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.
-
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
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.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
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.
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.
Pyramid head
Banned
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.
Well, Ryse has better gameplay at least.
Maxwell House
Member
Ryse is a fun game, imo. I definitely thought it didn't get enough accolades.
Who? Well, a guy that was called a speedrunner actually listened to every audio log he collected while doing his walkthrough.
Yeah, but he listened to them really quickly.
Ryse has a better story and it doesnt end on a cliff hanger. It also has multiplayer (but that was pissed away not being like that ps2 gladiator game).
Brad Grenz
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...
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
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?
I watched numerous playthroughs of the game before playing it myself. Yep, it was a bland cover-based shooter with too many cutscenes.
Maxwell House
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.
This is why I failed Calculus. This math is just too difficult for me.
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
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.
Seriously. He forgot all about reviewer's tilt, which would put the highest possible score at a 4.8.
Oh my god, I seriously hope you're joking
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
love angry joe game review gaf threads, he really does stir the pot and get ppl going.
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
LOLWAT?
0/10 means completely broken.
5/10 means half broken.
It is not that hard.
MilkyJoe
Member
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.
Langdon Alger
Banned
Movies don't have bugs, and a lot of them still get terrible ratings.
Maxwell House
Member
I should have put a smiley face. I was mocking an earlier post, that's all.
Tainted
Member
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
I think I do! CONSOLES SUCK ASS! PC MASTERRACE FTW!
Did I get that right?
What a joke...
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.
He even explained the 4. Why don't people just watch the video and actually listen to what he says?
5 to him is average, game is below average -> 4.
LeeRoyBrown
Banned
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
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.
You do understand that a review score is a personal opinion and not the result of a math equation, right?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Yeah, the pattern seems to be that Crytek can't make great games anymore.
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).
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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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.
Melchiah
Member
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.
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.
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.
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.