Support NeoGAF

[Loudninja]

Since The Order are immortal in the ageing sense it would be cool if maybe the game actually starts with Galahad in present day, or World War 2 or something having flashbacks to 1886. Something that would completely catch us all off guard when we start the game for the first time. I hope there's some big surprises story wise in this. I await the epic.

Sorry but the game is call The Order 1886 don't except another year

Its really the whole point of the game.

 

[nib95]

Exactly. How can one denounce a feature and praise them under the same standard I will never know.

But why do all third person shooters need to have sandboxy open ended combat scenarios? Why can't some just do focused arenas as their forte, the way Gears did?

The AI complaint I agree with (though the demo was probably set to easy), but the gunplay, use of QTEs etc, I can't see a problem with. A lot of people seem to rag on QTE's for the hell of it. We had a thread the other day about QTE's and their cinematic appeal, and the criticisms against them were not very strong imo. They definitely have their place, depending on the situation and design focus in a particular scene. For example, if you want an a-typical close quarters combat scene, with multiple close up camera angle switches, edits, cuts etc, to show specially directed close ups of facial expressions, impact points, objects etc, having the sequence as a QTE generally serves such a segment better. Especially if the combat options offered are un ordinary and not part of one's regular move set.

 

[Ol No Bones]

Hope it turns out well. I'm not very confident of that though.

 

[dEvAnGeL]

i love how some people say this is just a basic TPS and has nothing that screams "NEXT GEN GAMEPLAY", i will love if that criticism was constructive, what would it be next gen gameplay? game looks ace, getting day 1

 

[Ganondolf]

This game looks like gears of war in a different setting (I do like GoW, so im not complaining).

The very start of the trailer annoys me, when the guy says its going to be the best game of the year (no chance).

hopefully it will be as good as a gears of war game.

 

[Cave Johnson]

But why do all third person shooters need to have sandboxy open ended combat scenarios? Why can't some just do focused arenas as their forte, the way Gears did?

The AI complaint I agree with (though the demo was probably set to easy), but the gunplay, use of QTEs etc, I can't see a problem with. A lot of people seem to rag on QTE's for the hell of it. We had a thread the other day about QTE's and their cinematic appeal, and the criticisms against them were not very strong imo. They definitely have their place, depending on the situation and design focus in a particular scene. For example, if you want an a-typical close quarters combat scene, with multiple close up camera angle switches, edits, cuts etc, to show specially directed close ups of facial expressions, impact points, objects etc, having the sequence as a QTE generally serves such a segment better. Especially if the combat options offered are un ordinary and not part of one's regular move set.

You do realize what you're arguing for can be applied to Uncharted 4? Why does Uncharted 4 need to deviate when clearly by the recent positivity of the previous trilogy laid the groundwork?

The issue here is that you can't treat games in their own vacuum - the issues in one can be addressed in another. The sheer irony of it all is that RAD is taking inspiration FROM Uncharted 2 and yet it's quite evident that ND decided to push further in their design while RAD seems to be content playing it safe. It does backfire, as the more and more games are starting to introduce new elements (see Dying Light, Unity, etc) in their design; the criticism of "all-to-familiar" to last-gen mechanics are going to get noticeable which is what EDGE is trying to point out.

Calling a spade-a-spade is not concern trolling nor is it an invalid criticism. It stands out because IT stands out. Period. It's good that there are people hyped up about the game, but that's all left to their own personal value. The rest who sees everything as a whole are going to start comparing - after all, it is a competition to reach the best consumer value possible.

That being said, I hope TO does turn out well in the end. It would be a shame to see such promising presentation be bogged down because of a few "preview" design cues. Maybe the full game would finally be the impression that can be overall judged accurately.

 

[DieH@rd]

This is all in-game, gameplay visuals right? no added AA or any effects to cut scenes?

They are maybe enhancing some effects during custscenes, but everyone who uses realtime cutscenes does so. AI and other processes are not active then, so there is headroom to make the game a bit more pretty.

Most important thing is, Order does not uses prerendered cinematics, everything is realtime, and as far we saw so far, gameplay segments are as awesome looking as cinematics. Same models are used for everything with totally seamless switches between gameplay and cinematics.

 

[Altima]

Wolfenstein get shit load of praise without any fancy thing in the game except you can 2H equip any weapons in the game.

 

[Dictator93]

Wolfenstein get shit load of praise without any fancy thing in the game except you can 2H equip any weapons in the game.

Wolfenstein has some of the most satisfying weapon effects / weapon damage / weapons of the entire generation. That is pretty fancy.
Also, it respects the player's intelligence in terms of difficulty. It definitely isnt a run of the mill FPS.

 

[nib95]

You do realize what you're arguing for can be applied to Uncharted 4? Why does Uncharted 4 need to deviate when clearly by the recent positivity of the previous trilogy laid the groundwork?

The issue here is that you can't treat games in their own vacuum - the issues in one can be addressed in another. The sheer irony of it all is that RAD is taking inspiration FROM Uncharted 2 and yet it's quite evident that ND decided to push further in their design while RAD seems to be content playing it safe. It does backfire, as the more and more games are starting to introduce new elements (see Dying Light, Unity, etc) in their design; the criticism of "all-to-familiar" to last-gen mechanics are going to get noticeable which is what EDGE is trying to point out.

Calling a spade-a-spade is not concern trolling nor is it an invalid criticism. It stands out because IT stands out. Period. It's good that there are people hyped up about the game, but that's all left to their own personal value. The rest who sees everything as a whole are going to start comparing - after all, it is a competition to reach the best consumer value possible.

That being said, I hope TO does turn out well in the end. It would be a shame to see such promising presentation be bogged down because of a few "preview" design cues. Maybe the full game would finally be the impression that can be overall judged accurately.

First of all, I don't know where concern trolling came in to this, I never even mentioned such a thing or brought it up.

With respect to Uncharted 4 making those changes, I'd argue that was different, because they are changes built in to the same franchise. Sequels in franchises do tend to offer subtle design differences in new releases, to avoid risking repetition or being too similar to the last. Made worse by the fact that the game will still control and feel similar, with similar characters, a similarly narrative mood, similar emphasis on set pieces and all the rest. It will very much follow an Uncharted flavour, despite the now more sandboxy nature of the gunplay.

The Order is a very different kettle of fish. It doesn't necessarily need open ended sandboxy gun battles as it's differentiating factor. It has many other things that can do that, despite remaining more linear in it's gunplay focus. Things such as more imaginative weapons, more gore, a better variety of enemies, a more unique art direction and setting, lore, a different kind of narrative and so on.

One point I'm trying to make is that criticising The Order for simply having QTE's or linear combat scenario's I think is pointless and unconstructive. People need to stop reviewing games for not being what they want them to be, and instead judge them for what they actually are, or how well they do what they were designed to do. The more important question is how well the game does linear combat engagement, and how well are it's QTE's implemented. The gunplay thus far looks solid. Lots of weight, impact, gore, kickback, feedback, particle effects and recoil (which I am particularly fond of), and the few QTE's we've seen, seem pretty well implemented too, eg the fight in the airship cockpit.

 

[florin3k3]

At 1:46 you can see his arm clip through the weapon that is on his back. Is it that hard to get rid of that? (In general, not just this game) Just curious.

 

[Dargor]

At 1:46 you can see his arm clip through the weapon that is on his back. Is it that hard to get rid of that? (In general, not just this game) Just curious.

Yes it is. Way too costly to get rid of it entirely.

 

[Chuck]

lol what is this video. Is it 2004 or something?

"This cover shooter is like nothing I've ever experienced before!!!!!!!"

 

[djshauny]

Looks fantastic as allways

 

[Cave Johnson]

First of all, I don't know where concern trolling came in to this, I never even mentioned such a thing or brought it up.

With respect to Uncharted 4 making those changes, I'd argue that was different, because they are changes built in to the same franchise. Sequels in franchises do tend to offer subtle design differences in new releases, to avoid risking repetition or being too similar to the last. Made worse by the fact that the game will still control and feel similar, with similar characters, a similarly narrative mood, similar emphasis on set pieces and all the rest. It will very much follow an Uncharted flavour, despite the now more sandboxy nature of the gunplay.

The concern trolling stems from the fact that people are reactionary to EDGE's negative preview and implying as such. As for your Uncharted example, it makes no sense: This isn't a "subtle" change - it's a complete overhaul of the mechanics. What it has in common with the previous gen is the tone and theme.

The Order is a very different kettle of fish. It doesn't necessarily need open ended sandboxy gun battles as it's differentiating factor. It has many other things that can do that, despite remaining more linear in it's gunplay focus. Things such as more imaginative weapons, more gore, a better variety of enemies, a more unique art direction and setting, lore, a different kind of narrative and so on.

The Order is intended to be a "cinematic" shooter. And all of these criticisms are pointing out how their mechanics are not complimenting their vision. Secondly, sandbox is a feature based on how much space agency is available; it can be scaled up or down depending how wide the options are available to the player. It's not a "genre" exclusive as you point out any more than a TPS can't be in a platformer (i.e. Uncharted).

As I point out earlier, I find it bizarre that you can criticize and praise and aspect in the same sentence. Just earlier you said that repetition and familiar controls can be a detriment to a game and yet widening the sandbox of a shooter addresses some of those issues and you find that problematic?

When they designed such mechanics to bring in that type of audience don't you think that the "sequelization" stagnation applies here? A guy coming off GeoW transitioning to the TO is like playing an UC sequel with the exact same mechanics. That's why you can see criticisms like that. Who is it catering to, the cinematics crowd, then why aren't the gameplay systems supporting that (according to recent previews)? Is it the shooter crowd, then why aren't they "subtly" designing new elements to keep it from being too "repetitive" as you call it?

If none applies above, than what is the focus of the game? These are all valid concerns. Simply because TO is a "new" IP, doesn't mean it can be an isolated in design. If it plays like a generic shooter and controls like one, then how is it different than being just "another" shooter sequel in general? Simply having a different aesthetic would not change that. Can you imagine TLOU playing like Uncharted? I sure can't.

One point I'm trying to make is that criticising The Order for simply having QTE's or linear combat scenario's I think is pointless and unconstructive. People need to stop reviewing games for not being what they want them to be, and instead judge them for what they actually are, or how well they do what they were designed to do. The more important question is how well the game does linear combat engagement, and how well are it's QTE's implemented. The gunplay thus far looks solid. Lots of weight, impact, gore, kickback, feedback, particle effects and recoil (which I am particularly fond of), and the few QTE's we've seen, seem pretty well implemented too, eg the fight in the airship cockpit.

I think that's what recent previews are trying to do. The QTE issue doesn't match up to the other concerning elements of the game. But it seems as long as it is a negative preview, it become what apologists want it to be, not what the criticism is concerning about ironically.

 

[prwxv3]

In regards to Rise of the Tomb Raider...

http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/t...ntent_for_tomb_raider_definitive_edition.html



Seems like Tomb Raider 2's design will be chasing the 'open-world audience.'

It seems kinda ironic that Amy Hennig's Uncharted 4 was implied to also be doing more open-worldly stuff, before Bruce/Neil came in and said "step the fuck back, everyone."



My main criticism of the entire EDGE preview was that 'gameplay' was talked about in like only two sentences. There was scant detail in explaining how the gunplay feels.

Thank god for this.

 

[drexplora]

soooo... is the water in the gutter being simulated realtime?
or is it just some fancy shader/transparency effects?

 

[Y2Kev]

The concern trolling stems from the fact that people are reactionary to EDGE's negative preview and implying as such. As for your Uncharted example, it makes no sense: This isn't a "subtle" change - it's a complete overhaul of the mechanics. What it has in common with the previous gen is the tone and theme.




The Order is intended to be a "cinematic" shooter. And all of these criticisms are pointing out how their mechanics are not complimenting their vision. Secondly, sandbox is a feature based on how much space agency is available; it can be scaled up or down depending how wide the options are available to the player. It's not a "genre" exclusive as you point out any more than a TPS can't be in a platformer (i.e. Uncharted).

As I point out earlier, I find it bizarre that you can criticize and praise and aspect in the same sentence. Just earlier you said that repetition and familiar controls can be a detriment to a game and yet widening the sandbox of a shooter addresses some of those issues and you find that problematic?

When they designed such mechanics to bring in that type of audience don't you think that the "sequelization" stagnation applies here? A guy coming off GeoW transitioning to the TO is like playing an UC sequel with the exact same mechanics. That's why you can see criticisms like that. Who is it catering to, the cinematics crowd, then why aren't the gameplay systems supporting that (according to recent previews)? Is it the shooter crowd, then why aren't they "subtly" designing new elements to keep it from being too "repetitive" as you call it?

If none applies above, than what is the focus of the game? These are all valid concerns. Simply because TO is a "new" IP, doesn't mean it can be an isolated in design. If it plays like a generic shooter and controls like one, then how is it different than being just "another" shooter sequel in general? Simply having a different aesthetic would not change that. Can you imagine TLOU playing like Uncharted? I sure can't.




I think that's what recent previews are trying to do. The QTE issue doesn't match up to the other concerning elements of the game. But it seems as long as it is a negative preview, it become what apologists want it to be, not what the criticism is concerning about ironically.

You do realize what you're arguing for can be applied to Uncharted 4? Why does Uncharted 4 need to deviate when clearly by the recent positivity of the previous trilogy laid the groundwork?

The issue here is that you can't treat games in their own vacuum - the issues in one can be addressed in another. The sheer irony of it all is that RAD is taking inspiration FROM Uncharted 2 and yet it's quite evident that ND decided to push further in their design while RAD seems to be content playing it safe. It does backfire, as the more and more games are starting to introduce new elements (see Dying Light, Unity, etc) in their design; the criticism of "all-to-familiar" to last-gen mechanics are going to get noticeable which is what EDGE is trying to point out.

Calling a spade-a-spade is not concern trolling nor is it an invalid criticism. It stands out because IT stands out. Period. It's good that there are people hyped up about the game, but that's all left to their own personal value. The rest who sees everything as a whole are going to start comparing - after all, it is a competition to reach the best consumer value possible.

That being said, I hope TO does turn out well in the end. It would be a shame to see such promising presentation be bogged down because of a few "preview" design cues. Maybe the full game would finally be the impression that can be overall judged accurately.

I'm of both minds on this one. I think we can't look at Uncharted 2 -> Uncharted 4 as a purely positive evolution just because they've opened the encounter design and added in more traversal mechanics. It's possible the two directors just wanted to try something different. S&D have directed at least three TPS games now and they're pretty thoughtful designers. It's not out of the realm of possibility they just wanted to make three different games rather than make the same game three times. Of course, Uncharted 4 could end up sucking, I suppose, and we'd lament the "deviation" rather than treat it on its face as a positive.

I think when I look at my other linear, cinematic shooters that have "evolved" to have more open encounter design, I can't specifically say they've always improved as the mechanics have opened up. I much prefer Gears 1 to Gears 2 despite the second game dramatically changing the scope of the average encounter.

There's value in simple, plain cover shooting if it's done well.

If one cinematic shooter is progressing in design and the other isn't, then it stands to reason that there must be a base line to where your standards lie.

My standards are such that I can like both types and don't necessarily look at one type as an evolution of the other, particularly without having really played the game.

I can't even pretend to know if this game will be good at what it attempts. It might be pretty terrible. But I don't know if I want to evaluate it on the same level as a more open game that has different feeling weapons and characters just yet. I guess sometimes I like a really limited sandbox.

More importantly I just noticed this thread is The Order 1866 and not 1886.

 

[T.O.P]

Do we know anything so far about the lenght of the game?

 

[calcetinvolador]

I hope it is something like 10-12 hours.

 

[Primethius]

Do we know anything so far about the lenght of the game?

8-10 hours.

 

[OsirisBlack]

8-10 hours.

Seems lower than what was reported didn't they say around 12 hours? Either way it will take me a while as I will play this like I did TOLU and take my time with it.

 

[QaaQer]

They are maybe enhancing some effects during custscenes, but everyone who uses realtime cutscenes does so. AI and other processes are not active then, so there is headroom to make the game a bit more pretty.

Most important thing is, Order does not uses prerendered cinematics, everything is realtime, and as far we saw so far, gameplay segments are as awesome looking as cinematics. Same models are used for everything with totally seamless switches between gameplay and cinematics.

That was one of the things that wrecked max Payne 3's immersion, have one gun eqipped that magically changed to another because prerendered cutscene.

 

[RoboPlato]

The concern trolling stems from the fact that people are reactionary to EDGE's negative preview and implying as such. As for your Uncharted example, it makes no sense: This isn't a "subtle" change - it's a complete overhaul of the mechanics. What it has in common with the previous gen is the tone and theme.

The Order is intended to be a "cinematic" shooter. And all of these criticisms are pointing out how their mechanics are not complimenting their vision. Secondly, sandbox is a feature based on how much space agency is available; it can be scaled up or down depending how wide the options are available to the player. It's not a "genre" exclusive as you point out any more than a TPS can't be in a platformer (i.e. Uncharted).

As I point out earlier, I find it bizarre that you can criticize and praise and aspect in the same sentence. Just earlier you said that repetition and familiar controls can be a detriment to a game and yet widening the sandbox of a shooter addresses some of those issues and you find that problematic?

When they designed such mechanics to bring in that type of audience don't you think that the "sequelization" stagnation applies here? A guy coming off GeoW transitioning to the TO is like playing an UC sequel with the exact same mechanics. That's why you can see criticisms like that. Who is it catering to, the cinematics crowd, then why aren't the gameplay systems supporting that (according to recent previews)? Is it the shooter crowd, then why aren't they "subtly" designing new elements to keep it from being too "repetitive" as you call it?

Many of those games that have evolved over time have built on a solid foundation through 3+ full releases. The combat in this game looks very strong, which is the most important base of a shooter. While many things that you mention are things I would like to see in this game, particularly more involved melee mechanics, I don't think that constant innovation and evolution is the only way to make a good game and it would be for more dangerous for a studio who has never made a console game or a third person shooter before to really push the mold. Tried and true is reliable and is the best way to approach a new IP in an established genre. With the engine, assets, and combat mechanics in place they can evolve with sequels. Trying to be overly ambitious when making a game in a new genre for the studio can be a recipe for failure and would require complete overhauls in possible future installments instead of building on what was previously done well. Polished and familiar is just as much quality as new and different.

 

[QaaQer]

Wolfenstein has some of the most satisfying weapon effects / weapon damage / weapons of the entire generation. That is pretty fancy.
Also, it respects the player's intelligence in terms of difficulty. It definitely isnt a run of the mill FPS.

And story. I loved the ending and the song they played during the credits. Getting

Spoiler

misty eyed

in a Wolfenstien fps is just so bizarre and unexpected.

 

[Luke_Wal]

Since The Order are immortal in the ageing sense it would be cool if maybe the game actually starts with Galahad in present day, or World War 2 or something having flashbacks to 1886. Something that would completely catch us all off guard when we start the game for the first time. I hope there's some big surprises story wise in this. I await the epic.

That would be awesome. I'm really excited for this game the more I think about it.

 

[Melchiah]

Wolfenstein get shit load of praise without any fancy thing in the game except you can 2H equip any weapons in the game.

Wolfenstein has some of the most satisfying weapon effects / weapon damage / weapons of the entire generation. That is pretty fancy.
Also, it respects the player's intelligence in terms of difficulty. It definitely isnt a run of the mill FPS.

To my eyes The Order's weapons and their effects look far better than Wolfenstein's, which from my point of view was one of the most overrated games of last year. Its difficulty level and frustrating checkpoints made it chore to play. There was nothing intelligent about, it just demanded perseverance to repeat sections.

 

[XxRampage07xX]

I don't know man, but I'm getting some Saving Private Ryan's D-Day vibe from the battlefield scene in that gif. I'm will be very happy if I can shoot a human wave of enemies in that section

 

[Handy Fake]

I don't know man, but I'm getting some Saving Private Ryan's D-Day from the battlefield scene in that gif. I'm will be very happy if I can shoot a human wave of enemies in that section

I love the way Isabeau breaks cover in that .gif.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

But why do all third person shooters need to have sandboxy open ended combat scenarios? Why can't some just do focused arenas as their forte, the way Gears did?

The AI complaint I agree with (though the demo was probably set to easy), but the gunplay, use of QTEs etc, I can't see a problem with. A lot of people seem to rag on QTE's for the hell of it. We had a thread the other day about QTE's and their cinematic appeal, and the criticisms against them were not very strong imo. They definitely have their place, depending on the situation and design focus in a particular scene. For example, if you want an a-typical close quarters combat scene, with multiple close up camera angle switches, edits, cuts etc, to show specially directed close ups of facial expressions, impact points, objects etc, having the sequence as a QTE generally serves such a segment better. Especially if the combat options offered are un ordinary and not part of one's regular move set.

TLOU has shown that you don't really need elaborate QTEs to create context-sensitive visceral close quarter combat. So far the game looks alright but there are things like melee grab being a timed button press that rubs me the wrong way, hopefully they'll show more footage that can wow.

 

[Putty]

Like a few have mentioned I shall also be taking my time. I want to lap up the atmosphere which clearly this has a huge amount of! This also seems like my kind of game for repeated playthroughs, just to further appreciate what's on screen.

 

[zychi]

Preordered, like that it comes out on a Friday.

If this came out in Oct/Nov it would fail. Mid feb exclusive? Should sell well. Im breaking my gaming budget by preordering, but figure Ill get two solid weekends out of it and then I can sell it.

 

[schaft0620]

8-10 hours.

Source?

 

[luca_29_bg]

soooo... is the water in the gutter being simulated realtime?
or is it just some fancy shader/transparency effects?

it's me or the water run through him without any physic or collision animation ?

 

[OsirisBlack]

Is there any way to record the theme from the PS4 Order 1886 dynamic theme? I have it but want to listen to it when I'm not posted in front of my television.

 

[Betty]

Source?

Shinobi says it's similar to the first Uncharted which is around 6-10 hours long.

 

[ron_bato]

Source?

Shinobi's exact post:

8-10 hours, 10-12 if you like to take your time, take in the sights and a explore a bit.

Difficulty will also change things around.

 

[kyser73]

You do realize what you're arguing for can be applied to Uncharted 4? Why does Uncharted 4 need to deviate when clearly by the recent positivity of the previous trilogy laid the groundwork?

The issue here is that you can't treat games in their own vacuum - the issues in one can be addressed in another. The sheer irony of it all is that RAD is taking inspiration FROM Uncharted 2 and yet it's quite evident that ND decided to push further in their design while RAD seems to be content playing it safe. It does backfire, as the more and more games are starting to introduce new elements (see Dying Light, Unity, etc) in their design; the criticism of "all-to-familiar" to last-gen mechanics are going to get noticeable which is what EDGE is trying to point out.

Calling a spade-a-spade is not concern trolling nor is it an invalid criticism. It stands out because IT stands out. Period. It's good that there are people hyped up about the game, but that's all left to their own personal value. The rest who sees everything as a whole are going to start comparing - after all, it is a competition to reach the best consumer value possible.

That being said, I hope TO does turn out well in the end. It would be a shame to see such promising presentation be bogged down because of a few "preview" design cues. Maybe the full game would finally be the impression that can be overall judged accurately.

It's precisely this kind of 'holistic' thinking that led to some of the more idiotic criticisms of DC, so I tend to swerve around those kinds of review to look at ones which focus on how well the games does what it does.

 

[Cave Johnson]

I'm of both minds on this one. I think we can't look at Uncharted 2 -> Uncharted 4 as a purely positive evolution just because they've opened the encounter design and added in more traversal mechanics. It's possible the two directors just wanted to try something different. S&D have directed at least three TPS games now and they're pretty thoughtful designers. It's not out of the realm of possibility they just wanted to make three different games rather than make the same game three times. Of course, Uncharted 4 could end up sucking, I suppose, and we'd lament the "deviation" rather than treat it on its face as a positive.

I think when I look at my other linear, cinematic shooters that have "evolved" to have more open encounter design, I can't specifically say they've always improved as the mechanics have opened up. I much prefer Gears 1 to Gears 2 despite the second game dramatically changing the scope of the average encounter.

There's value in simple, plain cover shooting if it's done well.

The reason I pointing out a complete "overall" is that there was another user who put out a list of mechanics from GI. One of which is that getting from point A to point B is no longer a linear but rather designed as a puzzle. This is actually more in tune with the original Tomb Raider's design when you think about it. There's also that feature where climb x before ledge breaks off trope is no longer scripted but reacts to your momentum and the wall pick is designed to be flexible and such.

When you compare those features back-to-back you'll realize that these are the mechanics that defined Uncharted but no longer resembles them. One is designed as placeholder for the series, the latest one takes those and rewrite how they are utilized. This is of course those features are assumed to be accurate.

My standards are such that I can like both types and don't necessarily look at one type as an evolution of the other, particularly without having really played the game.

I can't even pretend to know if this game will be good at what it attempts. It might be pretty terrible. But I don't know if I want to evaluate it on the same level as a more open game that has different feeling weapons and characters just yet. I guess sometimes I like a really limited sandbox.

More importantly I just noticed this thread is The Order 1866 and not 1886.

I'll only apply such standards of we're comparing different gen. I can make a distinction between a shooter from the Doom era and one today and judge them accordingly. What I meant to say was in the context of "current-gen", I start making comparisons.

Many of those games that have evolved over time have built on a solid foundation through 3+ full releases. The combat in this game looks very strong, which is the most important base of a shooter. While many things that you mention are things I would like to see in this game, particularly more involved melee mechanics, I don't think that constant innovation and evolution is the only way to make a good game and it would be for more dangerous for a studio who has never made a console game or a third person shooter before to really push the mold. Tried and true is reliable and is the best way to approach a new IP in an established genre. With the engine, assets, and combat mechanics in place they can evolve with sequels. Trying to be overly ambitious when making a game in a new genre for the studio can be a recipe for failure and would require complete overhauls in possible future installments instead of building on what was previously done well. Polished and familiar is just as much quality as new and different.

While I do agree with this notion, I apply them differently depending on the developers pedigree and design philosophy. I distinctly remember the CA of TO taking inspiration from UC2's building scene and so far, I have seen nothing in their trailers that resembles that. Maybe it will in the full game but when ND is able to do showcase it months before I find it hard to believe they will keep it under wraps till release.

It's precisely this kind of 'holistic' thinking that led to some of the more idiotic criticisms of DC, so I tend to swerve around those kinds of review to look at ones which focus on how well the games does what it does.

And you're just as guilty for being to dismissive. What is this "holistic" thinking? Aren't gamers allowed to have standards given the limited time and budget they have for playing games? No, it seems you don't want people to access their previews for games. You prefer they see the positive than overlook the negative. We had a reviewer who had that kind of thinking recently on AC: Unity and look what happens, he destroyed his integrity as a reviewer but also willing criticize the issues 50-+ hours into the game that people have been pointing out in the beginning. Yeah... No.

 

[Fady K]

Now *this* was a great, great trailer. Please don't suck. Please be great actually.

 

[Cyborg]

I hope the game turns out to be good. I want to support this team at full price!
If it becomes a mediocore game I will need to wait till it hits budget

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I haven't played the game, just engaged in a lot of conversations and seen more than your fair share. I think reviewers will be hard on it based on how reviews are today. I think they'll dock points for not "innovating enough" or having 'standard third person gameplay" or some such. Of course I don't agree with this line of thinking if it ends up how it reviews.

Based on what I know, the narrative is super strong. I'm not bringing the game down at all. If you're looking for a linear, cinematic, solid third person shooter with a strong narrative, gorgeous visuals/physics and punchy, fun shooting in a badass alternate Victorian London setting, with a bit of horror elements thrown in, you'll be happy. I am and that's why I'm hyped as fuck.

Good stuff. I think I'm gonna have to pre-order this; sounds exactly like the kind of game I'll enjoy. And I find the setting really intriguing too, which definitely helps.

 

[DieH@rd]

soooo... is the water in the gutter being simulated realtime?
or is it just some fancy shader/transparency effects?

Hint: everything in game rendering is just an elaborate trick. Devs try to fake as much as possible as long as that fakery can look good and does not requires lots of resources.

So no, there is absolutely no need for that water to be realtime. But if they want to make it really good, they can do what Ryse did for enviroment cloth/water/destruction - simulate that water on a bigass server, record one instance when it looked good and then playback the recording during gameplay [effect will every time look excellent, but same].

 

[luca_29_bg]

Hint: everything in game rendering is just an elaborate trick. Devs try to fake as much as possible as long as that fakery can look good and does not requires lots of resources.

So no, there is absolutely no need for that water to be realtime. But if they want to make it really good, they can do what Ryse did for enviroment cloth/water/destruction - simulate that water on a bigass server, record one instance when it looked good and then playback the recording during gameplay [effect will every time look excellent, but same].

so there's no collision with the water when touch him, right ?....i'm sad...they can use a little gpu compute for just that little water

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Not happy with estimated length. It took me around 20 hours to beat games like The Last Of Us and Tomb Raider the first time so maybe my play time will be longer.

 

[MrHoot]

My main issue that I had with the Order back then when I also played it back in gamescom it that the game seems to lack any kind of trust towards the player, and every chance it gets to shine through gameplay, it then gets downplayed for the sake of the cinematic experience.

Examples: I got to play around wtih the thermite gun. The thermite gun is a pretty cool gun on paper and also how it's been rendered in game. Spread some thermite, set it on fire, it's great to get these nagging ennemies behind the cover.

The problem is that first of all, the game is very selective in which weapons it wants to ALLOW you to have. Multiple time will it cut away and force you to use a specific weapon for a specific scene. Why ? Because the script calls for it. And it doesnt' trust the player to make it's own decision

Second problem is that while the gun is very cool, the way the enemy spawns and how the pacing is done render it completely useless except for one purpose: completing the one little specific action. At this point it's a disguised prompt of "Press F to light this on fire to progress". You can kill ennemies and set them on fire, but they'll be right back up or replaced by another bunch of faceless humanoids. So actively fighting them is meaningless, they'll keep coming back

Added to that the little scenes like looking through your binoculars. You think you actively have control during that ? It just looks for you and poitns straight to the point of interest. You just have to gaze while they talk, and then the game resumes. There's almost no interaction going on except slightly moving about. The game, time and time again, takes away either the control or choice from you just so it can shove the story in the most blatant possible way. And that's only in the segments i've been able to play. And what i've seen at the PSX for instance and that it seems pretty much the same. Shootbang your way in a bit in a narrow corrider, cutscene, now shootbang but with this weapon, more cutscene and or/qte because heck, we gotta show all the animation that our artists did, we don't pay them for nothing.

Added to that the letterboxing which actually diminishes the experience as looking around feels cramped and claustrophobic, even in wider spaces. Not like there was much to explore since the game takes you (sometimes automatically) from point A to B anyway.

I guess if people just want a story fed with a minimum of downtime possible to them, that's fine I guess. But for me, The order so far seems like it could be a treat to my eyes but a deception to my brain

 

[DieH@rd]

so there's no collision with the water when touch him, right ?....i'm sad...they can use a little gpu compute for just that little water

Who knows what they are using. We only have one incredibly small snippet of video.

 

[hammertomb]

My main issue that I had with the Order back then when I also played it back in gamescom it that the game seems to lack any kind of trust towards the player, and every chance it gets to shine through gameplay, it then gets downplayed for the sake of the cinematic experience.

Examples: I got to play around wtih the thermite gun. The thermite gun is a pretty cool gun on paper and also how it's been rendered in game. Spread some thermite, set it on fire, it's great to get these nagging ennemies behind the cover.

The problem is that first of all, the game is very selective in which weapons it wants to ALLOW you to have. Multiple time will it cut away and force you to use a specific weapon for a specific scene. Why ? Because the script calls for it. And it doesnt' trust the player to make it's own decision

Second problem is that while the gun is very cool, the way the enemy spawns and how the pacing is done render it completely useless except for one purpose: completing the one little specific action. At this point it's a disguised prompt of "Press F to light this on fire to progress". You can kill ennemies and set them on fire, but they'll be right back up or replaced by another bunch of faceless humanoids. So actively fighting them is meaningless, they'll keep coming back

Added to that the little scenes like looking through your binoculars. You think you actively have control during that ? It just looks for you and poitns straight to the point of interest. You just have to gaze while they talk, and then the game resumes. There's almost no interaction going on except slightly moving about. The game, time and time again, takes away either the control or choice from you just so it can shove the story in the most blatant possible way. And that's only in the segments i've been able to play. And what i've seen at the PSX for instance and that it seems pretty much the same. Shootbang your way in a bit in a narrow corrider, cutscene, now shootbang but with this weapon, more cutscene and or/qte because heck, we gotta show all the animation that our artists did, we don't pay them for nothing.

Added to that the letterboxing which actually diminishes the experience as looking around feels cramped and claustrophobic, even in wider spaces. Not like there was much to explore since the game takes you (sometimes automatically) from point A to B anyway.

I guess if people just want a story fed with a minimum of downtime possible to them, that's fine I guess. But for me, The order so far seems like it could be a treat to my eyes but a deception to my brain

Thanks for the impressions. It's definitely a wait and see game for me.

 

[MrHoot]

Thanks for the impressions. It's definitely a wait and see game for me.

Same for me. It's a shame because the setting is amazing and well, it might be a very competent story. But it seems to shy away at every occasion of being interesting to play as well.

Another example which seems to be taken from more recent preview builds: At some point the game tasks you to assassinate rebels who are disguised inside some kind of militia. The game tells you they wear the same uniforms but they just don't have the insignia on their shoulder patch.

Which is very cool, in theory. Finally the game wants to put your skills at test in a kinda smart way. Scope out who's wearing the correct uniforms, be discrete and take them out.

Except the game automatically points you to the disguised rebels, there's no actual investigation on your part. All you have to do is then press that button to do it. And enjoy probably another cutscene to move the story along. Sometimes I just fear it might be even less actually interactive than a game like Beyond, which already didn't have that much

 

[luca_29_bg]

Who knows what they are using. We only have one incredibly small snippet of video.

yes i can't understand if the water flow through him or not...