Support NeoGAF

[Die Squirrel Die]

I think it's more like Uncharted. The sequel will have it. But I'm surprised Sony greenlit a game without it. Tough sell these days.

Maybe I'm way off base here but I do feel that UC's MP was a product of the time, when every game was slapping a multiplayer mode in, that just happened to work out enough to be worth pursuing.

Perhaps this is confirmation bias since I don't really play a lot of MP games, but there seems to be a greater affirmation of a game being single player focused these days, such as with The Witcher 3 and Arkham Knight's developers making it a talking point that they aren't pursuing multiplayer in order to focus on the single player game.

Then there's Ubi dropping the competitive MP in the AC games, for coop missions. Was this just a matter of time and resources, or was the attach rate of people playing MP not enough to justify the development costs. I've tried googling to see if there's any mention of it returning but I haven't found anything so I guess it's a waiting game for now.

So I guess in summary, their similarities aside I don't necessarily think that an Order sequel will add MP just because UC2 did 5 years back. They might simply decide that beefing up the SP content is a more worthwhile way to improve the value proposition. Or the game might sells so gangbusters that they think 'fuck it, don't need to do more than that'.

 

[Boke1879]

To be fair? No. What's unfair is the myriad of people who have been supporting, hyping, and participating in discussion of this game were shafted.

They shipped the game to stores a full two weeks before release and expected impressions to stay contained. They knew this would be a single player, narrative based game - yet they STILL went ahead and did it. What is the result?


THE ENTIRE GAME IS ON YOUTUBE. I don't mind negative impressions, but I can't count how many times I've read people post: "I'm just gonna watch this game on YouTube."

And can you blame them? They kept this thing so under wraps, you would think they were covering up the Roswell Incident. But now? A week before launch? You can watch it from beginning to end. A game which, no doubt probably cost dozens of millions, from a very talented team, and took four years to develop has it's ending in the form of a couple minute segment on YouTube.


What makes matters worse- you have click bait articles that are essentially damning the game on it's legnth, its gameplay, and it's very cinematic approach to design. Nope, if anyone is to blame, it's Sony. They completely and totally fucked up handling this game and it's going to be on their shoulders.


Also if you think that reviewers haven't been reading GAF threads, internet feedback, and YouTube videos- your wrong. I'm sure reviewers who would have looked at the game as a whole, are now using those impressions and diluting their scores with it. Just an opinion.

Not Sonys fault stores can't adhere to a release date

 

[FATALITY]

RIght but I was hoping it would have a full blown MP experience. Im sure the 5-12 hour campaign is great but for me the replay is in the MP.

people must have loved tomb raider mp

 

[Korten]

Not Sonys fault stores can't adhere to a release date

Yeah... Not like Sony can do much once a store breaks release. :/

 

[Nizz]

I've asked a few times and apparently it's very a smooth 30.

Awesome news!

 

[Jigolo]

Holy fuck, I've seen it all for this game. Correlating game download size to the length now.


Remember those 5 min N64 games guys.

 

[Orca]

"No padding or filler, all action" 9/10 - IGN
"Film like" 8.5/10 - Gamespot
"Encourages replayability" 10/10 GOTY candidate - Polygon

Shamelessly stolen from this not wholly dissimilar thread.

 

[thuway]

"No padding or filler, all action" 9/10 - IGN
"Film like" 8.5/10 - Gamespot
"Encourages replayability" 10/10 GOTY candidate - Polygon

Shamelessly stolen from this not wholly dissimilar thread.

Thank you for this.

 

[Aikidoka]

So it doesn't need it, you just don't see enough value in it to purchase the game. Would you feel the same way if the game had a shoehorned MP component that you would never touch?

Sure it doesn't need it. But, the multiplayer wouldn't necessarily be shoehorned. TLOU had a phenomenal linear single player and offered a very good MP campaign that felt like it belonged in the world and added to it.

 

[RoboPlato]

Also if you think that reviewers haven't been reading GAF threads, internet feedback, and YouTube videos- your wrong. I'm sure reviewers who would have looked at the game as a whole, are now using those impressions and diluting their scores with it. Just an opinion.

Weren't you just saying the other day to "trust the system" in regards to review scores? This sort of thing is EXACTLY why I don't have any reviewers that I normally agree with these days.

 

[WordsintheWater]

I haven't seen anyone playing on PS Live yet. I hope to though as I'd like to see more of this in action.

They get taken down so quickly, if you search on twitch you can find a stream going every once in a while

 

[thuway]

Weren't you just saying the other day to "trust the system" in regards to review scores? This sort of thing is EXACTLY why I don't have any reviewers that I normally agree with these days.

Robo-kun, I am. But reviewers are human beings. I trust the system, when its scholastic and contained, but you have user reviews and hyperbole yelling itself from the mountain tops. A reviewer who would have ignored the game's legnth and played it for what it is- I could see him or her, actually timing his or her playthrough to address those concerns.

I'm not trying to start a conspiracy theory, but there is a reason reviewers, and reviewers only are given the game before hand. I could be wrong.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Is there any other way to play the game outside of different difficulties, like a challenge or horde-style mode? Is there any forthcoming content to look forward to? I mean, for $60, it seems awfully thin if there's only one way through the game and a massive chunk of that is more movie than highly replayable, meatier game experience.

 

[braves01]

I've asked a few times and apparently it's very a smooth 30.

It's looks pretty smooth on youtube at least. It's definitely a great looking game. Most of the animations look really nice, and the dialogue and VA seems quite good.

Based on the portion I've seen though (I think about 1/3 of the game), I personally think it's too light on real gameplay to warrant a full $60. For price-conscious PS4 owners, I think the thing to do would be to (a) avoid spoilers; (b) buy the game at launch; (c) play it over the weekend, since it appears short enough to do so, even at the longer estimations of time; and (d) trade it in.

 

[WordsintheWater]

To be fair? No. What's unfair is the myriad of people who have been supporting, hyping, and participating in discussion of this game were shafted.

They shipped the game to stores a full two weeks before release and expected impressions to stay contained. They knew this would be a single player, narrative based game - yet they STILL went ahead and did it. What is the result?


THE ENTIRE GAME IS ON YOUTUBE. I don't mind negative impressions, but I can't count how many times I've read people post: "I'm just gonna watch this game on YouTube."

And can you blame them? They kept this thing so under wraps, you would think they were covering up the Roswell Incident. But now? A week before launch? You can watch it from beginning to end. A game which, no doubt probably cost dozens of millions, from a very talented team, and took four years to develop has it's ending in the form of a couple minute segment on YouTube.


What makes matters worse- you have click bait articles that are essentially damning the game on it's legnth, its gameplay, and it's very cinematic approach to design. Nope, if anyone is to blame, it's Sony. They completely and totally fucked up handling this game and it's going to be on their shoulders.


Also if you think that reviewers haven't been reading GAF threads, internet feedback, and YouTube videos- your wrong. I'm sure reviewers who would have looked at the game as a whole, are now using those impressions and diluting their scores with it. Just an opinion.

Street dates get broken all the time this shit is just enhanced because of the Friday release date. I agree with you that it sucks, but wouldn't it have been difficult to have a worldwide release if they didn't ship it out this soon?

 

[RoboPlato]

Robo-kun, I am. But reviewers are human beings. I trust the system, when its scholastic and contained, but you have user reviews and hyperbole yelling itself from the mountain tops. A reviewer who would have ignored the game's legnth and played it for what it is- I could see him or her, actually timing his or her playthrough to address those concerns.

I'm not trying to start a conspiracy theory, but there is a reason reviewers, and reviewers only are given the game before hand. I could be wrong.

Honestly if they do time their playthroughs it'll probably end up in the game's favor since gaffers seem to be taking substantially longer than that one Youtuber. Reviewers also have ample time to get through the game before embargo so they won't have to rush.

Stuff like this happens regularly, especially the weekend before a major release. It's just way worse here because it's out on Friday instead of Tuesday.

 

[Grady]

Im pretty sure i beat tomb raider on hard in a a day then returned it back to the red box. I also recall the multiplayer being fucking terrible. So if the order had bad multiplayer attached to it would be goty contender? Some of you are strange. I happen to miss the ps2 era of all single games.

 

[XxRampage07xX]

Gamespot posting the 5 hr game thing as news.

It's begun...

Someone needs to stop this madness :|

 

[-tetsuo-]

When is the embargo up on this game again?

 

[RoboPlato]

When is the embargo up on this game again?

Thursday at 8AM EST

 

[-tetsuo-]

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.

When did they ever leave?

 

[BokehKing]

I hope this is not a plot revealy question, no matter what you say rapier I'm still getting the game but....


Percentage wise, how much does this game deal with the supernatural /werewolves

 

[daman824]

Yeah nothing like tacked-on multiplayer to really make a game feel worth it.

Eh... I'd argue that it would. The first gears of war did and it worked out. I bet they could have gotten a multiplayer experience similar to Tlou if they put in a little effort. No custom game options, no character creator, no Lycan vs Knights, no theatre mode, no map editor. Just 5v5, 3-5 game types, 5 decently designed maps, a very simple rank up/ weapon unlock system and a party system.

 

[Emedan]

Nice impressions, but this MP discussion just feels ridiculous to me, I can enjoy a single player game without multilayer, I never play mp portions of a mainly single player game, it's just as stupid as saying an mp game needs sp, bf2 comes in mind, a great MP game without any sp campaign at all. What's this ridiculous notion that every game is In need of all game types, they can be enjoyed for what they are

 

[Raven77]

The OP's write up is EXACTLY what I was hoping this would be. I have plenty (actually too many) open world giant games where I can go everywhere and have 20+ quests on my radar at any given time.

Really looking forward to exploring all the little graphical details as well. I had a question though, are the environments destructible to a point where things are destroyed realistically? I mean, can I break a chair and it will break like real wood would? And not in a pre-baked kind of way either but different every time.

 

[LightofRohan]

None of those are AAA tentpole exclusives. Niche games can do odd things with gameplay, especially when they're not $69.99 (Canadian pricing) new.

So is price the full issue though? It doesnt seem like that. I'm sure when this game is 20-40 it would get the same shit.

So its all about perceived value?

 

[daman824]

Nice impressions, but this MP discussion just feels ridiculous to me, I can enjoy a single player game without multilayer, I never play mp portions of a mainly single player game, it's just as stupid as saying an mp game needs sp, bf2 comes in mind, a great MP game without any sp campaign at all. What's this ridiculous notion that every game is In need of all game types, they can be enjoyed for what they are

It doesn't need multiplayer. But if it doesn't have it, the game should make up for it with a reasonably long, repayable single player.

The same goes for multiplayer only games. I sold titanfall because it lacked content to keep me playing.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

Has everyone discarted the possibility of day one patch/DLC ?! Somehow I think there will be somethings added day one (even if just trophies), or later on via DLC. I have my pre-order done, and I dont intend on canceling it, I know I will have a blast playing this regardless of what everyone says. As I've said earlier, reading these threads and being so serious about it, is self-destructive.

 

[Lunar15]

I really don't want to be rude, but the OP's feels full of weird apologies. It's like he wants it to succeed so badly but doesn't want to say anything bad about it, but when he does, he has to excuse it somehow. Like he's afraid people are just not going to like the clearly linear and cutscene focused approach of the game. If that's how it is and you liked it, just spit it out. Don't try to make excuses for it.

It sounds like you enjoyed it, but I just can't take impressions like these seriously.

This game makes people act so weird. Like it has to be the savior of gaming or the worst piece of trash ever. I have a good handle on what it is: It's a fairly straight-forward shooter with a focus on atmosphere. There's tons of games like that are super popular on GAF, so I'm not sure why all of a sudden this is either a sticking point for some or a rally point for others.

 

[Ishan]

To be fair? No. What's unfair is the myriad of people who have been supporting, hyping, and participating in discussion of this game were shafted.

They shipped the game to stores a full two weeks before release and expected impressions to stay contained. They knew this would be a single player, narrative based game - yet they STILL went ahead and did it. What is the result?


THE ENTIRE GAME IS ON YOUTUBE. I don't mind negative impressions, but I can't count how many times I've read people post: "I'm just gonna watch this game on YouTube."

And can you blame them? They kept this thing so under wraps, you would think they were covering up the Roswell Incident. But now? A week before launch? You can watch it from beginning to end. A game which, no doubt probably cost dozens of millions, from a very talented team, and took four years to develop has it's ending in the form of a couple minute segment on YouTube.


What makes matters worse- you have click bait articles that are essentially damning the game on it's legnth, its gameplay, and it's very cinematic approach to design. Nope, if anyone is to blame, it's Sony. They completely and totally fucked up handling this game and it's going to be on their shoulders.


Also if you think that reviewers haven't been reading GAF threads, internet feedback, and YouTube videos- your wrong. I'm sure reviewers who would have looked at the game as a whole, are now using those impressions and diluting their scores with it. Just an opinion.

err if i am going to watch a youtube walkthough of a game and not buy it im doing to do the same thing irrespective of it leaking 2 weeks early. So even if everything was perfect i would wait a day see the walkthrought didnt seem my type go ahead and just watch it on youtube for the narrative. doesnt really have much to do with it leaking early. or just read the wiki page for it or something. This argument is the same as tell tale will loose walking dead sales cause someoen can go read the wiki on what the various storylines are. Yes its true to some extent but then that person just wanted to know the story and you probably went going to get them to buy the game unless it was super cheap (like sub 10 dollars)

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

The OP's write up is EXACTLY what I was hoping this would be. I have plenty (actually too many) open world giant games where I can go everywhere and have 20+ quests on my radar at any given time.

I gotta agree here. These open world games grrr so repetitive after a while and often go on too long. A shorter focused experience could be a nice change of pace.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

You had me at Killzone 2.

Ayyyy this should have been first post.

OP I love everything you wrote. Bring it.

 

[eznark]

Why are people so passionate about this?

 

[Freeman]

Eh... I'd argue that it would. The first gears of war did and it worked out. I bet they could have gotten a multiplayer experience similar to Tlou if they put in a little effort. No custom game options, no character creator, no Lycan vs Knights, no theatre mode, no map editor. Just 5v5, 3-5 game types, 5 decently designed maps, a very simple rank up/ weapon unlock system and a party system.

Then they would get panned for how lacking the MP was.

 

[Luke_Wal]

Maybe I'm way off base here but I do feel that UC's MP was a product of the time, when every game was slapping a multiplayer mode in, that just happened to work out enough to be worth pursuing.

Perhaps this is confirmation bias since I don't really play a lot of MP games, but there seems to be a greater affirmation of a game being single player focused these days, such as with The Witcher 3 and Arkham Knight's developers making it a talking point that they aren't pursuing multiplayer in order to focus on the single player game.

Then there's Ubi dropping the competitive MP in the AC games, for coop missions. Was this just a matter of time and resources, or was the attach rate of people playing MP not enough to justify the development costs. I've tried googling to see if there's any mention of it returning but I haven't found anything so I guess it's a waiting game for now.

So I guess in summary, their similarities aside I don't necessarily think that an Order sequel will add MP just because UC2 did 5 years back. They might simply decide that beefing up the SP content is a more worthwhile way to improve the value proposition. Or the game might sells so gangbusters that they think 'fuck it, don't need to do more than that'.

I'd be more shocked if the sequel didn't have co-op. With the 4 members of the squad and the vagueness they had at the time of the game's announcement, it screams as a feature that was cut as a result of reality meeting goals.

 

[Ishan]

I really don't want to be rude, but the OP's feels full of weird apologies. It's like he wants it to succeed so badly but doesn't want to say anything bad about it, but when he does, he has to excuse it somehow. Like he's afraid people are just not going to like the clearly linear and cutscene focused approach of the game. If that's how it is and you liked it, just spit it out. Don't try to make excuses for it.

It sounds like you enjoyed it, but I just can't take impressions like these seriously.

This game makes people act so weird. Like it has to be the savior of gaming or the worst piece of trash ever. I have a good handle on what it is: It's a straightforward shooter with a focus on atmosphere. There's tons of games like that are super popular on GAF, so I'm not sure why all of a sudden this is either a sticking point for some or a rally point for others.

or he just likes it and also recognizes its flaws .. . reading too much into it.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

What's this ridiculous notion that every game is In need of all game types, they can be enjoyed for what they are

I don't think anyone is in favor of a checklist mentality, but $60 is no joke and there's nothing wrong with expecting more from your purchase. This game might fare better at a more defensible price point, but console game price standardization has been a problem for varying types of experiences for a long time. One sure way to combat secondhand sales and rentals or just watching a playthrough on Youtube is to make the game highly replayable and so well-fleshed out from a gameplay perspective that you want to play it, not watch it.

 

[daman824]

Then they would get panned for how lacking the MP was.

But it would be played for longer. And I'd still argue otherwise. They could make some truly amazing maps with the atmosphere they have going on in the game. And if the core gameplay is good enough, Especially with the guns in the game, it could have been amazing.

 

[Lunar15]

or he just likes it and also recognizes its flaws .. . reading too much into it.

Well, no that's the thing. It's not very helpful impressions. He doesn't really talk about how it feels as a shooter or how cool the guns are or how well the cutscenes work in lieu of the gameplay. It's just "ok guys, you have to get your mind right for an experience..." and then doesn't really explain that.

 

[Ishan]

i think the thing with mp is im not sure it was on rad's radar all that much anyway they want to explore this lore and universe adn make a linear cinematic game (after seeing more o teh game im understaning why they used that term more and more rather than tps etc .. bcause its a tps but it doesnt focuss fully on that aspect and cinematic is quite franky the best way to describe this game).

however, having said that even a throw away mp mode with a small number of maps would have helped the length of this game simply because it has so many interesting guns already which could lead to fun matches. Now if you wanted a good mp you would need balance lots of map level design etc and that would take away too much time. But just a simple tacked on mp mode woudlnt have been bad in my opinion for this game in specific.

I'm normally not a fan of tacked on mp, here i am thinking differently just cause of the variety in weapons available. eg the thermite rifle is not something you would generally see in other games.

 

[IvorB]

Eh... I'd argue that it would. The first gears of war did and it worked out. I bet they could have gotten a multiplayer experience similar to Tlou if they put in a little effort. No custom game options, no character creator, no Lycan vs Knights, no theatre mode, no map editor. Just 5v5, 3-5 game types, 5 decently designed maps, a very simple rank up/ weapon unlock system and a party system.

Maybe. Seems to be one of people's main beefs with it. I had no idea that tacked on multiplayer was valued so highly.

I really don't want to be rude, but the OP's feels full of weird apologies. It's like he wants it to succeed so badly but doesn't want to say anything bad about it, but when he does, he has to excuse it somehow. Like he's afraid people are just not going to like the clearly linear and cutscene focused approach of the game. If that's how it is and you liked it, just spit it out. Don't try to make excuses for it.

It sounds like you enjoyed it, but I just can't take impressions like these seriously.

This game makes people act so weird. Like it has to be the savior of gaming or the worst piece of trash ever. I have a good handle on what it is: It's a fairly straight-forward shooter with a focus on atmosphere. There's tons of games like that are super popular on GAF, so I'm not sure why all of a sudden this is either a sticking point for some or a rally point for others.

Can you blame the OP for being apprehensive? Have you seen what's happening in this thread?

 

[Ridicululz]

Does anyone know how long all of the cut-scenes together are?

 

[WordsintheWater]

I don't think anyone is in favor of a checklist mentality, but $60 is no joke and there's nothing wrong with expecting more from your purchase. This game might fare better at a more defensible price point, but console game price standardization has been a problem for varying types of experiences for a long time. One sure way to combat secondhand sales and rentals or just watching a playthrough on Youtube is to make the game highly replayable and so well-fleshed out from a gameplay perspective that you want to play it, not watch it.

Of course there's nothing wrong with expecting more and to those that do, they can rent the game if the game's length doesn't satisfy them. I'm sure the developers and Sony were expecting this game to have a bit of a backlash with the no MP thing, but they went ahead full force in what they wanted to put out. It's up to us as consumers to show them what we think about these types of games.

 

[RoboPlato]

Well, no that's the thing. It's not very helpful impressions. He doesn't really talk about how it feels as a shooter or how cool the guns are or how well the cutscenes work in lieu of the gameplay. It's just "ok guys, you have to get your mind right for an experience..." and then doesn't really explain that.

I compiled some other impressions here. Maybe you'll find them more useful

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152192216&postcount=460

 

[Grady]

It doesn't need multiplayer. But if it doesn't have it, the game should make up for it with a reasonably long, repayable single player.

The same goes for multiplayer only games. I sold titanfall because it lacked content to keep me playing.

It took them 4 years to make what they have. You want double the length? So you would rather them take 8 years to make a game? Or maybe you would rather them release a 18 hr game with shitty graphics? That way we can all complain about how bad the graphics are

 

[HawksWinStanley]

Came in expecting bashing. Left with some good impressions and more excited for the game.

 

[Ishan]

Well, no that's the thing. It's not very helpful impressions. He doesn't really talk about how it feels as a shooter or how cool the guns are or how well the cutscenes work in lieu of the gameplay. It's just "ok guys, you have to get your mind right for an experience..." and then doesn't really explain that.

I take it you havent seen teh youtube videos online. I think some other gaffer described it as a point and click adventure game at times and a tps at times. and after seeing the videos I get that vibe from it. It has tps elements but also has these parts where it seems to play almost like what a game like myst would play like if it was a third person game made today.

Actually after seeing everything it seems this game is mixing elemtns from many different games and in that sense as wonky all the dev interviews seemed earlier what they have been saying is spot on . this is a linear cinematic game with elemtns from various third person games. The focus is def on the lore and cinematic aspects.

 

[RoboPlato]

Came in expecting bashing. Left with some good impressions and more excited for the game.

I think the craziest part about all of the debates surrounding this game is that all the GAF impressions have been positive. Some had more issues than others but the consensus so far is that it's worth playing.

 

[Confused Cheeseburger]

I get the feeling this game will not be taken at what it is trying to be and what is expected from modern gaming conventions.

 

[mjp2417]

This game makes people act so weird. Like it has to be the savior of gaming or the worst piece of trash ever. I have a good handle on what it is: It's a fairly straight-forward shooter with a focus on atmosphere. There's tons of games like that are super popular on GAF, so I'm not sure why all of a sudden this is either a sticking point for some or a rally point for others.

Yeah, from what I have seen of the full game, the marketing and presentations at various shows have been generally really accurate about indicating what this game is in full. Those who want a heavily cinematic shooter should be fine with it; those more interested in systemic complexity should steer clear.