Support NeoGAF

[WinFonda]

"This is a game with 1997 gameplay" is a dumb thing to say.

but this is obviously just Lara Craft with her hair in a bun

i demand a public apology to crystal dynamics

 

[LapinAgile]

It makes "sense" as a fucking cop-out to milk more performance from the hardware.

It makes sense, but it's fucking stupid. No matter how good this game looks, it'll never be "legitimate" in my eyes with the black bar nonsense. That crap is the worst type of digital skeuomorphism – and even Apple has moved on from skeuomorphic design.

It's ridiculous, and whoever made the decision to continue on with it should be barred from working on video games ever again.

You seem upset. I thought the black bars would bother me in Dragon's Dogma until I played it, I think with more information and when people get their hands on the game they may not mind. And hopefully the developers will be able to make more games too! Everyone has a good time, it's a win-win.

 

[Ragnarsson]

I really liked what I saw. It looks interesting, pretty and I'm looking forward to E3 to see more of it - preferably with higher quality videos.

 

[LightofRohan]

then watch the movie.

But you're right they're not mutually exclusive. But... increasing narrative driven games are a detriment to game design. You start rewarding players to play through the shlog of gameplay for a b-action cinematic. You rely on "visceral" set-pieces instead of rewarding enemy encounters, or creative and challenging game design puzzles. You get dumber games that rely on frustration as a difficulty tactic instead of skill or cognitive thought. Games become more linear or arena based with droves of identical enemies while you move up from one cover to the next so you can get to that next QTE or cutscene, destroying any sense of world building exploration. You create less engaging content and you stop rewarding players for playing the game. You reduce the immersive qualities as you force bifurcated sections of games where at times you control the character, at times you watch the character, reducing the overall immersive aspect of the gaming medium.

And if you think i'm wrong on the game design point... then lets talk about what cinematic experiences do for stories, you force more rigid stereotypes in characters, give players less control on the type of characters they want to be or represent who they are, you get more white male 30 year old protagonists. You spend more money on producing assets, writing stories and hiring actors, all budget that could be spent on making the game and audio better as opposed to the b-movie aspect of the game better.

I appreciate thinking and criticizing the gaming medium. It has a lot of potential, but that potential is being extinguished by the flood of urine as we support cinematic, visceral, bad games.

Then get into game design and make the games you want to make... you aren't helping anyone and are "part of the problem". No need to act like a brilliant mind stifled by the medium, you can do it too. Why tell people what they should like?

A lot of you are really salty here... yeesh.

 

[zorlaczerohero]

Must be weird living in such a stagnant and narrow minded aesthetic bubble. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But being outraged over it is hilarious, and asking for the person who decided it to be barred from video games is outright childish. Given that much of their concept art is 2:40:1, and given their ultra filmic aesthetic and appeal throughout, logic would imply that it was not a cop out to extract extra performance, but instead an artistic choice to add to cinematic appeal.

2:40:1 can look beautiful when framed and implemented well. It should do with The Order as they've chosen a wider FOV than most fps and tps as well. My preference is 16:10, but given I've never played a game designed around 16:10 (aside from Beyond Two Soul's which looks great), I won't judge purely based on assumption and ignorance.

I agree completely, I have a 150" 16:9 projector screen, pretty much every film I watch on it has a letterbox, it's no big issue in films. Considering films are generally released in either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 and anyone watching on a home screen will have borders (unless god forbid they use zoom!) it seems logical to me to do the same when trying for a cinematic experience in games. I'm not saying it will work out, but I'm willing to give it a try.

 

[CREMSteve]

Game looks awesome, can't wait to see more. HQ vids, please.

 

[BuggeryBugz]

And at this point I wish I was looking at a Gears clone - because Gears has one of the finest combat systems I've ever seen in a shooter, especially the first Gears, which was more about smart use of cover, flanking, and aggressive assaults.

I'd love to see an open area in the Order or some place where the systems get to shine on their own, not just riding on how amazing everything can look. That's how I can buy into it.

This.

I also very much like the look of this game but (don't hate me) I would've liked a multiplayer. Don't get me wrong, I always play through the single player in every game first, but I think a 'gears style, MP could have worked well

 

[Hoje0308]

I'm losing image quality with black bars on my screen though. Not to mention image retention/burn-in on my plasma.

I bought an adjustable projector screen for my media room just so I didn't have to deal with black bars when my wife and I watch movies. It's fucking asinine that a new game in 2014 forces its players to deal with that.

I'm truly dumbfounded. Nobody wants that "style." It's a performance cop-out and it's fucking offensive to me as a consumer of video games.

How exactly does that affect image quality?

What's asinine is that you expect a developer to make the game you want. They're not forcing anything upon you and don't give a shit about your personal setup. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

Are you the authority on what everyone wants, or just a petulant, entitled child? It's not a performance cop out (you might want to look up the definition of that, by the way). What's really offensive here are infants like you shitting up the thread. Once again, if you don't like it, don't be a consumer of this product. Problem solved. Now, go take your nap.

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

The more I see of this game the less interested I am. I know its old footage, but man there was a ton of bad animations and performance issues in that video. It just doesn't look fun at all. I need to see what the game looks like now with more polish.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

I don't understand why everyone's acting incredulous or posting meaningless spam gifs at Sepp's post. I had the same thought; for a steampunk science fiction shooter set in 1886, there's a long and constant stream of remarkably modern and generic (GASP SHOCK I USED THE NO NO WORD) milspeak, which is odd and off putting and hopefully not representative of the full game.

What's "remarkably modern" about any of those lines?

I think the most modern military term used in that list is "suppressive fire," and that term goes back in military texts/strategies of the late 1800s. (Specifically, the term was learned the hard way by the British Empire when their invasion was beaten back by use of the tactic by the South Africans in the first Boer War, 1880–1881.)

The term "sitting duck" MIGHT be used a bit early in a military context here, but that would be a controversial opinion. According to my research, there are published reports of the idiom being used in the 1920s-30s in a context suggesting that it was a well-understood idiom. Militarily, the idiom doesn't seem to have been popular until WW2, but considering its origin is not military, but a duck hunting concept, it may be much, much older. In fact, waterfowl hunting as both a sporting activity and as a profession was at the zenith of it's popularity in the 1800. Interestingly, the term "sitting ducks" may have originated precisely in the year 1886, as the invention of the shotgun choke, a device that doubled a shotgun's range from 25 yds to 50 yrds. absolutely revolutionized duck hunting in that year. Before the shotgun choke, shooting "sitting ducks" was still not all that easy, but after 1886 and the invention of the choke, it wasn't even sporting.

 

[Stealthcobra]

The more I see of this game the less interested I am. I know its old footage, but man there was a ton of bad animations and performance issues in that video. It just doesn't look fun at all. I need to see what the game looks like now with more polish.

Smh lol glad I'm not you. Your gaming life must be miserable

 

[LastNac]

Good for you, but sadly, it's not what I wanted this game to be. No amount of "this game was made that way" or "your opinion isn't needed, find something else to play" is going to change that. When The Order was first announced, I already had an idea of what the game was going to be, and it wasn't this.

Then you weren't paying attention.


You got Persona 5 though, right?

 

[casmith07]

God damn I can't wait for this game.

 

[benny_a]

I thought the footage was bad but then I saw this thread. It's the Order 1886 gameplay reveal of threads.

 

[Wishmaster92]

Sony just wants to underwhelm GAF to make them jizz that much harder cum e3.

lolwtf

 

[Hoje0308]

I hope there's no screen tearing in the final version.

I hope you learn to read the thread and consider the medium in which the gameplay was presented, junior.

The more I see of this game the less interested I am. I know its old footage, but man there was a ton of bad animations and performance issues in that video. It just doesn't look fun at all. I need to see what the game looks like now with more polish.

Nice, someone else that thinks streaming problems = "performance issues"

I'm going to bed. Maybe by the morning people will have learned to actually read a thread before posting nonsense that was cleared up hours ago.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Proponent didn't answer my PM about where he worked (which would have lead to my asking about his marketing firm email address), so we'll never know if he posted dozens of fanboyish posts about day one 1080p/60fps™ purchases for PS4 / XB1 hate for his job, or if he was just a regular console warrior with an unfortunate workplace.

Oh well!

 

[Officerrob]

Whenever I watch these early gameplay videos I'm trying to get a sense of what I'll be doing - as the player - and the kind of choices I'll make, either from moment to moment or as part of a longer term strategy.

In this video, with me as the player, I watch a cut-scene which then puts me into a firefight on street level. Cover to the left with allied AI using it, cover to the right with allied AI, and cover forward in the street with another allied AI using it. I guess I'd use the big ole empty cover in the middle for this firefight then.

Now, I'm behind cover, what are my choices? There doesn't seem to be any real need to advance as the enemies are all at height, and no reason to look for alternative cover spots for angles or defensive moves since nothing the enemy is doing looks to affect me here. So my choices are really in which order to take the enemy positions down in.

Once that's done the game literally asks you to fire your special weapon attack into the building's second floor so you can see a canned explosion and advance the checkpoint forward.

Then policeman guy gets downed and you're asked to attend to him. You get to move up and hit triangle, at which point you're now stuck on rails while a line of enemies will walk on to a rooftop in the open and fire on you at point blank range with their pistols. The choice here is the same, to prioritize who to shoot, only now you've got no cover to work with.

Once you take down those enemies in whatever order since they're all the same, you get another cut-scene and the story moves forward.

So, as a showcase of visuals, this video is fine. As a showcase for gameplay, nothing that's come out for this game looks engaging in the slightest. No interesting choices to be made whatsoever.

If there's a fun game in there, I'd love to see it at some point.

Yes, I'm VERY late (because I was at work), but this is a fantastic post.

 

[CambriaRising]

Proponent didn't answer my PM about where he worked (which would have lead to my asking about his marketing firm email address), so we'll never know if he posted dozens of fanboyish posts about day one 1080p/60fps™ purchases for PS4 and XB1 hate for his job, or if he was just a regular console warrior with an unfortunate workplace.

Oh well!

Well I feel a little less like a fool for my previous post now.

 

[Exploratory]

Proponent didn't answer my PM about where he worked (which would have lead to my asking about his marketing firm email address), so we'll never know if he posted dozens of fanboyish posts about day one 1080p/60fps™ purchases for PS4 / XB1 hate for his job, or if he was just a regular console warrior with an unfortunate workplace.

Oh well!

This post must have taken a bit of work.

Anyway this thread killed me in the worst way possible.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

The poor framerate (or twitch quality, whatever it is) is really killing any positives I have for the game. Hopefully at E3 they are going to show something with a better framerate, and you gotta figure they can always ditch the 4xmsaa for a solid FPS. Graphics look spectacular, gameplay looks pretty standard, but that can be supplemented with cool weapsons/enemies/ settings and overall good characters. Framerate really appears to be the only thing holding the game back.

 

[Chobel]

Proponent didn't answer my PM about where he worked (which would have lead to my asking about his marketing firm email address), so we'll never know if he posted dozens of fanboyish posts about day one 1080p/60fps™ purchases for PS4 / XB1 hate for his job, or if he was just a regular console warrior with an unfortunate workplace.

Oh well!

Busted

 

[gl0w]

Amazing, cant wait to see more gameplay at E3. Keep it up!

 

[tasch]

Then get into game design and make the games you want to make... you aren't helping anyone and are "part of the problem". No need to act like a brilliant mind stifled by the medium, you can do it too. Why tell people what they should like?

A lot of you are really salty here... yeesh.

because thats how design theory works. It's built on producing interesting concepts and theory on how things in games work.

Perhaps we should never read deluze or kant, or ignore satre and just read game of thrones. (nothing wrong with game of thrones, just saying higher reading is useful too)

You dont get anywhere if you dont consider what the issues of design challenges and solutions are. Hiding behind an opinion is childish and naive. Opinions can be wrong or useless; Regardless of whether or not you think the meat tastes good, if it has gone bad you will get sick.

http://www.gdcvault.com/free

a bunch of design and writing on game theory, not just on whether you like the game, but what designers do to come up with the games themselves. This is the kind of stuff we should be discussing on Neogaf, not weather one game is 900 or 920 pixels and which aliasing solution they have. Not on how good it looks, but on why these games are seen as boring and what we as invested hobbyist should be looking for to help improve and educate designers since we're (theoretically) the target audience.

We need to be discussing the trends and concepts, applying thought-provoking critique and using historical research to explain why a game is good or bad instead of hiding behind "opinions". We need to be able to discuss why a review was good or bad, not just hit the i agree/disagree box and say done.

I've done that, i've explained myself, I've explained why cinematic game design is problematic, and why a game like this looks boring and why people are being so harsh towards it. Yes, the graphics are phenomenal, but the gameplay and underlying philosophy behind the games design struggles to inspire anything of interest for those looking for deeper and more interesting gameplay opportunities as opposed to visceral and cinematic experiences (which suck for the most part).

 

[On Demand]

There would be some 'it'd look better at 4k/120Hz, lol' or whatever, but it's interesting to see what a ground up top tier next gen title includes visually.

For example, while PCs at the time of the 360 were much better, FEAR on PC looked so much better than on 360 if you had a nice PC, but in my mind, nothing on PC touched Gears till Crysis a year later.

I would think the PC crowd would be excited to see a similar thing again. It's not like they won't get third party stuff that looks like this, just like Gears wasn't King forever.

There's almost three levels of next gen, cross-gen, just next-gen, next-gen ground up technology. This feels like the first example of the last type.

I can't wait to see what Uncharted 4 looks like. If The Order already looks this good, then It should set the bar high for next gen graphics capability. I expect some crazy things from that game.

 

[bigboss370]

 

[PhantomFear]

Proponent didn't answer my PM about where he worked (which would have lead to my asking about his marketing firm email address), so we'll never know if he posted dozens of fanboyish posts about day one 1080p/60fps™ purchases for PS4 / XB1 hate for his job, or if he was just a regular console warrior with an unfortunate workplace.

Oh well!

LOL. Dat post history. The one about how Sony should raise the price on PS4 killed me.

 

[Havel]

Graphics are insane. Not too sure about the gameplay yet.

 

[Bondo]

Looks damn awesome to me!

 

[Hoje0308]

because thats how design theory works. It's built on producing interesting concepts and theory on how things in games work.

Perhaps we should never read deluze or kant, or ignore satre and just read game of thrones. (nothing wrong with game of thrones, just saying higher reading is useful too)

You dont get anywhere if you dont consider what the issues of design challenges and solutions are. Hiding behind an opinion is childish and naive. Opinions can be wrong or useless; Regardless of whether or not you think the meat tastes good, if it has gone bad you will get sick.

http://www.gdcvault.com/free

a bunch of design and writing on game theory, not just on whether you like the game, but what designers do to come up with the games themselves. This is the kind of stuff we should be discussing on Neogaf, not weather one game is 900 or 920 pixels and which aliasing solution they have. Not on how good it looks, but on why these games are seen as boring and what we as invested hobbyist should be looking for to help improve and educate designers since we're (theoretically) the target audience.

We need to be discussing the trends and concepts, applying thought-provoking critique and using historical research to explain why a game is good or bad instead of hiding behind "opinions". We need to be able to discuss why a review was good or bad, not just hit the i agree/disagree box and say done.

I've done that, i've explained myself, I've explained why cinematic game design is problematic, and why a game like this looks boring and why people are being so harsh towards it. Yes, the graphics are phenomenal, but the gameplay and underlying philosophy behind the games design struggles to inspire anything of interest for those looking for deeper and more interesting gameplay opportunities as opposed to visceral and cinematic experiences (which suck for the most part).

Wow, what a bunch of pretentious nonsense derived from a 3 minute teaser clip from someone that doesn't know the difference between "whether" and "weather." If the necessity exists, then by all means, give us some solutions that don't involve non sequiters and "I'm an authority" statements.

 

[scoobs]

Graphics are insane. Not too sure about the gameplay yet.

my feelings exactly. Looks pretty boring so far besides the insane visuals

 

[PerZona]

The graphics is good...but gameplay looks boring. Hope to see more gameplay videos during E3.

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

Whenever I watch these early gameplay videos I'm trying to get a sense of what I'll be doing - as the player - and the kind of choices I'll make, either from moment to moment or as part of a longer term strategy.

In this video, with me as the player, I watch a cut-scene which then puts me into a firefight on street level. Cover to the left with allied AI using it, cover to the right with allied AI, and cover forward in the street with another allied AI using it. I guess I'd use the big ole empty cover in the middle for this firefight then.

Now, I'm behind cover, what are my choices? There doesn't seem to be any real need to advance as the enemies are all at height, and no reason to look for alternative cover spots for angles or defensive moves since nothing the enemy is doing looks to affect me here. So my choices are really in which order to take the enemy positions down in.

Once that's done the game literally asks you to fire your special weapon attack into the building's second floor so you can see a canned explosion and advance the checkpoint forward.

Then policeman guy gets downed and you're asked to attend to him. You get to move up and hit triangle, at which point you're now stuck on rails while a line of enemies will walk on to a rooftop in the open and fire on you at point blank range with their pistols. The choice here is the same, to prioritize who to shoot, only now you've got no cover to work with.

Once you take down those enemies in whatever order since they're all the same, you get another cut-scene and the story moves forward.

So, as a showcase of visuals, this video is fine. As a showcase for gameplay, nothing that's come out for this game looks engaging in the slightest. No interesting choices to be made whatsoever.

If there's a fun game in there, I'd love to see it at some point.

Quoting because:

a) You nail'd it

b) I agree

c) One of the few posts here that make sense

 

[LastNac]

ugh, this makes me dislike the concept even more. Every time someone tries to make a game "cinematic" they make the "game" less of a game. I'm complaining directly about the game design, and their entire design philosophy seems to be the problem with the game.
Cinematic game design is the ultimate disease in gaming right now. Games are not movies, and throwing in a b-action script and some QTE doesn't change that, and in the end you get shittier gameplay for a shit story. Build an awesome and engaging world and let the game and story speak for themselves within the world, stop trying to shit narratives down our throats and telling us that it's good, and what we want.

Disease? Get over yourself bro.

Games are not movies because the interactive medium is not the passive one. TLoU gave us a moment where

Spoiler

a father carried his daughter(both biological and surrogate) to safety.

I've seen that moment play out in movies and television a thousand times over. What made that moment significant(and I would argue lasting) is that it is interactive. I dont just want to live out power fantasies and would be done with this medium long ago if that is all it offered. I loved those moments in TLoU just like I over the desert in Uncharted. They were interactive, you were involved, that alone I would argue makes it more powerful and more memorable than anything you would see in a cutscene.

I've played games that have built fantastic worlds(Bethesda, GTA, etc.) but the truth is none of them have ever told a story worth a damn. If I want to engage in a story I care about then I will play one of these experiences.

Also, if you think "cinematic" is about "QTE's" and "b-action scripts" than you have no grasp on the concept to begin with.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

The Order 1886 |OT| The graphics are great, the gameplay is not.

 

[Rurunaki]

I can't wait what the narrative for the new Gears of Wars will be after seeing the reaction to the Order.

 

[onanie]

wall of text

For someone who emphasises the need for novel gameplay concepts in every new game, you have no complaint about the third iteration of dead rising, let alone the fifth iteration of Halo.

You are pretty excited about Halo 5, aren't you? What new concepts did you glean from the early CGI trailer? Yet from what little was shown about the Order, you are absolutely convinced that all gameplay mechanics are represented by the entire three minutes of video.

There are double standards, but you take it to a new level. Even if it were true that R@D were playing it safe in using standard mechanics, what right do you have in demanding "innovative" gameplay from them, when you lap up sequels of other games?

 

[Nafai1123]

because thats how design theory works. It's built on producing interesting concepts and theory on how things in games work.

Perhaps we should never read deluze or kant, or ignore satre and just read game of thrones. (nothing wrong with game of thrones, just saying higher reading is useful too)

You dont get anywhere if you dont consider what the issues of design challenges and solutions are. Hiding behind an opinion is childish and naive. Opinions can be wrong or useless; Regardless of whether or not you think the meat tastes good, if it has gone bad you will get sick.

http://www.gdcvault.com/free

a bunch of design and writing on game theory, not just on whether you like the game, but what designers do to come up with the games themselves. This is the kind of stuff we should be discussing on Neogaf, not weather one game is 900 or 920 pixels and which aliasing solution they have. Not on how good it looks, but on why these games are seen as boring and what we as invested hobbyist should be looking for to help improve and educate designers since we're (theoretically) the target audience.

We need to be discussing the trends and concepts, applying thought-provoking critique and using historical research to explain why a game is good or bad instead of hiding behind "opinions". We need to be able to discuss why a review was good or bad, not just hit the i agree/disagree box and say done.

I've done that, i've explained myself, I've explained why cinematic game design is problematic, and why a game like this looks boring and why people are being so harsh towards it. Yes, the graphics are phenomenal, but the gameplay and underlying philosophy behind the games design struggles to inspire anything of interest for those looking for deeper and more interesting gameplay opportunities as opposed to visceral and cinematic experiences (which suck for the most part).

You're entire premise is based upon a two minute gameplay segment. If you want to dive into design theory after playing the game i would gladly read your post, but basing an argument on such little information is as asinine as reviewing a movie based on its trailer.

 

[vinnygambini]

Dude, I'm not blind. you fucking dumbass.

Lol!

I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. You made my day good sir.

 

[Y2Kev]

What's "remarkably modern" about any of those lines?

I think the most modern military term used in that list is "suppressive fire," and that term goes back in military texts/strategies of the late 1800s. (Specifically, the term was learned the hard way by the British Empire when their invasion was beaten back by use of the tactic by the South Africans in the first Boer War, 1880–1881.)

The term "sitting duck" MIGHT be used a bit early in a military context here, but that would be a controversial opinion. According to my research, there are published reports of the idiom being used in the 1920s-30s in a context suggesting that it was a well-understood idiom. Militarily, the idiom doesn't seem to have been popular until WW2, but considering its origin is not military, but a duck hunting concept, it may be much, much older. In fact, waterfowl hunting as both a sporting activity and as a profession was at the zenith of it's popularity in the 1800. Interestingly, the term "sitting ducks" may have originated precisely in the year 1886, as the invention of the shotgun choke, a device that doubled a shotgun's range from 25 yds to 50 yrds. absolutely revolutionized duck hunting in that year. Before the shotgun choke, shooting "sitting ducks" was still not all that easy, but after 1886 and the invention of the choke, it wasn't even sporting.

Salt water particles

PS tasch you misspelled Sartre.

 

[wumster3000]

The Order 1886 |OT| The graphics are great, the gameplay is not.

I have to agree. The gameplay looked boring for some strange reason. I still have high hopes for this game. But IMO, this movie didn't do it any justice for me.

 

[HORRORSHØW]

lmao @ tasch getting all high and mighty up in here.

Hell is other gamers.

 

[nib95]

For someone who emphasises the need for novel gameplay concepts in every new game, you have no complaint about the third iteration of dead rising, let alone the fifth iteration of Halo.

You are pretty excited about Halo 5, aren't you? What new concepts did you glean from the early CGI trailer? Yet from what little was shown about the Order, you are absolutely convinced that all gameplay mechanics are represented by the entire three minutes of video.

There are double standards, but you take it to a new level. Even if it were true that R@D were playing it safe in using standard mechanics, what right do you have in demanding "innovative" gameplay from them, when you lap up sequels of other games?

Two of his favourite games are Halo ODST and Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. And he's a fan of Too Human too. All I'm saying is, he shouldn't be so quick to judge based on such limited gameplay, and as clearly exemplified in his taste in games, innovation isn't everything.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

I have to agree. The gameplay looked boring for some strange reason. I still have high hopes for this game. But IMO, this movie didn't do it any justice for me.

It didn't blow me away in the gameplay department but I am ok with that. It looked more than enough fun for me. I dont need no groundbreaking mechanics for me to enjoy the shit out of this game. I am in love with what I have seen so far. The OT title was just poking fun at the amount of times that has been said in this thread.

 

[lightzGamin]

The graphics are good but gameplay is so generic and boring. Also did they make the game 24fps for more cinematic feel ?

 

[Principate]

Salt water particles

PS tasch you misspelled Sartre.

John Dalton pioneered atomic theory in that time period. Strange but not completely illogical (ignoring the rest of their non-Victorian weaponary)

 

[boredandlazy]

The graphics are good but gameplay is so generic and boring. Also did they make the game 24fps for more cinematic feel ?

Did you add the last part of that post to give the feel of a troll?

 

[samar11]

wow this thread is hilarious, love reading some of the comments on here. Sony should of released a high def version

 

[Schweinehund]

The Order 1886 |OT| Studies in Etymology

 

[Cave Johnson]

It's a good thing I was in the middle of the Lost series marathon before I got a glimpse of this "reveal". Graphically, it delivered (aside from the stream lag issues), but the bog-standard moment-to-moment gameplay has pared back to the point the game demands that you use your weapon their to complete an objective. That right here - is complete bullshit and why the disparancy between game graphics and design are getting wider and wider.

I really had hopes for RaD but all I see in this video is nothing I can't be missing from just by watching a Let's Play. I really wanted to reserve a PS4 for this title but that video pretty much laid the groundwork to how the game is going to be. And no.... I'm not going to be passive and justify the entire experience based on which set-piece they "dial-up-to-11" to one-up the Uncharted's and COD's before to justify this purchase.

As for now, no sale from me. I would have to wait for the reviews and impressions to see if I'm wrong about this assumption. So far, I highly highly doubt the game would expand their depth than what we have seen as of late.