Support NeoGAF

[Llyrwenne]

The game is complete. Just because you thought it was too short doesn't mean that it's unfinished. They told what they wanted to say with the game, they're was no or next to no bug in the game as well.

This kind of post are why a conversation surrounding The Order is next to impossible here.

It is very obvious that what we got is not the entirety of the story they wanted to tell. It should be obvious from the fact that they resolve pretty much none of the plot threads that are set up during the story. Two quick examples of places in the story where it feels like something is missing;

1.

Spoiler

Rebels are attacking the bridge leading to The Order's headquarters. You fend off the rebels, but Galahad goes a bit mad at the end when trying to get the location of a rebel leader. After punching a man and getting the information, Isabeau says she's headed straight for Galahad and Galahad seems to calm down a bit, standing at the end of the bridge... we fade to black... and now Galahad is in the place where the rebel told him their leader was. What is with the awkward fade to black? From how the story plays out it seems obvious that there should have been a scene in between these two where Galahad is reprimanded for his actions, which gives him some actual reason to go rogue, but that scene just... isn't there, and as a result the transition from the bridge to the brothel and Galahad's emotional state in both of them is just... off.

2.

Spoiler

You eventually discover a shipment of vampires planned to head out in six weeks. You get caught and imprisoned and tortured for four weeks, then need to recover for two weeks after escaping. That's six weeks; lines up nicely to pick up that plot thread and stop the shipment. ...but instead you are rushed into an abrupt ending that has very little to do with the events of the game.

Also, here's a quote from the game director;

We grew up with these characters for five, six years. And at the end, when you start with a game, you always start with a 100 things you want to do, and you know that as things go forward, it gets reduced to 80, then to 60, then to 40. It's impossible to do otherwise, it happens every time. Some of the characters well so well written and well defined in the original story, that in our minds they were, you know, completely clear and incredibly well developed. But then as the story got reduced, some of them in the final game didn't seem quite as, you know, as deep as they were in the original thing. But from the inside of the team it's very difficult to see that, because you have the background in your head, so you lose a little bit of perspective on these things. This is some of the things we learned, you know, in the process, is that keeping your perspective on the whole project gets more and more difficult the more you get into it.

 

[RedlineRonin]

Gears of Wars gameplay isn't in any way shape or form "basic"... even today, regardless of how other games have iterated on that formula over the last 10+ years. That's my point and I think it's quite rational.

Gears wasn't even the genesis of the cover shooter genre, it was just the first game to perfect that style of third person shooter gameplay in a remarkable way.

If something excellent creates a standard, then something else, evolving that standard can only be better. That's my point in response to your previous post. Your logic, that something excellent becoming a "standard" now means that that template is retroactively "basic" (to the extent that another game ripping it off wholesale is now considered bad) is what doesn't make any sense.

I'm arguing that Gears as a template for TPS cover shooters is actually a high bar to aim at (regardless of the fact that other newer games have done GoW gameplay better), and that it you're saying that TO:1886 achieves that then you're actually complimenting TO:1886.

I'm also arguing, however, that TO:1886 doesn't even achieve GoW's high bar, in terms of cover shooter gameplay, and in fact is inferior in many ways. Which I see you agree with.

In my mind, if TO:1886 essentially ripped off GoW gameplay wholesale and basically existed as a reskinned version of it, it would in fact be a significantly better game.

I personally don't subscribe to your view that if something was exceptional in 2006, it's now simply mediocre, merely because newer games have iterated on that template. For me, if a game was great and fun ten years ago (not for any other reason other than gameplay) then it will still be great and fun today. Why'd you think BC is such a lauded feature among gamers?

It is basic, relatively.

And yes, this does occur retrospectively. You don't have to agree, and that's fine, but for me, those things I listed in those three other TPS's make them objectively better as far as gameplay is concerned. More options are better than less, more mobility is better than less, and more tactical considerations are better than less (to me).

Going back to the original game, having experienced these things, makes it way less entertaining and "fun" than it was at the time. So yes, retroactively "mediocre."

I honestly played three hours of Gears 4 and dropped that too. I'm just tired of a template that is that basic.

And I think your argument about BC is far too broad. Separating gameplay elements is important in BC. Sure there's a desire for BC, but that doesn't equate 1:1 with "people want old gameplay mechanics." In fact, when you see remasters done of games, there are often times updates made to mechanics that we have since evolved past.

That's separate and distinct from the rest of a game holding up. Absolutely, I played Final Fantasy VII for the first time in 2013, and it was amazing, and a huge argument (assuming it wasn't on Steam/PS3/4) for why BC is important, but a significant part of that was the story, characters, the world etc. I don't subscribe to BC desirability being because I want to play old games that have mechanics that haven't been superseded in the time since then.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

It is basic, relatively.

And yes, this does occur retrospectively. You don't have to agree, and that's fine, but for me, those things I listed in those three other TPS's make them objectively better as far as gameplay is concerned. More options are better than less, more mobility is better than less, and more tactical considerations are better than less (to me).

Going back to the original game, having experienced these things, makes it way less entertaining and "fun" than it was at the time. So yes, retroactively "mediocre."

I honestly played three hours of Gears 4 and dropped that too. I'm just tired of a template that is that basic.

I think you're confusing genre fatigue for the manner in which a game's mechanics can still hold up over time. The former is entirely subjective, whilst the latter is objective. It would help you to be able to distinguish the two.

That you're personally tired of the GoW formula, doesn't take anything away from the fact that the original GoW game is mechanical triumph and can be considered such today as it was back when it released, regardless of what other games might have done since.

And I think your argument about BC is far too broad. Separating gameplay elements is important in BC. Sure there's a desire for BC, but that doesn't equate 1:1 with "people want old gameplay mechanics." In fact, when you see remasters done of games, there are often times updates made to mechanics that we have since evolved past.

That's separate and distinct from the rest of a game holding up. Absolutely, I played Final Fantasy VII for the first time in 2013, and it was amazing, and a huge argument (assuming it wasn't on Steam/PS3/4) for why BC is important, but a significant part of that was the story, characters, the world etc. I don't subscribe to BC desirability being because I want to play old games that have mechanics that haven't been superseded in the time since then.

I'm struggling to even follow your logic here. People want BC because those legacy title they enjoyed back in the day, can still offer the same or a similar level of enjoyment today... It's as simple as that. No need to try to contrive another reason for BC's appeal to support your argument.

I can go back and play Mario 64 today and still think it's a masterpiece, as I did when i first played it. The fact of the existence of subsequent 3D Mario games is irrelevant, and frankly I feel sorry for people who can't seem to find any enjoyment in legacy games merely because a subsequent game (that is indeed a different game and diverges in many significant ways, not just in evolving the template) has improved on the formula.

Such compounding standards must mean you don't find much enjoyment in many games at all, since the majority of games today aren't really innovating in many significant ways (merely mixing up new concoctions based on the same set of ingredients).

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

This is funny, because the "gameplay" (or rather gunplay) in Gears was widely held as excellent at the time. And whilst the third person, cover shooter, genre has moved on since then, I don't think anyone who plays the first gears today would describe the first gears game's gameplay as weak, poor or shit.

That you're even comparing the Order's cover shooter gameplay to Gears really answers your own question, and is a real compliment to TO:1886.

I personally think Gears' gunplay is superior, and the entire game's gameplay taken as a whole is more polished and much better designed than TO:1886's.

The cover shooter parts of TO:1886 aren't the problem of the game, imo. It's the rest of the gameplay that is extremely lacking.

You're confusing gameplay as a whole with mechanics here. The controls, the way you interact with cover and so on are similar to Gears 1 (although lacking Active Reload from memory). Hence I describe it as mechanically competent. But that's just one part of the gameplay recipe, and the other areas is where Gears struggles.

I will agree with you that the mechanics aren't the problem, but gameplay as a whole is one of the problems. It's where mechanics intersect with levels, enemies and weapons where the problem lies.

 

[Falchion]

I really enjoyed it for the $12 I paid. Beautiful graphics, a pretty nice story, and some decent characters. Also that airship level was fantastic.

 

[Bunga]

It's the only Batman game from Rocksteady that I haven't finished. I hated the Batmobile vs. tanks sections, and it was the last straw when I faced such a boss battle after having to go through two similar fights. It just wasn't enjoyable for me. Arkham Asylum still remains the best of them, and I still think that going open world was a mistake.

I know I'm definitely in the minority but I loved everything about the Batmobile. I think there were too many tank fights for sure, they definitely over did it, but I thought that the gameplay was really fun.

I completely agree with you though, I too wish that they hadn't gone open world. I was so disappointed when it was revealed that City was open world. Asylum was a special game, I even went to the effort of doing all the Riddler stuff but there was no way in hell I was doing it on City because there were about eleventy billion of them.

 

[Melchiah]

I know I'm definitely in the minority but I loved everything about the Batmobile. I think there were too many tank fights for sure, they definitely over did it, but I thought that the gameplay was really fun.

I completely agree with you though, I too wish that they hadn't gone open world. I was so disappointed when it was revealed that City was open world. Asylum was a special game, I even went to the effort of doing all the Riddler stuff but there was no way in hell I was doing it on City because there were about eleventy billion of them.

I didn't have such an issue with all Batmobile sections, but the tank fights were tedious for me, and I can't say I enjoyed the Riddler races either.

Yeah, Arkham City was a disappointment as well. I also did all the Riddler quests in Asylum, but never bothered to do them in the sequel. There were just too many of them, and far too many that had annoying time limits. As far as I'm concerned, the sequel only improved on combat and boss fights. The latter were the main flaw in the first, excluding the Scarecrow ones of course.

 

[brickarts295]

I hope we get a sequel announcement out of nowhere similar to Knack 2. I really think the franchise still has potential.
They can't let RE4 keep the reload animation crown XD

 

[Hermii]

I hope we get a sequel announcement out of nowhere similar to Knack 2. I really think the franchise still has potential.
They can't let RE4 keep the reload animation crown XD

Really doubt Knack would have gotten a sequel if Mark Cerny didnt work on it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

You're confusing gameplay as a whole with mechanics here. The controls, the way you interact with cover and so on are similar to Gears 1 (although lacking Active Reload from memory). Hence I describe it as mechanically competent. But that's just one part of the gameplay recipe, and the other areas is where Gears struggles.

I will agree with you that the mechanics aren't the problem, but gameplay as a whole is one of the problems. It's where mechanics intersect with levels, enemies and weapons where the problem lies.

Not me... I wasn't making the inference that Gears of War and TO:1886 had the same gameplay... the poster I was replying to was.

I was merely pointing out in that post, how, assuming that was the case, then it would be a compliment to TO:1886, since the gameplay of GoW (i.e. mechanics, levels, systems, weapons, enemies and AI subroutines) is excellent, even today.

My position, as expressed in my post, was that TO:1886 is inferior to Gears in terms of gameplay. And so I actually disagreed with the original poster's premise of equating the two.

 

[Acquiescence]

I hope we get a sequel announcement out of nowhere similar to Knack 2. I really think the franchise still has potential.
They can't let RE4 keep the reload animation crown XD

It might be a 6/10 game, but it sure does have 10/10 reload animations. Damn that shit still looks like hot fire.

 

[Helscream]

I was disappointed by the game, but feel like there is great potential for the Universe. My biggest gripe with the game is the banal choice of humans enemies. The trailers had me thinking it was going to be like a Van Helsing / Man vs Monster / Ghouls and Goblins scenario. Instead your having cover based fire fights with bloody Paupers who are tired of stuck up Rich People. What kind of shit is this?

 

[msdstc]

Such a bad game. Terrible gameplay, complete with infinite spawns, on rail sections, poor forced stealth sections, forced cutscenes, etc etc. One of the worst games in the last 2 or 3 generations.

 

[Bolivar687]

Awesome game. Unmatched atmosphere.

Way better than Gears.

 

[Calvinpewpewpew]

I JUST finished this yesterday after starting it maybe 3-4 times and was going to make a thread until I saw this one. As is typical for GAF basically everything I think has already been covered, so a few bullet points and then my final thoughts:

- Gorgeous graphics that hold up even with 4k games on the market.
- Some of the best world building in any new IP this gen - steampunk London was wonderful. The Order was interesting. This could have been a franchise with a ton of room to grow.
- Good variety of weapons with clever mechanics and alt-fire modes.
- Engaging story that was just really unfortunately cut short.
- Too many good mechanics that were underutilized.

The Order 1886 set in an open Victorian world ala The Division might be one of the coolest things we will never get. I loved what they did with the story, the world building, the aesthetic, and was really disappointed to see the game end so abruptly. I understand why people were bitter at paying $60 for something that was so interactive, and had so much of its length behind cutscenes and QTEs (which didn't bother me at all). To me, this is the absolute prime example of the GAF thread that asks "What game deserves a sequel (but didn't get one). There is so much potential here, I absolutely would pay for a second attempt at this.

 

[TrojanBlade]

Easily a 7 for me. If they fix some of the issues, this game can easily be up there with some of the best action adventure games. So much story potential and I love the overall atmosphere this game had. Just wish it had more open ended levels, combat, some good boss fights and less or no QTEs. Also they didn't fully utilize the half breeds potential.This engine can't go to waste...its just too beautiful. I really want a sequel with the issues fixed. Sony please fund the sequel!!!

 

[Melchiah]

I JUST finished this yesterday after starting it maybe 3-4 times and was going to make a thread until I saw this one. As is typical for GAF basically everything I think has already been covered, so a few bullet points and then my final thoughts:

- Gorgeous graphics that hold up even with 4k games on the market.
- Some of the best world building in any new IP this gen - steampunk London was wonderful. The Order was interesting. This could have been a franchise with a ton of room to grow.
- Good variety of weapons with clever mechanics and alt-fire modes.
- Engaging story that was just really unfortunately cut short.
- Too many good mechanics that were underutilized.

The Order 1886 set in an open Victorian world ala The Division might be one of the coolest things we will never get. I loved what they did with the story, the world building, the aesthetic, and was really disappointed to see the game end so abruptly. I understand why people were bitter at paying $60 for something that was so interactive, and had so much of its length behind cutscenes and QTEs (which didn't bother me at all). To me, this is the absolute prime example of the GAF thread that asks "What game deserves a sequel (but didn't get one). There is so much potential here, I absolutely would pay for a second attempt at this.

I agree with everything but being bitter about paying 60€ for the game. No regrets whatsoever. Reading this thread makes me actually want to replay the game.

The single most disappointing thing about the game was, that it wasn't the werewolf-themed horror game I expected it to be based on the trailers, and the lycan encounters could have been much better.

 

[Bunga]

I just finished this game yesterday and, I gotta say, I really enjoyed it for the most part. Yeah, it's not perfect, there is plenty I would change in a sequel (which we sadly probably are never going to get).

My pros and cons:

Pros:

+ The graphics were insane. Some of the best I've seen. I love the art direction too with Steampunk vibe
+ Weapons were really satisfying to use, great sound effects etc. Felt weighty/'right'
+ Gunplay itself was good fun however... SEE CONS
+ Galahad. Absolutely loved him, he's a badass
+ Supporting cast was good. Voice acting was all top notch.
+ Good story, well told. I enjoyed that it wasn't all about saving the world. It was paired back, grounded.

Cons:

- I didn't mind them that much they do give you a long range silent weapon, but the insta-fail stealth section was straight out of game design a decade ago
- Some of the combat arenas were very poorly designed, not providing enough space to fit the waves and waves of enemies that come in
- Disappointing boss fights. All re-used and not even interesting in the first place. A shame
- Proper abrupt ending! Couldn't believe it when the credits rolled!

I think there's so much potential here for a fantastic sequel, it's such a shame that it'll probably never happen. I would give it a 6/10 probably. Not a bad game, I'd have probably been pissed if I bought it full price but for less than £10, I really can't complain.

 

[kmag]

A lot of the issues with the level design are probably a result of the focus on the graphics. I can't help but feel the levels were designed to limit either draw distances or enemies on screen.

 

[Švejk]

The letterboxing was a HUGE turnoff for me.

 

[Whompa02]

Stopped playing after about an hour. Total slog.

 

[Asriel]

I'm curious how one would find the story of The Order 1886 to be 'great'.

I recently replayed it because I'm making a video analysis specifically on the story, and I found that every single chapter has at least one major issue in the story / writing / narrative department. There's some good ideas and concepts behind it, yes, but the actual story as presented in the game barely holds together from the start and completely falls apart at the end...

Same. The only laudable thing about the game is its graphics. With its walking sequences, you had no choice but to admire them. Definitely glad my bought and I didn't.

 

[Scrumpert]

i will play it just for the easy platinum trophy. Like the dirty trophy whore i am

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

Grabbed this yesterday in the PSN sale....for $5 i really like it so far. Atmosphere is great from what i've played at this point, and the gameplay, while basic in nature, has been good.

Graphically it holds up quite well with today's games, and it looks pretty awesome on my 4K set. Definitely worth it for me so far. Even if it ends up being a short game, i'm sure i'll get my value out of it, plus as others have said, it's an easy platinum too.

 

[Paganmoon]

Really doubt Knack would have gotten a sequel if Mark Cerny didnt work on it.

Solution, get Mark Cerny to work on The Order: 1886 sequel

 

[SimpleCRIPPLE]

Just got around to finishing this I’m pretty bummed a sequel isn’t likely. The game had flaws sure, but damn if that ending was just as bad as Halo 2.

This is a story I want to continue.

 

[Hasney]

Really doubt Knack would have gotten a sequel if Mark Cerny didnt work on it.

Knack sold really well. I bet a lot of that was down to the fact you could only buy that bundle sometimes when solos were sold out (and still better than the Killzone bundle), but it's probably worth another shot to see if the number of people that okayed the original helps.

 

[LectureMaster]

Honestly it was my most enjoying single player experience last year. Loved Ser Galahad, pretty decent story, great London atmosphere and the easy platinum.

I am always wondering if it would be much more successful being a 29.99 title like Hellblade.

 

[Grinchy]

This game will go down with Killzone Shadowfall for the most overblown hatred of the generation.

It's not some game I'm running around to recommend to everyone, but people pretend it's completely incompetent. It's a very competent game that may have been too light on content for some. That's as bad of a review as I can really give it.

 

[ArcLyte]

I say a prayer to Shu Yoshida every night to let RAD make a sequel.

 

[lightskintwin]

Just got around to finishing this I'm pretty bummed a sequel isn't likely. The game had flaws sure, but damn if that ending was just as bad as Halo 2.

This is a story I want to continue.

But at least Halo had already established itself, it's characters, it's story, and conflict with it's first game. The Order having that ending without a first game to establish anything made that ending completely unsatisfying, anti climatic, and unforgivable.

It was like having Empire Strikes Back without a New Hope, or The Matrix Reloaded without The Matrix. (I'm speaking narrative wise, not quality wise)

 

[Vlodril]

Just finished it also. Got it in a recent sale and since i finished horizon zero dawn i thought before i jump into another big game i should try something different.

I really liked it. Beautiful game (even comparing it to later ps4 games like horizon and uncharted) a ton of attention to detail, great art (loved all the uniforms the locations everything) and a nice intriguing story (really liked the arthurian knights angle).

Wasn't a qte fest like i heard it had some minimal interactions and 2 fights with partly being qte's.

In the end i think it probably fell victim to console wars and its linearity and short campaign (which is the only fault i could find it could use another 4-6 hours) when most gamers where looking for open world experiences at the time.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

In the end i think it probably fell victim to console wars and its linearity and short campaign (which is the only fault i could find it could use another 4-6 hours) when most gamers where looking for open world experiences at the time.

It fell victim to people not liking it. Although it's short runtime was a major criticism, it wasn't the only one. Blaming console wars feels absurd when exclusives from every platform frequently get outstanding critical and commercial receptions.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Honestly it was my most enjoying single player experience last year. Loved Ser Galahad, pretty decent story, great London atmosphere and the easy platinum.

I am always wondering if it would be much more successful being a 29.99 title like Hellblade.

I've been thinking the same thing. I liked The Order, even with it's pretty big flaws and I'm currently playing Hellblade which is great, I've noticed similarities between them - very story heavy, has good combat mechanics but not much combat, lots of walking around and is around 6 hours long.

If The Order 1886 was only $29.99 / £24.99 at launch like Hellblade, then I'm sure it would have been received a little better, although Hellblade is still a more complete and better put together game.

 

[fatherKratos]

Stopped playing after about an hour. Total slog.

Came here to post this. It was sooo boring & uninspired, I couldn't play it for over an hour.Should have bought a burger instead of spending 4.99$ on it.

 

[TheYanger]

In the end i think it probably fell victim to console wars and its linearity and short campaign (which is the only fault i could find it could use another 4-6 hours) when most gamers where looking for open world experiences at the time.

How does a PS4 game at that point in the gen fall victim to console wars? Everyone owned a PS4, there wasn't any salt flying around about the order other than that it was a very average/mediocre game that was really short, which isn't console war stuff.

 

[Vlodril]

It fell victim to people not liking it. Although it's short runtime was a major criticism, it wasn't the only one. Blaming console wars feels absurd when exclusives from every platform frequently get outstanding critical and commercial receptions.

maybe. i think the hatred on same games is overblown (on any console ) and i think part of that is console wars stuff. there is a tendency to bandwagon on something too a lot of the times because something must be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

People have different tastes i am not arguing that i just didnt see a bad game when i played it. I remember that back then the vitriol was intense. I could be misremembering i am not known for my good memory.

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

Finished this last night. While not the greatest, i still had fun with it, and damn it looks so good even today!

Was going to attempt the platinum but there is apparently NO indicators in the chapter select showing which chapters have collectibles, or even anything showing how many you still have to get in each chapter??? What kind of horseshit is that? So they just expect you to replay every single chapter and hope that you find something you missed?

 

[Betty]

They banked on the story carrying the game, except the story is the most basic, by the numbers, obvious and forgettable pile of tripe.

Unskippable cutscenes is an instant failure in my book, it's fine if you use them to hide loading screens like Uncharted but when they're done loading the game then we should get to skip them just like Uncharted.

Lady Igraine getting super jealous of Galahad possibly seeing another woman and being the reason she betrays him is some fucking weak, sexist and bullshit storytelling.

It doesn't fit her character and she had the flimsiest of evidence to go on, she didn't even confront Galahad to find out if she was right in her suspicions.

Knowing that she's hating on him for a giant misunderstanding is bad enough, the fact they planned to carry this over to the next game was worse.

If you're going to hang your entire game on it's story, make sure it's a little better than a direct to dvd, uninspired mess.

Also, never forget.

 

[Bunga]

They banked on the story carrying the game, except the story is the most basic, by the numbers, obvious and forgettable pile of tripe.

Unskippable cutscenes is an instant failure in my book, it's fine if you use them to hide loading screens like Uncharted but when they're done loading the game then we should get to skip them just like Uncharted.

Lady Igraine getting super jealous of Galahad possibly seeing another woman and being the reason she betrays him is some fucking weak, sexist and bullshit storytelling.

It doesn't fit her character and she had the flimsiest of evidence to go on, she didn't even confront Galahad to find out if she was right in her suspicions.

Knowing that she's hating on him for a giant misunderstanding is bad enough, the fact they planned to carry this over to the next game was worse.

If you're going to hang your entire game on it's story, make sure it's a little better than a direct to dvd, uninspired mess.

Also, never forget.

Might be wrong on this, but wasn't a part of Igraine's betrayal that the woman he was seen with was part of the rebellion? Anyway, completely agree in principle - she could have just talked to him but instead she throws him under the bus lol.

 

[MrFortyFive]

Presentation was top notch but a forgettable story, unskippable cutscenes, and over-reliance on walking and QTEs really hurt it in my eyes. The gunplay and weapon variety were really enjoyable though, or at least for what little time you can actually use some of the weapons.

A sequel has massive potential, but I doubt we'll ever see it. Even just some challenge maps, a simple horde mode, or anything of the sort that would help showcase things the game really got right would have been a massive step towards making the game a more substantial experience.

 

[shandy706]

Awesome game. Unmatched atmosphere.

Way better than Gears.

No...not even slightly close gameplay wise (which you may not have been including).

However, I did like the setting more than Gears. Game was WAY too easy though. I just went through it headshotting all the human enemies like it was nothing. The shotgunners got a me a few times I'll admit, but they were borderline annoying/stupid with how they just blindly run up on you/rush you. Repetitive/scripted werewolf scenes were stupid...but nice graphically.

I did enjoy looking at the details and taking screenshots of stuff. I'd move the camera all over looking at things in photomode. All the fake reflections were distracting.

I'm fine with a 6.5/10 on it. Enjoyable for what I paid ($5), and I'd love a sequel.

 

[Messofanego]

I hope we get a sequel announcement out of nowhere similar to Knack 2. I really think the franchise still has potential.
They can't let RE4 keep the reload animation crown XD

If people used the reload animations from the actual gameplay as a GIF instead of this pseudocutscene moment that so many fawn over, it has no crown.

 

[Rain City Gamer]

This game was a 5.5/10 - 6/10 for me.

It had SO much potential but the archaic mission design and lack of player control really killed the experience.

Was always hopeful for a sequel because there is enough there to make an amazing franchise. This universe could print money if it was in the right hands.

 

[Betty]

Might be wrong on this, but wasn't a part of Igraine's betrayal that the woman he was seen with was part of the rebellion? Anyway, completely agree in principle - she could have just talked to him but instead she throws him under the bus lol.

Yes, but it's more to do with the, in her eyes, seemingly romantic betrayal.

And she does try to talk to him, but he's too busy and so she assumes the worst.

 

[Theslammer]

I wouldn't mind a sequel... but it'd have to be a lot different. I don't even care that it's linear because I love God of War, Uncharted, etc.

I would just need a lot more than what they gave to feel the need to get it at or near launch. More interactivity, maybe? More variety in gameplay or more gameplay in general? A longer experience than 5 - 6 hours? It doesn't even have to be a super long game: Uncharted 2 - 3 are great at around 10, and Last of Us/Uncharted 4 took me around 20 due to their stealth aspects.

And definitely bosses that aren't the same boss played twice that are completely QTE. I didn't mind some of the QTE sequences and I'm not even anti-QTE in general, but it does seem like a waste what they did to the bosses.

There would just need to be major improvements across the board. I love the look of the game (even past the great graphics) and the mood, but considering the money and hype behind it, it didn't live up despite the fact that Ready At Dawn is a talented developer. It didn't even matter that what I saw didn't look amazing; I figured RAD would make it into a great experience like Ghost of Sparta.

Definitely a misfire, but I do hope they can showcase their talents because I hate to see this happening to a developer I quite enjoyed previously, and I don't want bad things to happen to studios as I prefer to see studios thrive than to hear of closures. The Rocket League team exploding after the game's success, for example, is one of the coolest things that happened this gen.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

maybe. i think the hatred on same games is overblown (on any console ) and i think part of that is console wars stuff. there is a tendency to bandwagon on something too a lot of the times because something must be the best thing ever or the worst thing ever.

People have different tastes i am not arguing that i just didnt see a bad game when i played it. I remember that back then the vitriol was intense. I could be misremembering i am not known for my good memory.

I don't know why people are so intent on claiming some console war bias with this game in particular so often. Especially when the criticisms and reasons the game falls short have been laid out pretty thoroughly so often.

 

[Dunan]

As a fan of the era this game is set in, and seeing that Nikola Tesla was in it, I was really looking forward to this. The graphics were just ridiculously beautiful.

I struggled to play it because I couldn't deal with the (to me) weird over-the-shoulder camera and the way we had to control the camera and the reticule with the same orientation, so I just muddled through on the easiest difficulty.

"That part is mostly my fault," I'm thinking, and am looking forward to at least experiencing what the devs are giving us. Then a few disappointments crept in. "We do not kill innocent men." says one of Galahad's superiors... and yet you do kill innocent men, over and over; you even have to kill some night watchmen in a park because one of them has a key you need. Really!? (And it gets worse... if you discover which one has the key and just go after that one, the game puts the key in the pocket of the fifth or seventh or whatever-th person you kill, so unless I missed something you have to kill these people.

They also seemed to want to show off their ability to render destruction so we get an unpleasant amount of broken glass and destroyed objects. I want to enjoy this beautiful world, not watch everything get broken!

I didn't mind the cut scenes as chapters; not knowing that they had probably been planned as playable content, I just appreciated them as an unusual storytelling method.

The supporting characters deserved a lot more development. You could also see the twist coming a mile away if you had some familiarity with ancient Greek.

I sold the game off for almost what I paid for it and didn't feel cheated money-wise. It was disappointing to see impressions of this game drop from pretty good to almost irrational hate. Still, this could have been a great series with all kinds of amazing worldbuilding. I still hope we get something else set in this world.

 

[Cartho]

I think an awful lot of the hate for it is (entirely justified) disappointment. It was one of the first big AAA new IPs for the PS4. It had mind blowing graphics - the trailers made people think "next gen visuals are properly here". It was also a story based 3rd person action game - Sony had great success with those in The Last of Us and Uncharted. Gears of War was also extremely popular. It also had a very interesting premise and setting - Victorian knights with rifles and lightning guns fighting werewolves in an atmospheric, foggy London? Awesome.

A lot of people were thinking: big, first party, story based TPS with incredible graphics, a pretty unique setting and style - sold.

However when it arrived it just felt tired. It had insta fail stealth sections which were some of the worst in recent memory, it had very generic human enemies armed with rifles and shotguns: disappointing given the premise. The third person shooting was actually really good in terms of feel but there wasn't enough of it.

If the game was 10 - 12 hours long instead of 5 - 6 (of which most was cutscenes) and had a multiplayer mode with a decent progression system and a good set of modes and maps where people could enjoy the high quality gunplay then it would have done a lot better in my view.

 

[MTC100]

I've spent 10 Euro on it and I didn't regret it. It was better than Uncharted 4 and Infamous for which I've spent 15 and 10 Euro respectively.

If I had to rate it, it would end as a solid 7/10 with Uncharted also being an 7/10 but the worse game over all, it dragged on much too long and lacked an interesting plot. The Order on the other hand had a very interesting setting but didn't use it to full extent, also the story could have been better, it might be a problem that the game didn't spend enough time to develop all the characters in more detail, they felt a bit shallow.

I really feel like The Order would have been a good episodic game, with the main game being EP 1 and 2 and the next game that was hinted at in the ending being EP 3 and 4. Too bad, the game will never have a sequel, because everyone and their mother is hating on it.