How many people have that avatar? It seems like i see it everywhere, haha.
Are you from some kind of Order?
Bet with Verendus we lost. Can change it April 1st.
How many people have that avatar? It seems like i see it everywhere, haha.
Are you from some kind of Order?
Just got it, played the intro and I'm already in love with its atmosphere.
I don't know about GAF, but I thought people loved Modern Warfare saga's story to bits.To be fair, most people buy COD for multiplayer. Which has unlimited appeal. Game looks ok from what I have seen, but that's about it.
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.
Aaah, okay. Haha, nice.Bet with Verendus we lost. Can change it April 1st.
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?
I cant confirm as I wasnt around but im not sure Victorian london was like sunset city
Bet with Verendus we lost. Can change it April 1st.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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?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:
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)?
- 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.
hehpic
i feel discriminated tbh
should i sue this store?
Just got it, played the intro and I'm already in love with its atmosphere.
Just got it, played the intro and I'm already in love with its atmosphere.
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.
but you said "everything is brown and gray", leading one to believe that you were indeed talking about the setting/graphics
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.
If you don't think the length is worth the 60 dollars then weight for a pricedrop or rent it.
You have the experience of Heavy Rain the edited YouTube version by FamousYouTuber.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'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.
If you don't think the length is worth the 60 dollars then weight for a pricedrop or rent it.
My wife recons it's not about the length.
Any impressions on gameplay variety?
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.
My wife recons it's not about the length.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Surround sound would help.So is it about volume then?
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?
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?
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.
pressing x to jason
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.
If you don't think the length is worth the 60 dollars then weight for a pricedrop or rent it.