nelsonroyale
Member
I take it English is not their first language? Sounds like an Amazon review...
-
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 | Impressions Thread of not shooting the messenger.
- Thread starter BiGBoSSMk23
- Start date
I take it English is not their first language? Sounds like an Amazon review...
How is that him antagonising? Lol. It's literally him just asking for a more detailed response to explain what they thought looked bad, that goes beyond simple and vague "that looks painful" or "Ew. Sub-75 metascore, i'm calling it now." sort of commentary. He doesn't have to answer, but it would certainly be nice to know what they liked or disliked about it.
Nightengale
Member
I'm starting to wonder how many outlets got coloured by the 'length narrative' and let that narrative affect their perception of the final product.
It will be an interesting day today
I can't wait for the reviews
And especially for the proper impressions of the fellow embargo-tied Gaffers
I will be writing down a small personal piece. Not that I think anyone will be interested nor I think it will stand-out once the craziness unfold in full scale, but I want to do my part. This game deserves it.
I can't wait for the reviews
And especially for the proper impressions of the fellow embargo-tied Gaffers
I will be writing down a small personal piece. Not that I think anyone will be interested nor I think it will stand-out once the craziness unfold in full scale, but I want to do my part. This game deserves it.
Plenty. The biggest mistake Sony made was actually releasing this game early to any outlet whatsoever. Let this be a lesson, embargo is going to be broken left and right.
LapinAgile
Member
MGS: Ground zeroes had a similar amount of pre-release vitriol and "Youtube quarterbacks" I am just looking forward to informed opinions and not the rubberneckers looking for drama or to make cheap shots at something they haven't any interest in actually playing.
jellies_two
Member
based on the videogamer podcast and another youtube video they did, they are going to be. However they pay 49.99 in UK Pounds over there so I have some sympathy for the value for money proposition.
Also I think Steve Burns is doing the review and really he loves to go full negative on stuff, and basically has signalled already that he is going to put the boot in. Which I don't mind really because I think he is burned out and angry in general.
Every single one.
Nightengale
Member
Note that I said 'length narrative' and not 'length.' There's a difference.
It's fair for reviews to take into account a certain amount of value-for-money and length of product, especially if the review criteria include those factors into account.
But the narrative surrounding this particular title has reached a level of #concern that's unlike any of similar length products.
uomoartificiale
Member
Ok. Every time some writes "that looks great!", I'm going to respond "well, what's so great about that?!". Totally not antagonizing... lol
also, spoiler:
he disliked the gameplay
Always-honest
Banned
I was asking. I didn't watch. And i'm wondering what was painful to him. Painful is a pretty bold statement. Painful is when there is something really bad / embarrassing going on.
I wasn't asking you, by the way.
And ofcourse i want to like the game. I WANT to like any game. But i don't like every game unfortunately. So when people say the gameplay is ridiculous, painful and bad, i'm starting to doubt either the person or the game.
But i still don't know what was painful to him. I'm assuming the gameplay.
I am looking forward to the reviews as well. I hope it scores well just to see the fallout.
It's going to be hard to make a decision on whether to get the game or not as some reviewers will review the game on what they wanted it to be not what it is. I will be ignoring reviews that lower the score because of no multiplayer or complain about the length.
Bornstellar
Member
Can I just say, that the one thing that bothered me the most while watching the first chapter was
how damn casually the lycans are introduced, combined with how pedestrian they act in gameplay. :|
That is because they are "normally" existing in the world of the game for centuries before the Order plot begins.
IndoAssassin
Banned
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Andrew Pessino.
http://www.worldsfactory.net/2015/0...s-for-not-communicating-vision-the-order-1886
http://www.worldsfactory.net/2015/0...s-for-not-communicating-vision-the-order-1886
Bornstellar
Member
Doesn't change the fact that it was extremely
antihype seeing fantastical creatures turn into whack-a-mole dogs. And my understanding is that they are not "normal" for the populace at large. So IMO, it should be "special" for the player to see these creatures revealed for the first time, and they should present some interesting gameplay.
This is why we have PR folks.
Since the game releases on a friday instead of a tuesday there was no way to uphold that embargo.
FlutterPuffs
Member
The footage begins with a long sequence of the player sitting behind cover and shooting brown human enemies in a brown enviroment with typical firearms and nades. The enemies move in clunky patterns, don't seem to mind nades next to them, spawn from everywhere and storm the player in one exact same spot over and over again. Also there's a shining red exploding barrell. Serviceable is the absolute highest praise you could tive to that video.
Harsh criticism generally inspires more curiosity than ordinary praise, especially when mechanically what we're seeing is pretty tried and tested, for this specific genre in particular.
uomoartificiale
Member
So I read you right: you were "doubting" someone else, because of their opinion of some footage.
I'm totally entrenched in the sony camp from the ps2 era, I think this game looks great, I'm all about SP, and I probably play this game down the line, but the preventive defense force in arms to defend this unreleased game makes little sense me.
Always-honest
Banned
Yeah, you're the art-direction guy that only knows one colour and considers black a colour too, right?
I wasn't asking you either. What you describe sounds like a shooter.
Or the game. I need to hear from him though. If he has valid points that explain why that part was actually painful to watch, then it must be the game.
It could very well be. Again, i didn't watch. But sure. I kinda doubt it was actually PAINFUL.
Bornstellar
Member
It might be tried and tested from a general perspective, but that's only half the battle. That last 10% of polish makes a pretty massive difference. For example, something like active reload in Gears of War was a brilliant tiny addition that made the whole game that much more interesting and satisfying. There's also loads of enemy variety in the Gears games that is used to make each encounter unique from the last.
Great response, though personally I think they've been very clear right from the beginning about the kind of game this is, and where the focus lies. The biggest nay sayers are going to criticise whether they know it's the kind of game they're interested in or not, that's just part and parcel of vocalising ones opinions. I don't think Pessino could have prevented that. But I do think they could have helped their situation with better early interview answers, and better gameplay showings. Running that same tired demo over and over at different shows for example, was not a good look. Nor were the splices they showed at E3, Gamescom etc. Really some of the areas from recent trailers, needed to be shown from the beginning (Mayfair, more intense gunfights etc).
I cannot believe more games haven't implementated active reload. Such a good design feature. But more to The Order's stand out 10% mechanical pros, I'd imagine it's stuff like the lack of bullet spongeyness and impact realism, the gratifying gunplay, powerful sounding and feeling weapons, amount of gore etc.
You must mix me with someone else.
I just described what I saw since you hadn't watched the video. I wouldn't call it painful, but rather forgettable and unoriginal.
dr_rus
Member
8-10 hours single player campaign length is rather typical for today AAA titles so bashing the game because of that is the most stupid and unprofessional thing a reviewer can do. So I'm rather interested in seeing who of them will bite here because that would be kinda indicative.
Those barrels are... so red.
I watched a guy do this part on twitch before the stream was shutdown, really turned me off.
I'm grabbing it tomorrow and will play through to completion because I like to form my own decisions however I'm not expecting much to be honest. I'm interested in the graphics and story sure, but the gameplay looks mundane at best.
I guess we will all know soon enough. Bring on tomorrow!
Always-honest
Banned
Sorry, i thought you were the guy who said the game was just brown and black colours.
I could very well be wrong.
But what you described is what we kinda know it would be, right? A third person shooter with cover. Does it do that good or is it done in a really bad way?
Ofcourse i agree i'd love momorable settings and gameplay. But there are some levels in any game that i forgot.
Bornstellar
Member
The fundamental problem is that none of that is mechanical, that's all experiential. Which means that unlike well designed mechanics, it becomes less impactful with time.
I'm almost inclined to believe that this had an overall positive effect on the 'length narrative' as outlets will try to contrast their view from 'forum enthusiasts'. It has always been an 'us' vs 'them' situation, so I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of outlets actually downplay game length as an issue.
Nah the game has a lot going on visually (even though that video was not the best example), usually I love my games clear and colourful but the concept of this games visuals are masterfully executed (which is why I need to play it at least once).
And if you expect standard TPS action then it looks fine.
How is that experimental? The enemies either take an entire clip of gunfire to down or they don't (health points presumably being pre assigned). Headshots with lesser weapons are either insta kills or they aren't. Weapons either sound or feel punchy or they don't. Etc. Biggest issue I have with a lot of shooters, some really great ones, is the inconsequential nature of weaponry. Aside from things like shotguns and sniper rifles, they often just don't sound or feel powerful enough. I think The Order is closer to Killzone 2 or Battlefield 4 in the regard that weapons are meatier and have more force, impact and kick back, even the lesser ones, and kill pretty swiftly. They just lack Killzones impressive hit detection system.
I think The Order's issues based on what I've seen, could be more so a lack of variety. But I can't really know till I play it.
Bornstellar
Member
I predict most negative points won't be about overall length, but about the narrative and the gameplay variety.
CryTharsis
Banned
Take me to your dealer. ;-)
Always-honest
Banned
I'm hoping on a great looking third person shooter and a game that does the shooting and cover mechanics well. From what i read, some people think there is too little gameplay. That is a bit of a worry for me. Since cutscenes are unimmersive imo.
I don't mind well done QTE-s though.
I also want to play it. But i'm trying to decide when and at what price.
Bornstellar
Member
Having enemies with more or less health is not a mechanic. The player is still shooting them, how much they have to shoot them before the go down does not make a significant difference in the act of shooting. Sounding punchy again has no effect on what the player actually does. They are still shooting. That's what I mean when I say mechanical vs. experiential. It's the difference between changing how you engage with the game and how you feel doing whatever you are doing. I'm not saying nailing the "experience" isn't important. Just that ultimately without engaging mechanics the experience can fall flat. For example, it's the difference between someone playing Titanfall like Call of Duty and becoming tired of the novelty of experience, and someone playing the game and taking full advantage of the mechanical complexity. I'm still playing because there is still mechanical depth I've not fully explored.
BTW, shouldn't we all move to the OT? Or are we keeping this thread for all impressions?
We'll know soon enough
We'll know soon enough
I'm not really sure I follow. Putting aside active reload which we've discussed, what would you say games like Gears of War or Resident Evil 4 offer in their gunplay and combat, that ticks this experiential box you speak of, that The Order lacks?
Edit: All this time I thought you were saying experimental lol.
This would be interesting. But somehow I doubt it.
Also, while I do not have a problem with 6-10 hours (whatever time I need) if it is quality gametime, I do think it is something that needs to be clear to the people buying it and let them decide for themselves.
I guess I won't be awake when shit hits the fan. Brace yourselves for impact y'all. Will join you if Gaf hasn't exploded yet. Gnite!
Agreed
Agreed
Read again, he´s not talking "experimental", but "experiental" - big difference. ;-)
How?
I mean, what should be done for that?
Having a back box that states "average playtime" and "repeating value" next to resolution and aspect ratio?
Bornstellar
Member
It's been ages since I've played Gears so I'd feel remiss in trying to explain it with a hazy memory. So watch this instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piM6SJe7z4Y
There's a lot in enemy variety / behavior. Planting cover / grenades also provides interesting player driven strategic opportunities. And Gears actually had fairly open arenas providing interesting (and often necessary) flanking opportunities.
One flaw that is immediately apparent in the Order is that the most variety you get in a single encounter is
regular soldier and a heavy soldier (who soaks more damage and does more damage). There is NO interplay between lycans and soldiers, for example
EDIT: Watching that Gears video makes my ache for a new good Gears game...
How?
I mean, what should be done for that?
Having a back box that states "average playtime" and "repeating value" next to resolution and aspect ratio?
Haha, no. I mean the media offcourse, in their reviews. They are there to inform/advice potential consumers, after all.
Nah it wont get an 'Avoid' on EG, 'Avoid' is only for terrible almost broken games, their review will be harsh but only in text, it wont get labelled, i believe that in their old reviewing system they would give it a 6/10 or even a 5/10, you can say that The Order is saved at least when it comes to EG review