while titles like Max Payne 3 and Destiny drown in mediocrity despite their fantastic foundations.
Jimquisition weighs in on the "How long should a game be"
http://youtu.be/bN7HwemK2yg
I plat'd the game saturday and traded it in yesterday and to be honest I kind of want to play it again now hahaha
Nice pick. A lot of actresses I was looking at were way too young and pretty. Isabeau needs to look quite severe, mature, and dangerous.
I think I'll substitute Charles Dance in as the Chancellor.
And fuck it. Lakshmi: Idris Elba.
Even though I liked the game, I agree with you. The flaws in the game are undeniable and almost universally agreed upon. Even though I disagree with some of the review scores, I do understand them.
My interpretation of "cinematic" in games is not RAD's interpretation.
I'm in agreement with you here, for the most part. Everything in that 6-7 range makes perfect sense to me, but I feel some of the really low scores are undeserved.
Theres an element of games journalism that thrives on hyperbole and tantrums when something doesnt live up to expectations. See:Heavenly Sword, a decent game unfairly maligned.
Theres an element of games journalism that thrives on hyperbole and tantrums when something doesnt live up to expectations. See:Heavenly Sword, a decent game unfairly maligned. Though this behaviour and "line in the sand" posturing is usually reserved for new IP. Cherished franchises that put out mediocre or just plain bad titles are consistently treated with kids gloves.
The scale is 0-10 and people are finally using it. The Order is an above average game, but imo it has a lot of issues that affect the experience for me, I have no issues with 6/10 tbh.
First half of the game is good, second half isn't nearly so.
Theres an element of games journalism that thrives on hyperbole and tantrums when something doesnt live up to expectations. See:Heavenly Sword, a decent game unfairly maligned. Though this behaviour and "line in the sand" posturing is usually reserved for new IP. Cherished franchises that put out mediocre or just plain bad titles are consistently treated with kids gloves, so you have a jarring inconsistency that develops.
Bradley cooper as Lucan.
Interestingly enough I felt the game picked up steam in the second half lol. In the end it's all subjective anyway. This thread is a poster child in that regard. I don't think I've seen a game ranging from 2 to a 9.5 on Metacritic quite like this.The scale is 0-10 and people are finally using it. The Order is an above average game, but imo it has a lot of issues that affect the experience for me, I have no issues with 6/10 tbh.
First half of the game is good, second half isn't nearly so.
The game really won't look any different at all without a 4k source. Also, I would heavily suggest that you wait for HDMI 2.0 to be available for any 4k TV you decide to purchase. Having 4k with gimped HDMI 1.4 is currently a poor investment.
Interestingly enough I felt the game picked up steam in the second half lol. In the end it's all subjective anyway. This thread is a poster child in that regard. I don't think I've seen a game ranging from 2 to a 9.5 on Metacritic.
I thought it was a solid with that excelled in many regards but fell flat in others. If I was forced to give it a number it'd be an 8/10, ultimately every person in here will feel differently about something. I'm just enjoying the different viewpoints.
Why can't we just enjoy the game and not worry about the opinions of a group of reviewers? It's what they thought based on the values they weighed their game experience with. They don't need to validate your opinions.The journalist who gave The Order a 1/5 even admitted this earlier in this very thread. That he has greater expectations/standards for new IP than he does established franchises or sequels, and as such doesn't expect as much innovation from them. Kind of an unfair way of treating new IP's if you ask me, and probably one more reason we're likely to get less of them, and instead more churned out sequels. Certain journalists are essentially indirectly saying, nope this genre and type of game has already been done and now belongs to x, y or z franchise and therefore if you do a similar thing you're going to get shat on for it, unless you really stand out and do something different. This explains the mass hypocrisy and inconsistency of the rating and review scale system, and why games like Call of Duty or Fifa can get away with the same sort of shit over and over, whilst games like The Order 1886 are torn apart for being 'derivative' or 'unambitious'.
Say what now?
Just curious, what is it then? And what is up with that hilarious link to your tag?
Interestingly enough I felt the game picked up steam in the second half lol. In the end it's all subjective anyway. This thread is a poster child in that regard. I don't think I've seen a game ranging from 2 to a 9.5 on Metacritic.
I thought it was a solid with that excelled in many regards but fell flat in others. If I was forced to give it a number it'd be an 8/10, ultimately every person in here will feel differently about something. I'm just enjoying the different viewpoints.
Based on what?
First half of the game is good, second half isn't nearly so.
Seeing some of the above discussion, I agree that the feedback and general shooting is fine--but it needs more than just that.
I really feel they marketed this wrong and had chance to take a different approach to it.
They marketed it as a classic "Video Game" and focused on the "Cinematic feel" yadda yadda.
I wonder if they explored marketing this as a interactive movie. I feel this may have been poorly received thinking they were getting a full-on video game, but the entire game felt like an interactive story thus far. Makes sense why when people played different pieces in chunks why it felt disjointed.
I'm still baffled that gunplay and aiming controls are so good, yet the overall game design downplays them. RAD clearly put a ton of work into them.
Levelling up weapons, choosing sidekicks, hubworld, etc. Fleshing this game out (I'm not suggesting turning it into some sort of Ubi cut and paste fest BTW) would have made it something truly special for me.
Why not? That stuff could be fun. Obviously, if executed poorly, it wouldn't be much fun, but as everyone is saying, the feel of the shooting is great. I'd love for some more open-ended options when it came to the combat scenarios. Allowing you to kind of go out on excursions based on your own weapon and team loadout could have added a lot of replay value.
Why? That's not what Ready at Dawn is aiming for in this IP. RPG elements like leveling up weapons, "picking squads" and running around in hubworlds are the antithesis of the experience they're trying to pull off. This is a very focused IP with very focused characters/weapons, etc that are grounded somewhat in reality.Why not? That stuff could be fun. Obviously, if executed poorly, it wouldn't be much fun, but as everyone is saying, the feel of the shooting is great. I'd love for some more open-ended options when it came to the combat scenarios. Allowing you to kind of go out on excursions based on your own weapon and team loadout could have added a lot of replay value.
That would be cool, but it'd basically become Mass Effect: 1886 and a completely different game. There's plenty of scope for RAD to improve the core formula of "cinematic TPS with amazing presentation" without having to branch out into other genres.
Why? That's not what Ready at Dawn is aiming for in this IP. RPG elements like leveling up weapons, "picking squads" and running around in hubworlds are the antithesis of the experience they're trying to pull off. This is a very focused IP with very focused characters/weapons, etc that are grounded somewhat in reality.
Throwing in things like that muddies the whole thing. Other games implement those design choices, there are plenty of them out there. All of that is unnecessary fluff honestly. Let Ready at Dawn craft their baby like they intended to and double down on their ideas, but I'm all for things like improving combat encounters and level design.
Why? That's not what Ready at Dawn is aiming for in this IP. RPG elements like leveling up weapons, "picking squads" and running around in hubworlds are the antithesis of the experience they're trying to pull off. This is a very focused IP with very focused characters/weapons, etc that are grounded somewhat in reality.
Throwing in things like that muddies the whole thing. Other games implement those design choices, there are plenty of them out there. All of that is unnecessary fluff honestly. Let Ready at Dawn craft their baby like they intended to and double down on their ideas, but I'm all for things like improving combat encounters and level design.
Why can't we just enjoy the game and not worry about the opinions of a group of reviewers? It's what they thought based on the values they weighed their game experience with. They don't need to validate your opinions.
Interestingly, I was looking back at some old Order threads and found this:
Now I'm not sure a "supernatural thriller" was the right track, but it definitely shows that the way they've sold the game changed over the course of development. The January trailer turned the game into a pure action blockbuster and got a lot of GAF on board.
Why? That's not what Ready at Dawn is aiming for in this IP. RPG elements like leveling up weapons, "picking squads" and running around in hubworlds are the antithesis of the experience they're trying to pull off. This is a very focused IP with very focused characters/weapons, etc that are grounded somewhat in reality.
Throwing in things like that muddies the whole thing. Other games implement those design choices, there are plenty of them out there. All of that is unnecessary fluff honestly. Let Ready at Dawn craft their baby like they intended to and double down on their ideas, but I'm all for things like improving combat encounters and level design.
Well, everyone has their opinion, though I disagree with that assessmentFair enough. I think they muddied their own waters by trying to make an interactive movie and then putting a half assed TPS in there.
I wasn't saying not to bring up ideas, I just personally feel things like that aren't in the best interest of improving the game they set out to make. I'm thinking things like expanding on the level design, implementing more dynamic enemy encounters, enemy variety, AI and slightly less cutscenes vs gameplay would drastically improve the IP, to me at least.It's not fluff if it's implemented in a meaningful way. They were just ideas, anyway, not demands. RAD appears to be in sore need of ideas, because their idea of gameplay scenarios is pitiful based on what they gave us in the game. No one would be in here suggesting such things if what we got was very good in the first place.
Luckily you seem to have a source that says they'll be able to focus more on the gameplay in the sequel. Hopefully they double down on more of the fun stuff and less of the cart pushing.
I'd be fine if they double down on the "watch a movie and press buttons sometimes" aspect and just got rid of the shooting, too, honestly. If they're going to half-ass it again, I'd rather they just not do it at all and focus on what they're good at instead.
I'm just in chapter one but has anyone else found the start to be fairly slow? It's a bit tedious, but I've just reached the first shooting section and that feels great.
I'm just in chapter one but has anyone else found the start to be fairly slow? It's a bit tedious, but I've just reached the first shooting section and that feels great.