritless, cringeworthy approach to reviewing a game. It belies that the content of the review won't be primarily informed by the reviewer's own experience with the game, but a need to counter what other people have already said about it.
It only gets worse from there. The capstone, in my opinion, is this screengrab toward the very end:
Even if I can manage to get past the lack of even token maturity on display here ("It's just like what Angry Joe does, isn't it?"), the IDIOT review tagline he's taking aim at doesn't say a goddamn thing about Ready at Dawn delivering a different product than was advertised or promised. Nothing! The criticism is that it does not live up to its own potential (which may be considerable), and this is something you can recognize in a game even if you hadn't even heard of it before picking up the controller.
I didn't really have any feelings one way or another about Ready at Dawn until seeing that tweet and watching that review. I know that having a lackluster reception must be very difficult for people who have poured their hearts into creating something. But by hitching their wagon to this guy, they've really generated a lot of ill will in me that wasn't there before. I mean, just take the hit. There's no reason to go out calling attention to the reviews that explicitly aim to stand against consensus in the first place, but when it includes as many abhorrent conclusions as this one... I've gone from neutral to actively wary of their future endeavors. :-/
never mind.
We are talking about The Order, right?
I think the pacing was pretty damned bad. I have played the entire game.
Maybe. This isn't a very good game, though. I can't take your opinion seriously after seeing how much you praised the story.
The plot is pretty damned crappy.
Abinash117
Member
To people that thought the story was good how exactly was it good? Same goes to the people that think its bad. I read a lot of comments and very few people takes the time to explain why the its bad or good; they just say its bad or good and continue to talk over one and other when they debate or argue.
crazyrabbits
Banned
That's GAF for you. Everyone either talks in an echo chamber or tries to yell over each other during arguments.
ahh so this is why some people post like this. I wonder how often the posts are received in the way you intend them to be.
I have to be honest, I actually think the order is one of the best games I have played in a while. Playing assassins creed unity last year really put me off buying games at launch and just buying them in general. I bought the order at launch because I was always interested in the game since it was announced and because I had some money left over from my birthday. Honestly I haven't enjoyed a game as much as the order in what feels like a long time.
Obviously I don't think it is as good as something like the last of us or metal gear solid, but I think it is definitely a good game in my opinion. I would probably rate it an 8/10.
I used to like joe and I respect everyone's own opinion of the order. What I don't like or respect is the way that angry joe has been acting on twitter towards the order and people who disagree with his review score.
Obviously I don't think it is as good as something like the last of us or metal gear solid, but I think it is definitely a good game in my opinion. I would probably rate it an 8/10.
I used to like joe and I respect everyone's own opinion of the order. What I don't like or respect is the way that angry joe has been acting on twitter towards the order and people who disagree with his review score.
so then you point in coming into the thread was....wait I have no idea
dammit I thought there were more posts since my last one...awkward.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
I'll just say it again, I want the developers to sit down and explain some of the decisions made with this game. The heavy presence of QTEs, the major human combat focus, the emphasis on cinematic presentation over traditional gameplay.
I really find their design decisions to be confounding,
I really find their design decisions to be confounding,
NullPointer
Member
Gotta admit that the more I think about it the more I don't understand how this premise of knights vs. supernatural beasts is best served by a third person cover-based shooter.
The more I think about this game or analyze its individual systems the more it unravels. It doesn't undo the enjoyment I've had to date, but its lasting impression is aging more like bread than wine.
We're at a point (post release) where the decisions should be speaking for themselves in the context of the game. A proper postmortem will be fascinating, but rationales for particular elements would probably come across as defensive (in a negative sense), even if they were the most honest/frank answers possible. I feel like the timing just isn't right, even knowing a ton of us are interested in that same information.
story first gameplay second
But that isn't an explanation for the narrative shortcomings, which I think is why so many of us are curious more than anything else.
There was more to the story originally had to be. Said it before, just watch the trial scene. The way it's cut I'm certain that characters could of cast guilty or not guilty originally. No other scene is cut up like that in the game, and might of pointed to a branching storyline.