• 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.

hydruxo

Member
16432408675_dd9afa1c1c_o.png
16516084016_80827f9d0e_o.jpg
16432408675_dd9afa1c1c_o.png


Just got it, played the intro and I'm already in love with its atmosphere.

Damn it. I was so close today, I had the game in my hands at Walmart but the dude couldn't ring it up.
 
Any impressions on gameplay variety?

Based upon those early interviews I thought The Order was going to be a lot more than a shooter, and incorporate other elements like investigations. In terms of gameplay is there a decent amount on offer besides the third-person-shooter-template gunplay? Does the melee system offer up something really new or interesting?
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
That's not weird. Despite mixed reviews Evil Within is generally loved on gaf and it's SP only. however the order doesn't look to have the same amount of content as Evil Within, the same difficulty settings, the ability to skip cutscenes, etc.

It does have a comprehensive chapter select though so you can load a checkpoint immediately after a cutscene and replay certain encounters. I often do that with linear titles with strong gunplay. I also tend to replay shorter games quite a bit as well.
 
The hell am I reading?

Is this the same board the routinely lambasted games the likes of COD with 5 hour campaigns last generation?

Or is there a special "factor" influencing why suddenly, the Order gets a pass?

There's a lot of different opinions on GAF. This board has had a huge upsurge in members since then, and honestly it's starting to show in the quality of discussions in the 'popular' subjects.

While that was an embarrassment of a post (possibly tag worthy) you quoted, get over people having different tastes. Some people don't like COD, some don't like games like The Order, and there are people on the flip-side who do enjoy those games. If you see someone who had railed against a point on one game in the past and you see that same person passing over it in another, call them out. But GAF isn't a hive mind, despite the tendency of members to jump on the wagon like in any other community.
________________________________________

Honestly, I think a lot of people on this forum need to take a step back and think about whether or not if they are interested in the slightest in the type of game that is being discussed. If it's not their thing and they can't have a civil discussion over it (*ahem* Derrick), they need to move on to a subject they do have an interest in.

The Order 1886 is a cutscene heavy, linear TPS that is also a Sony exclusive. If you have some personal issue in regards to that style of gameplay, there's no point in constantly railing against it in every thread, as it isn't going to change what the game is and derails the thread as there's no discussion that can come out of it. Just pointless bickering.

There's a big difference in being disappointed in a game of interest and it falling short and discussing those aspects, than with a game that wasn't even in the picture in the first place. Because then we end up with a FUBAR thread like this.
 

shaki123

Member
I cant confirm as I wasnt around but im not sure Victorian london was like sunset city

lol. What I meant was purely based on the gameplay I have seen. I think it looks kind of boring. While bullets look like they have some weight to them, everything else looks like it's been done before. But this time with a lot of QTE and cinematics. Problem with the playthrough I watched is that the guy who played was playing without the music on.

Seriously, who plays games with the music off (at least on a first playthrough)?
 

firelogic

Member
I'm not understanding how people are saying that the game doesn't have any replay value when they haven't actually played it. Replay value is what you make of it. I played through MGS1 at least 10 times and it wasn't because it had NG+ (although it did have things like infinite ammo, tuxedo, etc, but it didn't change the core game beyond making it A LOT EASIER) or any multiplayer modes to it. It's pretty damned linear and is heavily story-based.

If you finished The Order and loved the way it played and want to go through it again, that's replay value. I played through Uncharted 1 and 2 multiple times. It's just odd reading some posts saying Uncharted 2 was infinitely replayable but The Order isn't even before playing a second of it.
 

Late Flag

Member
Can someone explain to me what the greatness of KZ2 gunplay was? I need to better understand that idea so I can apply it to my current play of The Order.

I loved KZ2. Not sure I can speak for everyone on this, but there two things in particular that made the gunplay in that game really fun. First of all, each player had a large pool of health. In COD, if I start taking damage I might as well just give up and get ready to respawn because you die really fast if someone gets off the first shot. KZ2 gave players the ability to take a few hits and still have a plausible chance of winning a 1-on-1 confrontation. I'm not very good at shooters, but with KZ2 it always felt like I was simply outplayed when I died, and I got a lot more satisfaction from getting kills. It never felt cheap.

Second, everything felt "heavy" in KZ2. I can't really put that into words very well, but in COD and many other shooters, it's as if your character is a track star who sprint at fully speed with a hundred pounds of equipment and fire off dead-accurate shots on the move. KZ2 slowed everything down and gave guns the feeling of weight. Lots of people hated that, but I thought it was a cool change of pace.

No idea if that's what OP was getting at in term of the comparison to The Order, but it sure peaked my interest.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
lol. What I meant was purely based on the gameplay I have seen. I think it looks kind of boring. While bullets look like they have some weight to them, everything else looks like it's been done before. But this time with a lot of QTE and cinematics. Problem with the playthrough I watched is that the guy who played was playing without the music on.

Seriously, who plays games with the music off (at least on a first playthrough)?

This music for this game has been a high point too, according to impressions here.
 
Thanks for the impressions, Rapier (and Osiris, TheMan? the other guys in the screenshot thread who gave their impressions).

I'm quite looking forward to this game. From your description it sounds like it'll be a nice change of pace as I've been playing DA:I, GTA and Driveclub recently.
I quite fancy a bit of story driven gameplay.

I don't really mind the length or the amount of cut scenes etc. as long as it feels good and I find what is there enjoyable. Besides, if I don't enjoy it (which is possible I imagine, as I found GOW a bit dull) it's short enough that I'll be able to finish it and trade it and get most of my money back anyway.
 

Game4life

Banned
The Order very much seems like an Uncharted 1 situation.

Great foundation, amazing production values/visuals, and ultimately a lot of potential for a series as a whole.

Plenty of room for improvement (expanding the core mechanics and game design) as well as adding in MP for more replayability.

This. I think a lot of constructive criticism has been talked about here among some of the rubbish from platform warriors. I think RAD needs to focus on the following

- Remove QTE's. It has no place in game design. It is just wrong. Only company allowed to do it is SM for GOW. No one else. I dont know why but it is always implemented perfectly in God of War.

- Widen the areas and add more combat

- Add more fleshed out mechanics like stealth. If you are putting it there dont half ass it. Imagine the cat and mouse gameplay possibilities with Lycans. It could be so cool and is def a missed opportunity.

-- Make unique weapons. Look at Insomniac. It does not have to be so realistic or plausable. Its alternate history- you guys could invent fancy weapons and explain it away. The guns shown in the videos while cool are nowhere unique like Insomniac's Resistance games

-- Make bullet time free aim - stop with this bullshitty auto aim shit. It may look cool but atleast give players option to free aim

-- Place cutscenes properly- never have lots of cutscenes in a span of a few minutes and then no cutscenes for hours on end. Place them well. In TLOU and Uncharted 2 I never felt irritated by the cutscenes because they were placed so god damn expertly. Bruce and Neil are masters of pacing and they know when to put stuff like this perfectly.

RAD should not be discouraged from what I predict will be a bunch of low scores. You have a great engine, great atmosphere, great lore , solid gunplay and some presumably great characters. Learn from the mistakes and make a brilliant sequel. There is enough talent in the studio to get this done I am sure.
 

Vena

Member
I haven't read the whole thread, but I've seen a few mentions of Vanquish.

How is it that Vanquish is being mentioned? That game was freaking awesome.

Someone claimed that it had the same repeatability as Vanquish which is a bit of an oddity, in my opinion, since a lot of Vanquish's longevity came from the extra modes and the challenges. But alas the comparison is difficult as I have Vanquish sitting on my shelf but have not played this game to see what other modes/challenges it offers, if any.
 
Before I proceed I'd like to state that these views and opinions are expressly mine and mine alone, and by no means should they undermine the game's chances for success come the official release date.

Let me try to keep it simple. Games are interactive and audiovisual, so that's all I'll be giving thoughts on out of respect for RAD. So, here we go.

First off, the obvious. Visuals & Presentation:

The Order 1886 is has a very explicit goal. That is, to be an authentically cinematic experience, complete with richly detailed period "sets", "wardrobe", "props", expert cinematography, lighting, etc. The team at Ready At Dawn have succeeded in every respect in recreating all of these elements which ultimately come together in a way never before seen in a video game. No detail is left unrefined, everything has such an expert level of craftsmanship and polish that it quite simply sets a new standard for production values and artistic integrity. Needless to say, both the film industry and the games industry would do wise to look at The Order as the current shining example of what the medium can achieve.

Now for more sobering thoughts. Gameplay:

Every notion of what some of you may consider to be proper game design has to be suspended. The game will hold your hand. It will walk you through areas. It will funnel you. It will bombard you with simple context sensitive button prompts and loads of sharply directed and acted cutscenes. For many, this is the bane of "cinematic" games, and that's the divisive crux in The Order. But for all those criticisms which can fairly be leveled against it, The Order succeeds because the physicality and feedback of the gameplay sections (which are by no means scarce) are so well executed and consistent with the games overall quality, that not allowing it its quirks would be to completely miss the point. Personally, I think it harkens back to Metal Gear Solid in terms of pacing, to Killzone 2 for its gunplay theatricality, and to Vanquish, for its replayability. It is by no means a short game, either. It's pacing is dictated by the unskippable cutscenes and expository quasi-interactive sections.

Story:

NO. Do yourself a favor and experience it like it was meant to be.

-----

Concluding remarks:

The Order 1886 is for lovers of old fashioned single player experiences. For those who want to see strong efforts in storytelling-focused games make a comeback. It's a highly curated museum piece for old-timey, story driven videogames, and if you cherish having a collection of finely produced games, then that's the value of The Order in a nutshell. If you're excited for a strong new IP with endless possibilities and want to see RAD put out new iterations of this level of quality, then give them the nod. I already have.

EDIT:

Y2Kev thread guidlines:
Cinematic qte heavy games that hold your hand are the new old fashioned? Story driven games are a callback to gaming's past? The fuck?
 
lol. What I meant was purely based on the gameplay I have seen. I think it looks kind of boring. While bullets look like they have some weight to them, everything else looks like it's been done before. But this time with a lot of QTE and cinematics. Problem with the playthrough I watched is that the guy who played was playing without the music on.

Seriously, who plays games with the music off (at least on a first playthrough)?

but you said "everything is brown and gray", leading one to believe that you were indeed talking about the setting/graphics
 

Skux

Member
- Remove QTE's. It has no place in game design. It is just wrong. Only company allowed to do it is SM for GOW. No one else. I dont know why but it is always implemented perfectly in God of War.

QTEs in God of War work because they have fail states - if you mess up, you get your ass kicked, lose some health and have to whittle down the health of the boss again. The gameplay continues without stopping.

Unfortunately it looks like an insta-fail scenario if you botch a QTE in the Order.
 

Fbh

Member
All you people in school or without full time work and responsibilities or a SO will one day see these games as a godsend. I just can't do these 15-20 hour games anymore. It took me 4 and a half months to find the time to beat TLoU.

If I saw three films in a theater back to back, or purchased 3 blurays, the cost and runtime would be the equivalent play time/dollar ratio spent on this game.

3 theater tickets = $65 for 5-6hrs of content (that you can't replay)

3 new Blurays = $50-$60 for 5-6hrs of content

New Game that 5-7 Hours long = $60

I dont understand the uproar over "short" games, when the cost/content ratio is the same for other newly released media. Especially when, like I mentioned before, a life full of responsibilities prevents me from playing games that are any longer then 5 to 7 hours.

I played Dragon Age Inquisition with a full time job, while at the same time having to work on my thesis for University and without neglecting my social life.
And I had a blast. Sure, it took me alost 3 months to finish, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Those $60 were tottaly worth it.

A friend of mine has a full time job as a doctor, is happily married and has a 1 years old kid. He is playing DA:I, it's probably going to take him several months to finish but he is having a blast.


There is nothing wrong with short games. I just get them for $30 or less
 

komplanen

Member
I'm in the team that will gladly pay $60 for a 5-6 hour long story. Doubly so since there's not much else coming out to compete with it. Triply so because I bought the physical version that I can sell forward after I'm done with it :)
 

shaki123

Member
but you said "everything is brown and gray", leading one to believe that you were indeed talking about the setting/graphics

Yeah it has a double meaning. But my comment was more gameplay-focused then graphics-focused. That being said, I do think the game looks boring as well. It lacks identity and has a dull look.
 
Yes.

They didn't make those choices.

A better example would be The Walking Dead where nothing you do ultimately matters.

I'm not sure I agree. Making choices personally doesn't take anything away from the experience you'd get from exclusively watching someone play and experiencing their choices.

That is enough to allow you to have just as valid an opinion of the game than the person playing.

The game offering multiple choices and endings is beside the point.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I'm not sure I agree. Making choices personally doesn't take anything away from the experience you'd get from exclusively watching someone play and experiencing their choices.

That is enough to allow you to have just as valid an opinion of the game than the person playing.

The game offering multiple choices and endings is beside the point.

That's certainly a bold statement.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
I'm not sure I agree. Making choices personally doesn't take anything away from the experience you'd get from exclusively watching someone play and experiencing their choices.

That is enough to allow you to have just as valid an opinion of the game than the person playing.

The game offering multiple choices and endings is beside the point.
You have the experience of Heavy Rain the edited YouTube version by FamousYouTuber.

You don't have the experience of Heavy Rain the video game by Quantic Dreams.

The choices you make, the actions you take or not take are what makes Heavy Rain.
 

Savantcore

Unconfirmed Member
I'm not sure I agree. Making choices personally doesn't take anything away from the experience you'd get from exclusively watching someone play and experiencing their choices.

That is enough to allow you to have just as valid an opinion of the game than the person playing.

The game offering multiple choices and endings is beside the point.

Playing a game and watching someone play a game really are completely different though. I'm not getting into this argument over whether opinions of a game formed from watching a YouTube video count or not, but there sure as hell is a difference between watching someone and having it in your hands, immersing yourself in the game and playing how you personally would play. If someone told you the plot of a film in exquisite detail, you'd hardly argue that you had the same experience as watching it yourself.
 

MrxDemix

Banned
Any impressions on gameplay variety?

There isn't much. There's a decent variety of weapons. Stealth is okay. The melee just triggers cool looking animations. I dislike the slow time mechanic. There is some platforming but it's basic. The most fun ive had is fighting non humans. The human AI is quite stupid, or at least on Normal difficulty it is.
 

Skux

Member
I'm not sure I agree. Making choices personally doesn't take anything away from the experience you'd get from exclusively watching someone play and experiencing their choices.

Apart from, you know, the whole part about being able to make the choice yourself, based on your personal judgement, morality, game strategy, relationship to the characters, and possible consequences.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I'm not sure I agree. Making choices personally doesn't take anything away from the experience you'd get from exclusively watching someone play and experiencing their choices.

That is enough to allow you to have just as valid an opinion of the game than the person playing.

The game offering multiple choices and endings is beside the point.

I don't agree with this.

The game IS the choices you make. There's nothing else to it. If you're not making choices, what are you doing in Heavy Rain?
 

GobFather

Member
Maybe so, but to fully judge a game based on something you watched is somewhat inadequate. Ultimately what matters is how the game plays, how it feels, how satisfying it is to aim or shoot a gun, to dart about in cover, to experiment with the different weapons and approaches, how it controls etc. This kind of stuff cannot be gauged by just watching others play. A game ultimately is meant to be played. It's not like journalists review games based on what they watched someone else play.

Not saying you can't form opinions about games based on videos, of course you can, as all of us do, but certain things will always be assessable only through actual play.

totally agree.

and this:
I don't agree with this.

The game IS the choices you make. There's nothing else to it. If you're not making choices, what are you doing in Heavy Rain?
 

MrHoot

Member
I'm not understanding how people are saying that the game doesn't have any replay value when they haven't actually played it. Replay value is what you make of it. I played through MGS1 at least 10 times and it wasn't because it had NG+ (although it did have things like infinite ammo, tuxedo, etc, but it didn't change the core game beyond making it A LOT EASIER) or any multiplayer modes to it. It's pretty damned linear and is heavily story-based.

If you finished The Order and loved the way it played and want to go through it again, that's replay value. I played through Uncharted 1 and 2 multiple times. It's just odd reading some posts saying Uncharted 2 was infinitely replayable but The Order isn't even before playing a second of it.


Replay value is not only due to personal interest, I do not think. It's also if the game gives you an incentive to replay it. And I mean, yeah the playthrough wasn't bad, but compared to other games I could play instead ? Yeah no, I don't want to replay it against that. It doesn't

Plus the fact that, again, the cutscenes are unskippable makes the replay value a bit less enjoyable every time as you have to sit through all of these every time. Granted you can chose through the chapters you want to, but you're gonna run out of variety very fast.

Right now, the reasons to replay The Order would be if you want to do one of the very linear levels slightly differently. Or show the game to a friend to show how pretty it is, Or play on a higher difficulty if you haven't played on hard to begin with. The story doesn't have enough complexities to replay it for that sake to peek at every detail through it. There's a lot of detail you can get while "exploring" (using this word loosely here) but like it was pointed out above, doing that alone will extend the game to maybe a 10-12 hours total if you take your time to find everything.

It's a good game I think, and it's really interesting to talk about it on a tech level, because it sure is gorgeous. But as a game, I don't get the hype. And I wouldn't recommend the price right now for a consumer who plays other games. If you're an absolute fan of these kind of games and don't play much next to it, or just like REALLY intensively cinematic gameplay, then sure, go for it
 

Skux

Member
I don't agree with this.

The game IS the choices you make. There's nothing else to it. If you're not making choices, what are you doing in Heavy Rain?

It's not even just restricted to cutscenes either. Even during gameplay you might approach a combat scenario completely differently than another person, even in a linear game like Gears or The Order.
 
Surely you can't be this naive. I've gamed long enough that I can watch a video of a game or a video of someone playing a game, or a stream on Twitch and know almost immediately if the game is for me or not. It's not a difficult science. Games aren't that complicated. I will agree though that if I were looking for impressions of a game, I would turn to someone who played it before I'd ever turn to someone who simply watched it being played.



This is nothing compared to threads about Tomb Raider 2013.

Watching the game seeing that it's QTE heavy, a lot of it takes place in tight corridors and is stop-cover-shoot, unskippable cutscenes limiting playthroughs as they'll get tiresome, on rails sections,etc. Again you can definitely pull a lot about a game from a video, surprised people think it's THAT asinine.

Again, I am not talking about the idea of just them spending time watching a game being played from start to finish being my point of contention. I think that is odd but like you said a lot of people think hobbies and activities are odd. I am merely talking about the notion that they have an opinion worth any weight against people that have played the game.

The fact of the matter is that you can derive only basic levels of information from a video of a game being played. Before I played Bayonetta I remember seeing one gaffer saying that it reminded him of the epic scale of God of War games. Having watched lots of preview videos of the game I didn't agree but I didn't say so because I knew I had only watched videos. When I actually played the game I completely saw his point. There is a difference between experiencing a medium in the way it was meant to be experienced. That is all I am saying
 
If you don't think the length is worth the 60 dollars then weight for a pricedrop or rent it.

Not going to lie, I'm glad I'm picking it up for only about $37 Friday. Not that I'm bothered by the impressions and what I've seen, as it's what I expected for the most part. But I've been really cutting down on what games I purchase at full price, and this would be one that I'd normally give a few months to minimally with what is being offered.

I mean, I still haven't purchased any of the Wii U 2014 titles (I know, I know, I'm working on it. Did get the Prime trilogy though!) and some games like TR2013 and Dark Souls 2 have been putting off constantly. So picking this up at full price would make me feel a bit guilty.

It is sound advice though. I think people should still debate the point of price:content, given the current environment.
 

I-hate-u

Member
I am guessing if there is a sequel, which there probably will be seeing as how RAD pretty much wants this IP to grow, that they are going to push for a Gears-like approach to gun fights, while still implementing their cinematic approach. Oh, and there will be MP. Sony will fund the studio hard me thinks for the next one, seeing as how we pretty much have a foundation for another Uncharted series for Sony.

The Order 943 E3 demo in 2017 will surely blow our minds.
 
Top Bottom