36 minutes of The Order 1886 gameplay (offscreen)

Sn4ke_911 said:
Holy shit, what a devastating preview.
Click to expand...

and yet u see other of his reviews and he doesnt care about old gameplay mechanics on other titles...

grandwizard said:
Perfect summation of my feelings on the demo as well. Glad to see someone in the mainstream press not fooled by the pretty graphics wrapped around stale gameplay that does absolutely nothing new or interesting. This game really does feel like RAD have spent all their time creating the universe and cinematic elements and are just forced to shove in the bare necessity of gameplay for it to be sold as a video game.



.
Click to expand...

lol..if anything is gaming press who is destroying this game on his previews with some awesome double standars..this game is gona get ravaged by these journos who need to prove they can bring down triple AAA games
 
not_so_special said:
and yet u see other of his reviews and he doesnt care about old gameplay mechanics on other titles...
Click to expand...

He seems to have an axe to grind over RaD's comments about The Order needing to have gameplay or whatever that innocuous statement blown completely out of proportion was. Hence we get charming nuggets like "the developers seem to actively resent its necessity."
 
koshunter said:
Well, given that a game like Shadow of Mordor was nominated for GOTY and is loved by many people, I'm sure that most players don't expect innovation with each title so long as the execution of the core gameplay is fine.
Click to expand...

Really though? Shadow of Mordor didn't innovate with the Nemesis system? Can I borrow the magic pen you used to rewrite history? If SOM didn't have the Nemesis system it wouldn't have gotten GOTY.
 
Good god the game looks amazing. It really does look borderline CGI at times. Their cinema lens techniques etc. are really paying off. I will get this for the top of the line production values, music and story and hopefully, a satisfying gameplay. I don't really buy games for their graphics but I have to get this. Plus it seems to have a pretty good atmosphere going on and I love that. First time since the initial reveal that I'm beginning to be really interested in this.
 
flaxknuckles said:
Really though? Shadow of Mordor didn't innovate with the Nemesis system? Can I borrow the magic pen you used to rewrite history? If SOM didn't have the Nemesis system it wouldn't have gotten GOTY.
Click to expand...

SOM relies on a Nemesis system, which while cool, only works if you die alot, which in the context of SOM means very little if you are at all proficient in action games. Especially given that SOM is nothing more then a simplified Batman clone in terms of combat.

Is the Nemesis system unique and cool? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the game is a Batman game made simpler, with a far less interesting overworld.

Edit: If all we need is one feature that stands out from the rest of the games, I'm sure Order will be able to fill that pretty easily.
 
Sn4ke_911 said:
B4h4XlXIcAAE4o3.jpg:large


https://twitter.com/GuerrillaDawg/status/542816108274020352
Click to expand...

dat Sn4ku ;D

And yes, I really didn't like the old build but I enjoyed this one!
 
get2sammyb said:
I just posted my preview through here. Hopefully some of you still find value in one more opinion - I know plenty have already been posted.

Positives:

  • Jaw dropping visuals
  • Combat is very punchy
  • Lovely music
  • Intriguing plot

Negatives:

  • Really poor stealth
  • Can sometimes be hard to tell when you're actually in control
  • Shootouts in the demo are quite straight forward

More through here: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2014/12/preview_is_ps4_exclusive_the_order_1886_a_revolution_or_a_relic
Click to expand...

This is actually a positive for me. I love moments that are interactive but catch the player by surprise.
 
RoboPlato said:
This is actually a positive for me. I love moments that are interactive but catch the player by surprise.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. The only thing I'd say here is because it transitions between cut-scene and gameplay so often and so rapidly, it can leave you pondering when to play and when to watch, y'know? It's definitely a minor thing, but something I noticed all the same.
 
get2sammyb said:
I just posted my preview through here. Hopefully some of you still find value in one more opinion - I know plenty have already been posted.

Positives:

  • Jaw dropping visuals
  • Combat is very punchy
  • Lovely music
  • Intriguing plot

Negatives:

  • Really poor stealth
  • Can sometimes be hard to tell when you're actually in control
  • Shootouts in the demo are quite straight forward

More through here: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2014/12/preview_is_ps4_exclusive_the_order_1886_a_revolution_or_a_relic
Click to expand...
So awesome.
 
Servbot24 said:
This doesn't necessitate clarification. Everyone knows that reviews are written by people and not gods. Everyone knows that reviewers are writing opinions.
Click to expand...

This is correct, however look at post 1190 and see what the effect of a negative review has on the someone's perception of the game. Choice plageristic quotes included.
 
The one thing perhaps I didn't like was the difficulty. It was medium difficulty and I didn't die a single time. And I was pretty nonchalant at times. That's probably why the stealth section didn't bother me either. I ran through it like it was nothing. I saw some people mentioning the stealth QTE was irritating because you can fail it and that's instant death, but I never failed them. Not once. So it's surprising to read that was a problem for some people. I really hope the higher difficulty options will prove more of a challenge.
 
The graphic still look incredible.

The game still looks like a rental.
Sadly, there is no place to rent games were I live so I'll just have to wait until it's in the $20-$30 range
 
get2sammyb said:
I'm with you. The only thing I'd say here is because it transitions between cut-scene and gameplay so often and so rapidly, it can leave you pondering when to play and when to watch, y'know? It's definitely a minor thing, but something I noticed all the same.
Click to expand...

Most likely that will happen less and less with the full game i hope.
 
Man, I don't care if your game is set in the 19th century. NEVER USE THAT HIDEOUS FONT IN A VIDEO GAME. *gouges out own eye balls*
 
I agree with a few points from the metro preview, but the PS2 bit sounds like hyperbole to me. Same goes to a few other points.
 
I just hope this game isn't too short.

I'm all for single player only if the campaign is lengthy enough to compensate for no multiplayer.

It doesn't have to be a twenty hour affair. Ten solid hours would suffice.

I am hoping for like 15 hours. Though I suspect that may nopt be realistic.
 
XxRampage07xX said:
Just wondering, how the hell could people in the cabin survive when Galahad threw a grenade into the room and locked it? I thought they would be blown up :D
Click to expand...
Maybe it was a flash-bang intended to disorient the opponents and not damage the machinery used to fly the blimp? Though, they end up killing everyone anyway, so why not frag them...

Would be cool if you tossed in a frag grenade and the entire blimp crashed to the ground.
 
Smoke grenade effect is pretty cool. Can't see shit when enemies throw it at me. As it should be. Also, being able to throw back grenades should be a standard option in every game that has them. I'm glad The Order 1886 has this. Playing any game that doesn't have it these days feels outdated to me.
 
I really hope they improve the stealth, and if they don't have enough time for that, I hope there aren't many stealth sequences.

Shinobi's statement in that aspect is a relief.
 
ViewtifulJC said:
You can call it whatever like, having the first 5-10 minutes of your game consisting of slooooow repelling, a QTE, and a basic crummy stealth section with inconsistent AI and instadeath fail states isn't particularly interesting no matter how you slice it.

then there's this rudimentary hacking minigame thing. A sniper section where the game doesn't trust the player to do anything but follow along to the "press triangle now" button prompts. A lock pick that you can't actually use to explore the environment, but only to open the one prescribed scripted door.
Click to expand...

There is a pretty big difference between this criticism and the earlier one. Instadeath fail states, QTEs, and "slow repelling" might not be compelling to everyone (it's not, as you put it, uninteresting "any way you slice it"), but there is a fundamental difference between taking issue with a game's design for being bad and taking issue with a game's design for being unoriginal, unimaginative, or uninventive. There's nothing inherently wrong with the last three. Some of the biggest and most popular games are all of those three.

I certainly can understand the perspective of people who prioritize innovation, inventiveness, or originality over iteration and polish, but I do not always agree and I find myself very annoyed when certain posters (like you in your post) assume that just because something is NOT those things that everyone should automatically understand a) why that's bad and b) why anyone should care. There's nothing wrong with tried and true. Lots of people like tried and true. I like tried and true. I also like inventive and original. I find room for both in my gaming diet.

It's also pretty annoying to see people say things like painfully linear or restrictively linear. I LIKE linear and you haven't done your diligence in showing me why I shouldn't like it. So I don't respect comments like that.

Penalizing a linear scripted shooter for being scripted, a shooter, and linear is silly. It doesn't get to any fundamental truth about a product, it doesn't convey the experience of playing the game, it doesn't inform the reader beyond vague generalities about what something denotatively IS, and it certainly doesn't read as more than "I don't like this thing so you will deal."

Again, big difference between the first post and the second post you made. And it's not just you. You just happened to be one of the only people worth responding to.
 
There is just one thing that I have been consistently discouraged with in this game.

Its not the linear nature, its not the relatively generic gameplay, its not the lack of innovation.

What is it? The the paucity of the damn supernatural enemies.

Where are they? There seems to be a major derth of them since the reveal. In the original trailer, they were the main peril presented. Since that time though, they have been relegated to an auxillary role in the game. To me, this is a let down, because they presented a very unique foe.

I am guessing this may be more like The Last of Us, in that although non-human enemies were the first to be presented, human enemies present the most persistant threat.
 
Rogue_Ledr said:
There is just one thing that I have been consistently discouraged with in this game.

Its not the linear nature, its not the relatively generic gameplay, its not the lack of innovation.

What is it? The the paucity of the damn supernatural enemies.

Where are they? There seems to be a major derth of them since the reveal. In the original trailer, they were the main peril presented. Since that time though, they have been relegated to an auxillary role in the game. To me, this is a let down, because they presented a very unique foe.

I am guessing this may be more like The Last of Us, in that although non-human enemies were the first to be presented, human enemies present the most persistant threat.
Click to expand...
Possibly those kinds of enemies will become more common towards the end of the game, which has not been showcased at all as far as I can tell. (We've seen chapters 3 and 5 so far, right?)
 
Y2Kev said:
There is a pretty big difference between this criticism and the earlier one. Instadeath fail states, QTEs, and "slow repelling" might not be compelling to everyone (it's not, as you put it, uninteresting "any way you slice it"), but there is a fundamental difference between taking issue with a game's design for being bad and taking issue with a game's design for being unoriginal, unimaginative, or uninventive. There's nothing inherently wrong with the last three. Some of the biggest and most popular games are all of those three.

I certainly can understand the perspective of people who prioritize innovation, inventiveness, or originality over iteration and polish, but I do not always agree and I find myself very annoyed when certain posters (like you in your post) assume that just because something is NOT those things that everyone should automatically understand a) why that's bad and b) why anyone should care. There's nothing wrong with tried and true. Lots of people like tried and true. I like tried and true. I also like inventive and original. I find room for both in my gaming diet.

It's also pretty annoying to see people say things like painfully linear or restrictively linear. I LIKE linear and you haven't done your diligence in showing me why I shouldn't like it. So I don't respect comments like that.

Penalizing a linear scripted shooter for being scripted, a shooter, and linear is silly. It doesn't get to any fundamental truth about a product, it doesn't convey the experience of playing the game, it doesn't inform the reader beyond vague generalities about what something denotatively IS, and it certainly doesn't read as more than "I don't like this thing so you will deal."

Again, big difference between the first post and the second post you made. And it's not just you. You just happened to be one of the only people worth responding to.
Click to expand...

<3
 
Rogue_Ledr said:
There is just one thing that I have been consistently discouraged with in this game.

Its not the linear nature, its not the relatively generic gameplay, its not the lack of innovation.

What is it? The the paucity of the damn supernatural enemies.

Where are they? There seems to be a major derth of them since the reveal. In the original trailer, they were the main peril presented. Since that time though, they have been relegated to an auxillary role in the game. To me, this is a let down, because they presented a very unique foe.

I am guessing this may be more like The Last of Us, in that although non-human enemies were the first to be presented, human enemies present the most persistant threat.
Click to expand...

They've been very careful to not show too much of the Lycans. I think they are trying to save the surprise for the game. They've shown that that the Lycans are highly intelligent. I expect we'll even get conversations with the Lycans and other crazy shit happening in the game with regards to Supernatural stuff. Maybe not all the Lycans are evil? Maybe they have their motivations for killing people? I think we'll see alot of them.
 
Y2Kev said:
There is a pretty big difference between this criticism and the earlier one. Instadeath fail states, QTEs, and "slow repelling" might not be compelling to everyone (it's not, as you put it, uninteresting "any way you slice it"), but there is a fundamental difference between taking issue with a game's design for being bad and taking issue with a game's design for being unoriginal, unimaginative, or uninventive. There's nothing inherently wrong with the last three. Some of the biggest and most popular games are all of those three.

I certainly can understand the perspective of people who prioritize innovation, inventiveness, or originality over iteration and polish, but I do not always agree and I find myself very annoyed when certain posters (like you in your post) assume that just because something is NOT those things that everyone should automatically understand a) why that's bad and b) why anyone should care. There's nothing wrong with tried and true. Lots of people like tried and true. I like tried and true. I also like inventive and original. I find room for both in my gaming diet.

It's also pretty annoying to see people say things like painfully linear or restrictively linear. I LIKE linear and you haven't done your diligence in showing me why I shouldn't like it. So I don't respect comments like that.

Penalizing a linear scripted shooter for being scripted, a shooter, and linear is silly. It doesn't get to any fundamental truth about a product, it doesn't convey the experience of playing the game, it doesn't inform the reader beyond vague generalities about what something denotatively IS, and it certainly doesn't read as more than "I don't like this thing so you will deal."

Again, big difference between the first post and the second post you made. And it's not just you. You just happened to be one of the only people worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Not every game has to reinvent the wheel, there's plenty of merit, and challenge, in making a game which refines various existing gameplay mechanics and combines them into a cohesive whole.
 
get2sammyb said:
I just posted my preview through here. Hopefully some of you still find value in one more opinion - I know plenty have already been posted.

Positives:

  • Jaw dropping visuals
  • Combat is very punchy
  • Lovely music
  • Intriguing plot

Negatives:

  • Really poor stealth
  • Can sometimes be hard to tell when you're actually in control
  • Shootouts in the demo are quite straight forward

More through here: http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2014/12/preview_is_ps4_exclusive_the_order_1886_a_revolution_or_a_relic
Click to expand...
Holy God! That seamlessness :O
 
Y2Kev said:
There is a pretty big difference between this criticism and the earlier one. Instadeath fail states, QTEs, and "slow repelling" might not be compelling to everyone (it's not, as you put it, uninteresting "any way you slice it"), but there is a fundamental difference between taking issue with a game's design for being bad and taking issue with a game's design for being unoriginal, unimaginative, or uninventive. There's nothing inherently wrong with the last three. Some of the biggest and most popular games are all of those three.

I certainly can understand the perspective of people who prioritize innovation, inventiveness, or originality over iteration and polish, but I do not always agree and I find myself very annoyed when certain posters (like you in your post) assume that just because something is NOT those things that everyone should automatically understand a) why that's bad and b) why anyone should care. There's nothing wrong with tried and true. Lots of people like tried and true. I like tried and true. I also like inventive and original. I find room for both in my gaming diet.

It's also pretty annoying to see people say things like painfully linear or restrictively linear. I LIKE linear and you haven't done your diligence in showing me why I shouldn't like it. So I don't respect comments like that.

Penalizing a linear scripted shooter for being scripted, a shooter, and linear is silly. It doesn't get to any fundamental truth about a product, it doesn't convey the experience of playing the game, it doesn't inform the reader beyond vague generalities about what something denotatively IS, and it certainly doesn't read as more than "I don't like this thing so you will deal."

Again, big difference between the first post and the second post you made. And it's not just you. You just happened to be one of the only people worth responding to.
Click to expand...

The most annoying thing about this generation and some gamers is that they demand "next gen" gameplay else its just "another boring video game" but when push comes to shove, they have no examples of what that is exactly.
 
I have faith in The Order and Ready at Dawn after reading all the positive responses from the show floor. If they can nail the in-game immersion then I think this will be a pleasant surprise.
 
Y2Kev said:
There is a pretty big difference between this criticism and the earlier one. Instadeath fail states, QTEs, and "slow repelling" might not be compelling to everyone (it's not, as you put it, uninteresting "any way you slice it"), but there is a fundamental difference between taking issue with a game's design for being bad and taking issue with a game's design for being unoriginal, unimaginative, or uninventive. There's nothing inherently wrong with the last three. Some of the biggest and most popular games are all of those three.

I certainly can understand the perspective of people who prioritize innovation, inventiveness, or originality over iteration and polish, but I do not always agree and I find myself very annoyed when certain posters (like you in your post) assume that just because something is NOT those things that everyone should automatically understand a) why that's bad and b) why anyone should care. There's nothing wrong with tried and true. Lots of people like tried and true. I like tried and true. I also like inventive and original. I find room for both in my gaming diet.

It's also pretty annoying to see people say things like painfully linear or restrictively linear. I LIKE linear and you haven't done your diligence in showing me why I shouldn't like it. So I don't respect comments like that.

Penalizing a linear scripted shooter for being scripted, a shooter, and linear is silly. It doesn't get to any fundamental truth about a product, it doesn't convey the experience of playing the game, it doesn't inform the reader beyond vague generalities about what something denotatively IS, and it certainly doesn't read as more than "I don't like this thing so you will deal."

Again, big difference between the first post and the second post you made. And it's not just you. You just happened to be one of the only people worth responding to.
Click to expand...

My man.

121.gif
 
Y2Kev said:
There is a pretty big difference between this criticism and the earlier one. Instadeath fail states, QTEs, and "slow repelling" might not be compelling to everyone (it's not, as you put it, uninteresting "any way you slice it"), but there is a fundamental difference between taking issue with a game's design for being bad and taking issue with a game's design for being unoriginal, unimaginative, or uninventive. There's nothing inherently wrong with the last three. Some of the biggest and most popular games are all of those three.

I certainly can understand the perspective of people who prioritize innovation, inventiveness, or originality over iteration and polish, but I do not always agree and I find myself very annoyed when certain posters (like you in your post) assume that just because something is NOT those things that everyone should automatically understand a) why that's bad and b) why anyone should care. There's nothing wrong with tried and true. Lots of people like tried and true. I like tried and true. I also like inventive and original. I find room for both in my gaming diet.

It's also pretty annoying to see people say things like painfully linear or restrictively linear. I LIKE linear and you haven't done your diligence in showing me why I shouldn't like it. So I don't respect comments like that.

Penalizing a linear scripted shooter for being scripted, a shooter, and linear is silly. It doesn't get to any fundamental truth about a product, it doesn't convey the experience of playing the game, it doesn't inform the reader beyond vague generalities about what something denotatively IS, and it certainly doesn't read as more than "I don't like this thing so you will deal."

Again, big difference between the first post and the second post you made. And it's not just you. You just happened to be one of the only people worth responding to.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked I haven't heard anyone call The Order a closed circuit shooter.
 
MilkyJoe said:
I'll assume you didnt read the article.

and

What is that nonsense?
Click to expand...

I meant in the context of an event. Gameplay is always gimped for industry events because journalists are shit at games. This includes AI, difficulty, damage (either caused to you or by you), and sometimes even teh god modez.

That's what I was trying to say without being an incredible dick about it. But now you made me say it. Are you happy now?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Resident Evil Requiem — Switch 2 gameplay (offscreen)
2 3 4
156
769
Mister Wolf replied
IGN First: Crimson Desert 11 minutes of new gameplay
35
96
Duchess replied
Bad Cheese: 9 Minutes of Gameplay
Trailer Indie 
1
176
Cakeboxer replied
Crimson Desert : 40 minutes of gameplay in great quality
36
669
sendit replied
Directive 8020 Gamescom 20 minutes Gameplay
1
138
IbizaPocholo replied
Top Bottom