nelsonroyale
Member
Soundbyte from a review I just read.
LOL.
I take it English is not their first language? Sounds like an Amazon review...
Soundbyte from a review I just read.
LOL.
He's saying that the gameplay looks bad, not fun. You want to like the game, fine, you don't need to antagonize people with different opinions.
After seeing that footage, I'm more interested in the game, even if I admit that gameplay looks thin and uninspired.
Soundbyte from a review I just read.
LOL.
Soundbyte from a review I just read.
I'm starting to wonder how many outlets got coloured by the 'length narrative' and let that narrative affect their perception of the final product.
It will be an interesting day today
I can't wait for the reviews
And especially for the proper impressions of the fellow embargo-tied Gaffers
I will be writing down a small personal piece. Not that I think anyone will be interested nor I think it will stand-out once the craziness unfold in full scale, but I want to do my part. This game deserves it.
I'm starting to wonder how many outlets got coloured by the 'length narrative' and let that narrative affect their perception of the final product.
I'm starting to wonder how many outlets got coloured by the 'length narrative' and let that narrative affect their perception of the final product.
Every single one.
How is that him antagonising? Lol. It's literally him just asking for a more detailed response to explain what they thought looked bad, that goes beyond simple and vague "that looks painful" or "Ew. Sub-75 metascore, i'm calling it now." sort of commentary. He doesn't have to answer, but it would certainly be nice to know what they liked or disliked about it.
He's saying that the gameplay looks bad, not fun. You want to like the game, fine, you don't need to antagonize people with different opinions.
After seeing that footage, I'm more interested in the game, even if I admit that gameplay looks thin and uninspired.
It will be an interesting day today
I can't wait for the reviews
And especially for the proper impressions of the fellow embargo-tied Gaffers
I will be writing down a small personal piece. Not that I think anyone will be interested nor I think it will stand-out once the craziness unfold in full scale, but I want to do my part. This game deserves it.
Can I just say, that the one thing that bothered me the most while watching the first chapter washow damn casually the lycans are introduced, combined with how pedestrian they act in gameplay. :|
I just have to blame ourselves. In some way, it’s obvious that we’re not communicating our intentions…It may be a lack of our ability to communicate our vision.
It seems like everyone is trying to find, not a problem but rather dishonesty, it seems like we’re trying to hide something. I thought we had been very clear since the very beginning, about what we were trying to do.
Originally, they didn’t even believe that the first trailer was real. Then it was about the frame rate, a couple polygons here and there…I don’t know exactly how this works or how it can be done better, everyone has different expectations and wants a different game and our game can’t give everyone what they want. It’s rather unique and specific. I think some people will have a great and fantastic reaction [to The Order: 1886], others will hate it deeply.
I just hope that in the future we’ll manage to be more clear in the way we present what we’re doing, so that everyone can make up their mind and at the same time, have a little faith that what we’re saying is true.
That is because they are "normally" existing in the world of the game for centuries before the Order plot begins.
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Andrew Pessino.
http://www.worldsfactory.net/2015/0...s-for-not-communicating-vision-the-order-1886
Plenty. The biggest mistake Sony made was actually releasing this game early to any outlet whatsoever. Let this be a lesson, embargo is going to be broken left and right.
I was asking. I didn't watch. And i'm wondering what was painful to him. Painful is a pretty bold statement. Painful is when there is something really bad / embarrassing going on.
I wasn't asking you, by the way.
And ofcourse i want to like the game. I WANT to like any game. But i don't like every game unfortunately. So when people say the gameplay is ridiculous, painful and bad, i'm starting to doubt either the person or the game.
But i still don't know what was painful to him. I'm assuming the gameplay.
Ok. Every time some writes "that looks great!", I'm going to respond "well, what's so great about that?!". Totally not antagonizing... lol
also, spoiler:he disliked the gameplay
I was asking. I didn't watch. And i'm wondering what was painful to him. Painful is a pretty bold statement. Painful is when there is something really bad / embarrassing going on.
I wasn't asking you, by the way.
And ofcourse i want to like the game. I WANT to like any game. But i don't like every game unfortunately. So when people say there gameplay is ridiculous, painful and bad, i'm starting to doubt either the person or the game.
The footage begins with a long sequence of the player sitting behind cover and shooting brown human enemies in a brown enviroment with typical firearms and nades. The enemies move in clunky patterns, don't seem to mind nades next to them, spawn from everywhere and storm the player in one exact same spot over and over again. Also there's a shining red exploding barrell. Serviceable is the absolute highest praise you could tive to that video.
So I read you right: you were "doubting" someone else, because of their opinion of some footage.
.
Harsh criticism generally inspires more curiosity than ordinary praise, especially when mechanically what we're seeing is pretty tried and tested, for this specific genre in particular.
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Andrew Pessino.
http://www.worldsfactory.net/2015/0...s-for-not-communicating-vision-the-order-1886
It might be tried and tested from a general perspective, but that's only half the battle. That last 10% of polish makes a pretty massive difference. For example, something like active reload in Gears of War was a brilliant tiny addition that made the whole game that much more interesting and satisfying. There's also loads of enemy variety in the Gears games that is used to make each encounter unique from the last.
Yeah, you're the art-direction guy that only knows one colour and considers black a colour too, right?
I wasn't asking you either. Hwat you describe sounds like a shooter.
8-10 hours single player campaign length is rather typical for today AAA titles so bashing the game because of that is the most stupid and unprofessional thing a reviewer can do. So I'm rather interested in seeing who of them will bite here because that would be kinda indicative.Plenty. The biggest mistake Sony made was actually releasing this game early to any outlet whatsoever. Let this be a lesson, embargo is going to be broken left and right.
Those barrels are... so red.That bridge fight is quite tame, I've had a lot more intense firefights.
You must mix me with someone else.
I just described what I saw since you hadn't watched the video. I wouldn't call it painful, but rather forgettable and unoriginal.
Great response, though personally I think they've been very clear right from the beginning about the kind of game this is, and where the focus lies. The biggest nay sayers are going to criticise whether they know it's the kind of game they're interested in or not, that's just part and parcel of vocalising ones opinions. I don't think Pessino could have prevented that. But I do think they could have helped their situation with better early interview answers, and better gameplay showings. Running that same tired demo over and over at different shows for example, was not a good look. Nor were the splices they showed at E3, Gamescom etc. Really some of the areas from recent trailers, needed to be shown from the beginning (Mayfair, more intense gunfights etc).
I cannot believe more games haven't implementated active reload. Such a good design feature. But more to The Order's stand out 10% mechanical pros, I'd imagine it's stuff like the lack of bullet spongeyness and impact realism, the gratifying gunplay, powerful sounding and feeling weapons, amount of gore etc.
I'm starting to wonder how many outlets got coloured by the 'length narrative' and let that narrative affect their perception of the final product.
Sorry, i thought you were the guy who said the game was just brown and black colours.
I could very well be wrong.
But what you described is what we kinda know it would be, right? A third person shooter with cover. Does it do that good or is it done in a really bad way?
Ofcourse i agree i'd love momorable settings and gameplay. But there are some levels in any game that i forgot.
The fundamental problem is that none of that is mechanical, that's all experiential. Which means that unlike well designed mechanics, it becomes less impactful with time.
I'm almost inclined to believe that this had an overall positive effect on the 'length narrative' as outlets will try to contrast their view from 'forum enthusiasts'. It has always been an 'us' vs 'them' situation, so I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of outlets actually downplay game length as an issue.
Looks great, I got the Collector's edition for less than than the usual price of the standard one (55), so that's great, gonna post my initial impressions soon!
I'm hoping on a great looking third person shooter and a game that does the shooting and cover mechanics well. From what i read, some people think there is too little gameplay. That is a bit of a worry for me. Since cutscenes are unimmersive imo.Nah the game has a lot going on visually (even though that video was not the best example), usually I love my games clear and colourful but the concept of this games visuals are masterfully executed (which is why I need to play it at least once).
And if you expect standard TPS action then it looks fine.
How is that experimental? The enemies either take an entire clip of gunfire to down or they don't (health points presumably being pre assigned). Headshots with lesser weapons are either insta kills or they aren't. Weapons either sound or feel punchy or they don't. Etc. Biggest issue I have with a lot of shooters, some really great ones, is the inconsequential nature of weaponry. Aside from things like shotguns and sniper rifles, they often just don't sound or feel powerful enough. I think The Order is closer to Killzone 2 or Battlefield 4 in the regard that weapons are meatier and have more force, impact and kick back, they just lack Killzones impressive hit detection system.
I predict most negative points won't be about overall length, but about the narrative and the gameplay variety.
Having enemies with more or less health is not a mechanic. The player is still shooting them, how much they have to shoot them before the go down does not make a significant difference in the act of shooting. Sounding punchy again has no effect on what the player actually does. They are still shooting. That's what I mean when I say mechanical vs. experiential. It's the difference between changing how you engage with the game and how you feel doing whatever you are doing. I'm not saying nailing the "experience" isn't important. Just that ultimately without engaging mechanics the experience can fall flat. For example, its the difference between someone playing Titanfall like Call of Duty and becoming tired of the novelty of experience, and someone playing the game and taking full advantage of the mechanical complexity. I'm still playing because there is still mechanical depth I've not fully explored.
I'm almost inclined to believe that this had an overall positive effect on the 'length narrative' as outlets will try to contrast their view from 'forum enthusiasts'. It has always been an 'us' vs 'them' situation, so I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of outlets actually downplay game length as an issue.
Also, while I do not have a problem with 6-10 hours (whatever time I need) if it is quality gametime, I do think it is something that needs to be clear to the people buying it and let them decide for themselves.
I'm not really sure I follow. Putting aside active reload which we've discussed, what would you say games like Gears of War or Resident Evil 4 offer in their gunplay and combat, that ticks this experimental box you speak of, that The Order lacks?
Also, while I do not have a problem with 6-10 hours (whatever time I need) if it is quality gametime, I do think it is something that needs to be clear to the people buying it and let them decide for themselves.
Read again, he´s not talking "experimental", but "experiental" - big difference. ;-)
It's been ages since I've played Gears so I'd feel remiss in trying to explain it with a hazy memory. So watch this instead:I'm not really sure I follow. Putting aside active reload which we've discussed, what would you say games like Gears of War or Resident Evil 4 offer in their gunplay and combat, that ticks this experimental box you speak of, that The Order lacks?
How?
I mean, what should be done for that?
Having a back box that states "average playtime" and "repeating value" next to resolution and aspect ratio?
That's a Eurogamer 'Avoid' then, isn't it? a 4?
Anyway, this 'impressions' thread has rapidly turned into a 'shit on the game via watching video' thread again. I'm out. Shame, it was decent before I went to bed.