-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Develop-Online: The Order: 1886 Dev Says "Internet Is The New Playground For Bullies"
- Thread starter SEGAvangelist
- Start date
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
While not quite on the same level, but aren't you being a little hypocritical? Just a little?
In the end, people will make judgements on what they've seen and heard. Like you did with Ori.
Exactly, they are a company and they should expect criticism on their product. That's like saying that making fun of a console that doesn't have a specific feature is bullying the console maker.
Fully agree with that post.
As of now, I cancelled my pre order. RAD is really hurting their own game by constantly talking off their potential buyers and the game itself looks like it's just a short "cinematic experience" as they called it.
Maybe sometime down the line I'll get the game at a bargin bin price or just wait and see if PS+ will have it for a free in a few months. XD
I say, DAYUM.
Sometimes I think of PC gaming as similar to my taste for fine wine, and I would rather have a great 8 hour game vs a 12 hour one that drags on. Which reminds me of my only complaint about this game: 30 fps. Everything else is fine, I want more single player games, and this year has been full of open world games.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Are people honestly getting offended and upset that a person who works at RAD is upset about all the negativity surrounding a project they poured a lot of blood, sweat and tears into? Is it because they said bully? SMH.
That's ridiculous, and you know it. You are applying two standards to the exact same behavior, and you know it.
I would be a fucking grown up and realize that the world is a shitty place with shitty people in it, and that is just the way things are. I would take personal pride in what I do, and let my work speak for itself.
ODDI
Member
They just make me hungry.
Constructive criticism and legitimately criticism isn't the same as hate.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
So when did a random youtuber become anymore credible than Forbes? It's just silly. Did you watch the full 5 hours and 30 minutes of video? I'm gonna guess not, I'm gonna guess pretty much no one did.
I'd love to watch it, but I'm in the shit position of wanting to actually play the game when it comes out.
Steve Youngblood
Member
bananafactory
Banned
It's essentially just proving his point that people are out to latch onto anything they can against the game.
There's reasonable criticisms of some of the things he said, the steak comparison isn't great and "bullying" may not have been the best word, but all of the LOL WHY SO DEFENSIVE is just validating most of what he said.
El_Cinefilo
Member
While I don't Completely disagree with the point he's trying to make, The steak is a terrible analogy, he's comparing the best to the worst without any middle option.
Video evidence trumps random testimony. This is always the case.
EventHorizon
Member
Face the music RAD. You tried to do something a bit different. Some people like it or want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Most however don't want your combination of lack of gameplay, short game length, and little replayability regardless of how much time you spent perfecting your graphics engine just right.
SturokBGD
Member
Something like 80 - 85% of your sense of taste actually comes from your sense of smell. You know how you buy fruit flavoured candy and each colour tastes like a different fruit? I don't get that. They're all the same to me.
Just because they work day and night on something, that doesn't mean everyone has to like their product. On the other hand, if people are directly making fun of the developer and sending them hate messages, then yes. That is bullying.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Sounds like they've been listening too much to their fans. I don't believe theres some unique conspiracy of targeted hate that that only applies to their game. Their game just happens to have a lot of things about it that a lot of gamers are vocally negative about.
brandonh83
Banned
I can see where they're coming from, working tirelessly on something for years and it being slammed before it can even reach the masses. I get that; it must be frustrating.
However, I'm seeing a multi-faceted argument here, and this is where I disagree with many of the arguments' participants. On one hand you have folks who think that the game is too short to justify $60. On another side, and this is where I fall in line, is the side in which there is concern about the length in relation to the gameplay/cutscene ratio. I have no problem with a game being under 10 hours, or even under 7 hours if I feel that most of this at least provides a lot of good gameplay, and especially variety.
This game seems to be, and the mileage varies depending on your playstyle and difficulty setting, a mostly linear affair where you're either watching cutscenes, or moving forward while shooting stuff. I see other games like Metal Gear Solid being used in defense of this, but the problem with that is Metal Gear typically offers tons of content and variety. You can spend so much time in Metal Gear experimenting with the environment, weapons, patrol routes, and so on. It offers quite a bit of gameplay and gameplay variation regardless of the cutscene quantity.
The Order, however, does not, and some people feel that spending $60 on a videogame that doesn't offer much gameplay variety or content beyond its linear campaign isn't justified. Metal Gear could have 200 hours worth of cutscenes (shut up, no it doesn't lol), but Kojima's games give you so much to do. Even Ground Zeroes, which is lauded as an "expensive demo," can give the player up to 15 hours or more of nothing but fantastic gameplay if they have the desire to check out all the different missions and parameters. But some people who just played the main mission in less than an hour complained that the game was too short.
Anyway, that's getting a little off-topic, but the point is that so many people are treating this like a one-sided debate when it is not. Not everyone is upset about the length, specifically, but rather the fact that it's a linear $60 game where it's literally either watching cutscenes or shooting stuff. To some, that's either a rental or a budget purchase, and that's a perfectly valid stance to take. It's not worth all this drama, that's for sure, and I wish people would stop seeing every concerned individual as just being concerned about the game's length without taking into consideration the various factors that led said individual to develop the concerns in the first place.
However, I'm seeing a multi-faceted argument here, and this is where I disagree with many of the arguments' participants. On one hand you have folks who think that the game is too short to justify $60. On another side, and this is where I fall in line, is the side in which there is concern about the length in relation to the gameplay/cutscene ratio. I have no problem with a game being under 10 hours, or even under 7 hours if I feel that most of this at least provides a lot of good gameplay, and especially variety.
This game seems to be, and the mileage varies depending on your playstyle and difficulty setting, a mostly linear affair where you're either watching cutscenes, or moving forward while shooting stuff. I see other games like Metal Gear Solid being used in defense of this, but the problem with that is Metal Gear typically offers tons of content and variety. You can spend so much time in Metal Gear experimenting with the environment, weapons, patrol routes, and so on. It offers quite a bit of gameplay and gameplay variation regardless of the cutscene quantity.
The Order, however, does not, and some people feel that spending $60 on a videogame that doesn't offer much gameplay variety or content beyond its linear campaign isn't justified. Metal Gear could have 200 hours worth of cutscenes (shut up, no it doesn't lol), but Kojima's games give you so much to do. Even Ground Zeroes, which is lauded as an "expensive demo," can give the player up to 15 hours or more of nothing but fantastic gameplay if they have the desire to check out all the different missions and parameters. But some people who just played the main mission in less than an hour complained that the game was too short.
Anyway, that's getting a little off-topic, but the point is that so many people are treating this like a one-sided debate when it is not. Not everyone is upset about the length, specifically, but rather the fact that it's a linear $60 game where it's literally either watching cutscenes or shooting stuff. To some, that's either a rental or a budget purchase, and that's a perfectly valid stance to take. It's not worth all this drama, that's for sure, and I wish people would stop seeing every concerned individual as just being concerned about the game's length without taking into consideration the various factors that led said individual to develop the concerns in the first place.
Mushroomer25
Member
I just think it's crazy to take unverifiable GAF impressions seriously when you look at the conversation surrounding this game. Again, if there's a playthrough I can watch that lasts 10 hrs - I'll accept the first video as a speedrun. But going on the available evidence - I just don't think that's the case.
Black Republican
Member
Let the game speak for itself
I'm honestly not understanding how manifestly accurate evidence of something is discarded in light of reactive claims to the contrary without comparable evidence. You not having looked at the video isn't a counterpoint to the video.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Maybe he was thinking of the acid.
I'd like to formally apologize to the Wachowskis for lambasting lambasting Jupiter Ascending at every relevant moment I could before going to watch it and finding that it was actually the funniest movie of 2015. I'm sorely sorry for being a vicious bully to your product which you held many personal stakes in both artistically and financially, we are all wrong sometimes.
Dragonborn
Member
Lol, I doubt it's "most". It's a vocal minority at most
This game is getting hate like a Ryse did. Complaints about a "short, qte filled campaign with great visuals." For me that game was fine.
The problem with the Internet is its easy to start a negative campaign and have lots of piling on. Everything is social and misrepresentation can spread like wild fire.
Fighting back has its problems. It keeps the topics going and more damage can happen. Or you sit back and hope it works out.
I don't own a ps4 yet, but the game looked cool to me.
The problem with the Internet is its easy to start a negative campaign and have lots of piling on. Everything is social and misrepresentation can spread like wild fire.
Fighting back has its problems. It keeps the topics going and more damage can happen. Or you sit back and hope it works out.
I don't own a ps4 yet, but the game looked cool to me.
It would have been better had Jan not stirred the pot whilst adding heat to it. They need to grow a thicker skin (easier said that done) but the internet has been this way since the earliest days of anonymity.
If they are to play further in the major league they need to become more desensitized to the anonymous shit hurling, filter the noise for more constructive criticism (preferably after a while) and feedback and make appropriate adjustments in future projects.
If they are to play further in the major league they need to become more desensitized to the anonymous shit hurling, filter the noise for more constructive criticism (preferably after a while) and feedback and make appropriate adjustments in future projects.
Well, we don't know that yet.
The online tracking so far is fairly strong across most major retailers.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Errr...? I think the criticism aimed at the game isn't that it's "too different" than the norm... xD
Dreamgazer
Member
No, the analogy is fine. A $100 steak is nothing compared to my fine tin of $7000 caviar.
EventHorizon
Member
It's also a bad analogy because presumably he wants the game to sell as much as possible and not only be enjoyed occasionally by a select few.
autoduelist
Member
People have clearly been hate posting this game since the initial reveal, ready to grab onto any negative tidbit they could.
There are people's careers and livelihoods at stake. Not only that, but any serious developer will be treating their game like their baby -- with love, care, and pride. Watching the hate has to be hard to take.
So, yes, it is bullying in a way. Is it as bad as other forms of bullying? Surely not. But everything is to degrees -- is taking lunch money worse than getting punched in the arm worse than getting shamed on the internet? Just because something is less 'bullying' than something else doesn't mean it's not bullying.
Especially given most of the hate dealt out over the course of the last year has not been from people who even played the game/demo.
There are people's careers and livelihoods at stake. Not only that, but any serious developer will be treating their game like their baby -- with love, care, and pride. Watching the hate has to be hard to take.
So, yes, it is bullying in a way. Is it as bad as other forms of bullying? Surely not. But everything is to degrees -- is taking lunch money worse than getting punched in the arm worse than getting shamed on the internet? Just because something is less 'bullying' than something else doesn't mean it's not bullying.
Especially given most of the hate dealt out over the course of the last year has not been from people who even played the game/demo.
WordsintheWater
Member
Just to clarify when he said the bullying thing he wasn't just talking about threads on the game, but also in general.
Here's the whole answer to the question that was asked
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Yes it is, but is it realistic? We have like what? 10 different accounts all saying the game's length is what RAD claim to be, and one youtubers set of videos where it isn't. So it must be either all these dudes are lying or just made up their times.
I'm not saying the video isn't accurate, It COULD be inaccurate, we know for a fact a cutscene was removed. I'm just saying every one is taking the 5 hours as the set time, and that's it, where all these other people have 9 to 10.
Maybe he meant sulfuric acid? Can't defend that!
Mass_Pincup
Banned
The majority of them are not constructive or legitimate criticism because they didn't play the game. You can say that the game isn't worth 60$ because of it's length even though it's pretty weird in my opinion, but actually shit on the gameplay without ever having played it is just hate. And don't get me started about the complaint regarding the lack of co-op.
You should eat a lot of chicken broth and Parmesan Cheese. Those aren't nose flavors!
GeordieMark
Member
The problem with that gormless analogy is that the smaller steak doesn't necessarily taste better. Different, but not better. And you aren't allowed to actually eat the smaller steak either. You can eat some, but you can only smell the rest.
Point is, steak analogies are dumb.
Point is, steak analogies are dumb.
Primethius
Banned
Your work is QTE filled, is a generic uninspired TPS that plays like Heavy Rain and should have been made by David Cage. The black bars are atrocious, the game has no minorities and the game only has 2 hours of gameplay. Its pretty much a movie so I'll just watch it on Youtube instead.
Did I miss anything?
I don't know if I agree with the bullying comment, but lets not pretend that the Order hasn't had some shitty ass threads on GAF alone with regards to the quality of "criticism" the game has received.
That's the other side. Just because your campaign is short doesn't preclude you from adding in things such as harder difficulties, skins, New Game +, or additional objectives. There are ways to increase the value of your game other than artificially bloating the campaign or adding in multiplayer.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
What's wrong with the gameplay? It sounds like it's good quality shooting, so unless you really don't like shooting in games, why complain about it. It's not like it's thematically out of place in a game about people who fight against some forces of evil. I actually do think this game harkens back to a game type that's conceptually not much seen anymore. To me, this game seems like a year 2015 version of something like Another World, for the reasons too obvious and too numerous to list.