• 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.

GavinGT

Banned
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

While I don't want to fall into the trap of comparing review scores, I'll say that Ryse is easily the better of the two games. The Order was a waste of the $2 I paid for it at the Redbox.
 
Oh man that opening was greatness.

I platinum'd this thing in just over 6 hours. I would be offended if I'd paid 60 for what seemed like a tech demo but luckily I only rented it.

The AI is the worst part of the game. There are only 4 enemy types and they all only have one mode. But the story is a close second, which is a no no in a game like this. It's only saving grace is graphics imho.
 
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.
Also, he didn't factor in points allocated to make people who bought the game feel better about their purchase. That's gotta be worth about 2 points to bring it into that 7/10 'fair' zone.
 
While I don't want to fall into the trap of comparing review scores, I'll say that Ryse is easily the better of the two games. The Order was a waste of the $2 I paid for it at the Redbox.

Ryse is a fun game, imo. I definitely thought it didn't get enough accolades.
 

c0de

Member
I can't believe the audio logs collected in the game are told by a voice over in-menu. Who the hell would sit there in the menu for 3 minutes to hear it?

Who? Well, a guy that was called a speedrunner actually listened to every audio log he collected while doing his walkthrough.
 
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.

Of course it is! If you're just sitting their watching you'll get bored waiting for stuff to happen. You also lose the majority of the connection you build with the main character through direct control.

What I can't understand is why so many "game-play first" crusaders simultaneously discount the need to actually play something to know what it's like...
 

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
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.

That is why I watch/read reviews. I mainly look at the discussion after I've been playing the game a while to see what other people are thinking.

On the other hand, I wonder about these "spoilers". A lot of them are completely meaningless unless you know what's going on in the scene already. In which case, how are you getting spoiled?
 

GavinGT

Banned
What I can't understand is why so many "game-play first" crusaders simultaneously discount the need to actually play something to know what it's like...

I watched numerous playthroughs of the game before playing it myself. Yep, it was a bland cover-based shooter with too many cutscenes.
 

Ishan

Junior Member
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.

I think angry joe actually utilizes the full 1-10 score. So I agree with his score. yes from an outlet which normally atleast gives out 6-7 and only 1-4 if the game is broken the reasoning makes sense. For angry joe and what ive seen of his history ... his reaction is completely consistent and reasonable.

EDIT : also yes I agree 4/10 or lower is completely mathematically inconsistent... stop abusing the axioms ppl :p
 

Paracelsus

Member
Has anybody from movie-gaf or some actual movie critic outlet review the cinematic part of the game? Plot, acting and so on.
 

Metal B

Member
In every other businesses you wouldn't even rate a broken product:
"Car Review: The breaks aren't working correctly and the car roof will be added later. 4/10".
 

Frillen

Member
It's going to be a sad day for the industry if reviewers have to start giving extra points to games that are not broken.
 

Booshka

Member
I'd watch a friend play this game while I drank a 6 pack and talked shit about it. All the entertainment I see getting out of it.
 

Warablo

Member
I loved the the theme of the game (big Underworld fan) and the shooting felt nice. Its a okay game that has/had massive potential.
 

greenfish

Banned
Ryse is pure trailer trash, but I expect as much from Crytek so it's of no surprise.

Ryse wasn't that great but at least you can actually PLAY the game unlike the movie 1886

Crysis on PC is still a GENERATION ahead on current consoles (figure that one one out).

Crysis 1 = great innovative fps, still ahead of it's time

Crysis (get's "ported" to consoles)

Crysis 2 = boring linear game, some of the levels are fun though

Crysis 3 = boring linear game, absolute trash

See a pattern?



Just want to mention Crysis is from 2007, that's 8 years ago, and yet it's still a looker+blast to play
 

MilkyJoe

Member
LOLWAT?

0/10 means completely broken.
5/10 means half broken.

It is not that hard.

I agree with 0/10 for completely broken, but a game doesn't have to be broken for a 5, a came can be bug free and still be plain old Crap.
 

Tainted

Member
So the order is broken now? Lol..

Noone said it was broken. Most people are just insinuating if the game was to score lower than it did, it would imply that it was.

A bad game can still score low, even if it is 100% bug free...why do the <5 scores need to be reserved exclusively for broken games ?
 

erawsd

Member
The Order threads are always so entertaining.

Anyway, Joe continues to deliver some great reviews, his stuff is always very informative. Also, the guy is getting 500k+ hits two weeks late, I wonder how that compares with day one reviews when 100s of sites are all competing for clicks at once.
 

anothertech

Member
Completely agree with him about story and ending.

Right when u think, ok this might be interesting, the story goes to the shtter and the credits roll. Nothing but 'wtf??!?' left to think. There was no beginning middle or end, just a tease here and there about what was happening, and then it's over.

Such a waste of potential.
 

meppi

Member
Ryse wasn't that great but at least you can actually PLAY the game unlike the movie 1886

Crysis on PC is still a GENERATION ahead on current consoles (figure that one one out).

Crysis 1 = great innovative fps, still ahead of it's time

Crysis (get's "ported" to consoles)

Crysis 2 = boring linear game, some of the levels are fun though

Crysis 3 = boring linear game, absolute trash

See a pattern?

I think I do! CONSOLES SUCK ASS! PC MASTERRACE FTW!

Did I get that right?

What a joke...
 

wildfire

Banned
I agree with 0/10 for completely broken, but a game doesn't have to be broken for a 5, a came can be bug free and still be plain old Crap.

For Joe a 5 doesn't mean it's crap.
It means it is totally average.
It's bland milquetoast.
It's ordinary.


For a game to get below a 5 it has to go from something you shrug at with indifference to something that will make you frown thinking about it.

Joe may have anger next to his name but his scores aren't about making hyperbolic statements.
 
I think I do! CONSOLES SUCK ASS! PC MASTERRACE FTW!

Did I get that right?

What a joke...

As someone who only owned a console when Crysis came out and claimed Killzone 2 looked just as good.

I ate my own fucking words upon buying Crysis when I built my first PC.

Crysis is a fucking amazing game, only for the sequals to be shit because they were focusing on consoles.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
For Joe a 5 doesn't mean it's crap.
It means it is totally average.
It's bland milquetoast.
It's ordinary.


For a game to get below a 5 it has to go from something you shrug at with indifference to something that will make you frown thinking about it.

Joe may have anger next to his name but his scores aren't about making hyperbolic statements.

I was not talking about Joe's scoring, I was stating a game does not have to be broken to score low. I class broken as bugs, falling through the floor, getting stuck in scenery and having to start the level again. Boring, bad voice acting , poor game play is not broke, it's just not good.
 

CloudWolf

Member
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.

You do understand that a review score is a personal opinion and not the result of a math equation, right?
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Ryse wasn't that great but at least you can actually PLAY the game unlike the movie 1886

Crysis on PC is still a GENERATION ahead on current consoles (figure that one one out).

Crysis 1 = great innovative fps, still ahead of it's time

Crysis (get's "ported" to consoles)

Crysis 2 = boring linear game, some of the levels are fun though

Crysis 3 = boring linear game, absolute trash

See a pattern?



Just want to mention Crysis is from 2007, that's 8 years ago, and yet it's still a looker+blast to play

Yeah, the pattern seems to be that Crytek can't make great games anymore.
 

hesido

Member
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?

A mostly functional and awesome looking game with exceptional sound design. If it didn't have those, 2-3/10 would be in order. That's where I'm getting at. Gameplay is king all right, but those side dishes having a hallmark of excellence should bring the score a few points higher. We're talking about 1 points in a scale of 10 (he says 4/10, I say the least fair score would be 5).

And there you go.
As I know.. But can you decouple presentation from gameplay so bluntly? Doesn't it mean anything overall, to have benchmark visuals, animation and sounds? Don't they add anything to the experience? It does. He even acknowledges that in parts.

Also, he didn't factor in points allocated to make people who bought the game feel better about their purchase. That's gotta be worth about 2 points to bring it into that 7/10 'fair' zone.
Hahaha

I think angry joe actually utilizes the full 1-10 score. So I agree with his score. yes from an outlet which normally atleast gives out 6-7 and only 1-4 if the game is broken the reasoning makes sense. For angry joe and what ive seen of his history ... his reaction is completely consistent and reasonable.

EDIT : also yes I agree 4/10 or lower is completely mathematically inconsistent... stop abusing the axioms ppl :p

He may indeed be consistent but I just don't find his scoring fair, for he is not reflecting any of those things that the Order does right, into his final score. It's not like I'm pushing for a 7/10 or even 6/10..

How can you possibly think you can tell a reviewer on what scale he/she can score the games they play? That's preposterous.
He's free to his own scoring scale, I don't think it's fair, I'm not forcing him to change his scale. I try to explain why I think it is not fair.
 

danm999

Member
Of course it is! If you're just sitting their watching you'll get bored waiting for stuff to happen. You also lose the majority of the connection you build with the main character through direct control.

What I can't understand is why so many "game-play first" crusaders simultaneously discount the need to actually play something to know what it's like...

Because they're reading reviews from reviewers/publications they trust that say the gameplay is lackluster.

I mean, I have played a fair chunk of the Order myself, but even if I hadn't, it wouldn't be hard to watch Joe's review and point to several key arguments as to why the gameplay isn't all that amazing. He supports his assertions with some pretty solid video evidence.

And as we've seen attempts to counter that evidence in this thread have hilariously backfired.

He's free to his own scoring scale, I don't think it's fair, I'm not forcing him to change his scale. I try to explain why I think it is not fair.

What do you feel is unfair about a review scale that says a 5/10 is "average" and a 4/10 is "slight below average".

Seems eminently logical to me. 10/10 is the best, 1/10 is the worst, 5/10 is smack bang in the middle, the average. So 4/10 would mean he feels the Order is slightly below the average.
 

Max Payne

Neo Member
Mathematically, unless the game is completely broken, you can't give the Order a score less than five out of ten. It's just mathematically impossible.

steinermath.jpeg
 

Kosma

Banned
I dont need to watch the angry joe review to know its rubbish

Shame cause I was looking forward to it but it seems to be like many other opinions I saw I dont agree with

Definately not worth 10 min of my life
 

Melchiah

Member
I have made my peace with the fact that he is somewhat divisive and not everyone likes him.

But I will never understand why people who don't like him feel the need to proclaim it in threads about his reviews.

It's also a thread about the game. I personally didn't watch his review, as I find the angry guy act cringeworthy. I'm here to just discuss about the game, not the review.

Nevertheless, it's no different from when people feel the need to come to a certain game or genre related thread just to proclaim how much they don't like it.



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.

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?

There used to be a film reviewer in a local magazine, who always gave 1-2 stars out of 5 for all horror films, no matter their quality. With the sole exception being Kubrick's The Shining, as he apparently couldn't downplay the works of critics' darling eventhough it was a horror film. The reviews would have certainly been more informative, if they were written by someone who didn't look down on the genre.

I'm not saying that's the case here, as I don't even know what Joe's preferences are, but generally it would be better if products weren't reviewed by people who resent the premise from the get-go.



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.

You watched the 5-hour video playthrough from start to finish, without skipping any parts of it? I find that hard to believe, as I personally wouldn't have interest to watch that long when someone else plays a game. Then there's the point, that a more speedier playthrough would probably dismiss most of the phonographs, newspapers and documents found in the game, which are there to build the story.




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

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.

That goes for those with an opposing view as well, yet they're labelled as fanboys and "gamers", with their more positive opinions dismissed as just seeking justification for their purchase.

I got 11½ hours of entertainment on my initial playthrough, and few hours on top of that for platinuming the game. I'm going to replay it later on, hoping they add a photo mode at some point. So, I certainly got my money's worth of it, but I can understand how some would think otherwise. I found the atmosphere so alluring, that I was willing to look past the flaws in the gameplay.

I was disappointed with the lycan encounters, and how few of them there were, but I also think that it often works well in horror-themed games and films, when the monsters aren't there all the time. The more familiar they become, the less effective they are. You don't see the werewolves in The Howling or the cenobites in Hellraiser all the time either, and you're against the humans more often in TLOU than the infected. The zombies in Resident Evil become all too familiar after a while, that without the introduction of hunters (and crimson heads in the remake) the game's fear factor wouldn't be the same towards the end. Hopefully RAD improve on the shortcomings if there is a sequel, and introduce more variety to the lycan encounters.
 
Top Bottom