Support NeoGAF

[pharmboy044]

lmao at comparing CoD:AW to 1886.

One is made by a competent developer with a pedigree, it has stable graphics running at 60 fps, an actual playable single player, and some of the most fun multiplayer this generation.

The other one has black bars.

WTF? So what it has black bars? And implying RAD is not competent is straight up bullshit. You try making a game and see how competently you complete the task. Critique the content all you want but saying developers are stupid, that's pretty dumb.

 

[Majestad]

You know, it's funny. Now I understand what Mourinho was saying when he said there was a campaign against Chelsea a few weeks ago.

Because there certainly has been a campaign against the order over the last 12 months or so.

I'm actually trying to work out why.

What a strange industry this is at the moment.

Were you wearing a tinfoil hat while you posted this?

 

[Dennis]

I can forgive it for being short.

I can forgive it for being linear.

Because the graphics are so good.

But apparently it is just not a good game.

I might still get it.

 

[QaaQer]

....Except people are criticizing the game based on what it has to offer.

Its a game. And some people will like it, just as people enjoy 2 1/2 men. There is no objective reality here, it is a subjective experience. Hating a game is still hate and it makes no more sense then hating a sitcom.

& I'm not talking about critizing or delineating features in a game, or a sitcom. I'm talking about the emotional investment some have in tearing things and people down. And that I understand and even admire someone who tries to step away from that.

 

[User 73706]

Who told you this lie? Not that it matters, that whole "modified XYZ engine" issue was forever blown way out of proportion.

Yeah, the whole "every game needs a new engine" argument is starting to age. Reiterative programming lets you keep certain loose ends tied and gives you a more seasoned framework in this day and age. If you try and go with an all-new codebase but also attempt to consolidate classical elements in there without proper means and time, you end up with stuff like The Master Chief Collection.

 

[freenudemacusers]

Its a game. And some people will like it, just as people enjoy 2 1/2 men.

grade A downlow trolling. I tip my mustache.

 

[freefornow]

You know, it's funny. Now I understand what Mourinho was saying when he said there was a campaign against Chelsea a few weeks ago.

Because there certainly has been a campaign against the order over the last 12 months or so.

I'm actually trying to work out why.

What a strange industry this is at the moment.

Don't do this.
Was there a campaign against Ryse as well?

 

[Dennis]

You know, it's funny. Now I understand what Mourinho was saying when he said there was a campaign against Chelsea a few weeks ago.

Because there certainly has been a campaign against the order over the last 12 months or so.

I'm actually trying to work out why.

What a strange industry this is at the moment.

 

[Beefy]

Well I certainly didn't watch the whole thing, just enough to get an idea of what the game was like. I've adjusted expectations accordingly and am still waiting outside a game store to get the game in an hour.

I just don't get over hyped over a game. The only time I did (Destiny) it ended in being a let down. So I am back in the camp of wait and see and judge a game myself before I get too excited.

 

[Steel]

I feel like the word "ambition" has lost the meaning I associate it with and instead been used as a sort of implicit proxy for "a game which cost tons of money to make."

We now associate the word "ambitious" with games that have an open design, high end graphics, and an "immersive world" -- it's like a check box of "things which cost tons of money to produce."

I'm not saying it's impossible for such games to be "ambitious," but I very much think it's possible for a game which costs 1,000 dollars to make to be ambitious, too. I seem to have a different operational definition for the word than others do.

I doubt you'd find many people who don't believe things like Minecraft and No man's Sky weren't/aren't ambitious(Though, that's definitely not to say indie games are always ambitious). That being said I do agree that the word ambitious has become just another buzzword when applied to the AAA landscape.

edit:

Agreed, and while The Order may not be ambitious in terms of its gameplay systems, I think it's hard to argue that they weren't ambitious in terms of production values as a whole. It clearly sets a very new high bar in that regard, in my view (which many won't place any value on, but that's fine, I just think it's misleading to suggest The Order is completely unambitious).
.

I don't think setting new graphical bars is particularly ambitious, it's simply evolutionary at this point and the differences become less and less impressive as time goes on. Most major AAA games seem to put a really high priority on graphics, it's normal.

 

[NullPointer]

Because there certainly has been a campaign against the order over the last 12 months or so.

Or maybe the game isn't very good and the past year of marketing has been filled with polarizing dev comments and an unimpressive demo that we all got to see again and again over those past twelve months.

This could have been an inside job all along.

I might still get it.

I'd have to question even the most basic assumptions underlying my world view if you don't.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Oh look another shit post. What makes you think RAD is incompetent? They've had a good track record for past games they've worked on. Also, The Order delivers great technical performance and doesn't have many bugs on launch, which can't be said for other high profile games that have launched.

Multiplayer is also arguable. I think that BF4 is still king in that regard if we're talking shooters. Even TLoU:R is still amazing multiplayer wise...

RAD do have a track record, of a couple of PSP games and a couple of ports/collections. This is their real first test in the water for their first full console game.

WTF? So what it has black bars? And implying RAD is not competent is straight up bullshit. You try making a game and see how competently you complete the task. Critique the content all you want but saying developers are stupid, that's pretty dumb.

This is almost as bad as 'Well why don't you make a better video game.' And me saying it has black bars is supposed to show you how absurd it is to say 'Well CoD AW scored this way!!!! That means the websites are incompetent! I hate CoD AW!' Basically, comparing the CoD scores to the Order scores and saying 'well I can't trust websites' is trying to find confirmation bias.

 

[swazzyswess]

You know, it's funny. Now I understand what Mourinho was saying when he said there was a campaign against Chelsea a few weeks ago.

Because there certainly has been a campaign against the order over the last 12 months or so.

I'm actually trying to work out why.

What a strange industry this is at the moment.

the only strange thing is the armchair analysts who think they're seeing past all the lies, maaaan, and uncovering dark truths about why that one dude didn't like a game very much.

 

[Raitosaito]

I feel like the word "ambition" has lost the meaning I associate it with and instead been used as a sort of implicit proxy for "a game which cost tons of money to make."

We now associate the word "ambitious" with games that have an open design, high end graphics, and an "immersive world" -- it's like a check box of "things which cost tons of money to produce."

I'm not saying it's impossible for such games to be "ambitious," but I very much think it's possible for a game which costs 1,000 dollars to make to be ambitious, too. I seem to have a different operational definition for the word than others do.

The current usage of the word in itself is propagated by game devs, because the term is used often in vid docs or BTS videos to explain how hard the development process is, rather than using the term base on what they are doing on the overall design with the player's interaction with the game.

"I am developing for a new console, it's super ambitious."
"The team has never made a multiplayer shooter with 16 people, it's very ambitious!"

 

[ProvenDeadly]

This game looks so good that it keeps drawing me in, but I just know if I purchase it I will be bored out of my mind. Games that look this good shouldn't be this mediocre :/

 

[User 73706]

Or maybe the game isn't very good and the past year of marketing has been filled with polarizing dev comments and an unimpressive demo that we all got to see again and again over those past twelve months.

This could have been an inside job all along.

You know what'd clear this up real quick? A good steak-out.

 

[twobear]

I don't think this should be the point at all. The review should simply be to inform the buyer about features and functions of the product along with a light assessment of how well they work. The decision on whether that is worth buying should remain with the consumer. We need clinical observation and explanation not subjective evaluation. If you read good reviews of software or phones this is what you will find. Currently game reviews are predominantly subjective analysis which is completely worthless because the reviewer might not share your tastes, simple as that. If game reviews contained sufficient clinical explanation of what the product actually was then people would be far better informed to make a buy/no buy decision.

We need reviews to inform us adequately to make a buying decision not make a buying decision for us. Prime example is this Eurogamer review, as pompous and verbose a review as you could ever hope to find. From this we get that Eurogamer didn't like it but does it actually tell us much about the game itself and how it works?

The problem is that a plain description with no subjective elements doesn't tell you anything worthwhile. The 'objective' description for The Order might not actually be that far away from the description for, say, Gears of War or The Last of Us. But a review system whereby you're not able to tell that Gears or TLOU are classics and archetypes of their genre whereas The Order is...whatever the Order is by comparison is, well, a stupid and pointless review system.

 

[Toxi]

The complaints some people on this forum have about subjectivity in reviews are ludicrous. Imagine if movie fans continuously whined about Siskel and Ebert's reviews being "too subjective".

 

[pharmboy044]

Don't do this.
Was there a campaign against Ryse as well?

I think there actually was. It seems like games with QTE's are somewhat targeted due to this notion of it not having "player agency". Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

 

[hipbabboom]

A review of a consumer product is to tell you if the product is worth buying, full stop. This goes for phones, TVs, computers, movies, books, cars, hell, even yelp restaurant reviews.

The order is art though and the price of admission into the gallery is simply $60. I couldn't fathom actively telling others not to experience a work of art themselves and form their own opinions but instead listen to my opinion on it so they can save $60. I would be a criminal roving someone of culture, education and enlightenment... its literally colonialism of the mind. How is that good?

This game looks so good that it keeps drawing me in, but I just know if I purchase it I will be bored out of my mind. Games that look this good shouldn't be this mediocre :/

Get it and play it then! Don't let others and an ever shrinking number define and control you. Be an individual... be bold.

 

[Amir0x]

The complaints some people on this forum have about subjectivity in reviews are ludicrous. Imagine if movie fans continuously whined about Siskel and Ebert's reviews being "too subjective".

I don't see that many people doing that thankfully. It's like the weirdos in Gamergate who think that being 'ethical' means game reviews are supposed to be 100% objective. That is the most bizarre misreading of ethics I've ever seen in my life

 

[twobear]

The complaints some people on this forum have about subjectivity in reviews are ludicrous. Imagine if movie fans continuously whined about Siskel and Ebert's reviews being "too subjective".

Funnily enough, Ebert said that usually what people meant when they said that reviews should be objective and his were too subjective is, 'you gave a movie I liked a bad score'.

 

[injurai]

Does this mean Sony won't be buying Ready At Dawn?

 

[ProvenDeadly]

The complaints some people on this forum have about subjectivity in reviews are ludicrous. Imagine if movie fans continuously whined about Siskel and Ebert's reviews being "too subjective".

It's only subjective when a game someone is excited about is panned across the board.

 

[Seventy70]

I think there actually was. It seems like games with QTE's are somewhat targeted due to this notion of it not having "player agency". Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

Maybe because lots and lots of people don't like QTEs? But I guess it has to be some kind of conspiracy.

 

[Four_Chamber]

I am leading an underground movement against games with ultra-linear gameplay, horrible stories, glacial pacing, ridiculous amounts of unskippable cutscenes, and a plethora of quick time events. It's all a massive consipracy to undercut The Order.

The argument that there is an ulterior motive to hate on this game beyond its own intrinsic flaws cracks me up. I am pleased that a game with these design choices was poorly reviewed.

 

[biteren]

so much emotion in this thread, you'd think its about David Cage

 

[RM8]

The order is art though and the price of admission into the gallery is simply $60. I couldn't fathom actively telling others not to experience a work of art themselves and form their own opinions but instead listen to my opinion on it so they can save $60. I would be a criminal roving someone of culture, education and enlightenment... its literally colonialism of the mind. How is that good?

This is getting silly. Reviews of everything often tell readers to not buy, not bother, avoid, etc. - and it's okay because reviews are opinions, and censoring them is pretty dumb.

 

[RetrospectiveLamb]

Can't say I'm surprised by the bad reviews, I remember E3 impressions were mainly negative or underwhelming. Probably will trade in Dying Light to get GTAV tomorrow than this.

 

[Iorv3th]

The complaints some people on this forum have about subjectivity in reviews are ludicrous. Imagine if movie fans continuously whined about Siskel and Ebert's reviews being "too subjective".

I don't think it's fair to compare Siskel and Ebert to game reviewers.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I also have to question why there is this binary view of games: either it's "cinematic"* and lean in every aspect, or bloated and open world. no gradation at all.

*I also think that cinematic is being propped up as some immovable barricade in design, and huge cop out for what is appears in this case to be an experience in constant hand-holding and needlessly linear gameplay. Phantasmagoria came out in the 90s, dudes.

I don't think reviewers made this binary at all, most compared The Order to obvious contemporaries that are not open world at all - Gears of War trilogy, RE4/5/6, Uncharted, TLOU - and found it lacking in weapon variety, encounter variety, enemy variety, movement freedom, puzzles, set pieces, replay value, boss encounters, AI, and multiplayer options. It's most direct sibling in the "cinematic shooter" genre, Max Payne 3, allegedly beats it handily in those regards as well.

It has kind of been the story of this gen, falling short of most of the masterpieces of last gen in everything except for graphics.

 

[wolfhowwl]

You know, it's funny. Now I understand what Mourinho was saying when he said there was a campaign against Chelsea a few weeks ago.

Because there certainly has been a campaign against the order over the last 12 months or so.

I'm looking at it all and I'm actually trying to work out why. What has the game done to people? What did the devs say that sparked all of this off? I get why there is a campaign against Chelsea, the club is rotten (players and manager included) from the ground up. But this is a video game, why the toxicity?

What a strange industry this is at the moment.

A campaign? Well it's a console exclusive that is a graphical showcase for the PS4, that will bring out some of the usual suspects. It also earns opposition on ideological ground as some people dislike it for what is and the industry direction it represents. Finally the game just doesn't seem to be very good and deserved some of that criticism.

 

[Toxi]

The order is art though and the price of admission into the gallery is simply $60. I couldn't fathom actively telling others not to experience a work of art themselves and form their own opinions but instead listen to my opinion on it so they can save $60. I would be a criminal roving someone of culture, education and enlightenment... its literally colonialism of the mind. How is that good?

No it's fucking not.

 

[GHG]

Were you wearing a tinfoil hat while you posted this?

See my edit for more context.

The game has been treated as "the enemy"for quite some time now for some reason.

Ok it's short, ok it might not be for everyone because of the style of the game. But yet, it's been treated as if it's some kind of threat to the existence of the industry.

Ironically, the game has no microtransactions, no DLC, no day one patch, etc, etc.

If the gaming press spent half the energy that they have spent lobbying against this game in the last few months lobbying against those things listed above then maybe we would actually start making some progress.

FWIW, this is not in any relation to review scores or anything, it's more of a wider issue at hand.

It's ok if people don't like the game, that I don't have a problem with and I'm respectful of opinions. However, a lot if what I've seen for this game has not been constructive criticism for some reason. The same with a lot of other games recently.

 

[RedStep]

I think there actually was. It seems like games with QTE's are somewhat targeted due to this notion of it not having "player agency". Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

What do you mean "targeted"? A LOT of people don't like QTEs (myself included, they're a copout). There's a reason they're consistently brought up as a negative. You don't need to "target" something to dislike it.

 

[hipbabboom]

This is getting silly. Reviews of everything often tell readers to not buy, not bother, avoid, etc. - and it's okay because reviews are opinions, and censoring them is pretty dumb.

I'm not suggesting censorship. I'm asking people to think for themselves.

 

[QaaQer]

I'm more impressed by the ability of some independent studios with very small budgets to surprise me mechanically or artistically in ways the AAA studios have neglected by virtue of the fact that it's inherently risky. That's a lot more ambitious to me.

Agree totally.

I think the riskiest thing would be to make a game that didnt involve killing, not even goombas. My head would explode if Gone Home or Kerbal Space Program was a first party game with a "The Order" sized budget.

 

[Altima]

It would be nice for RAD to have a chance at a sequel and fix everything that's wrong with The Order, but after these reviews, if it bombs in sales it likely won't get a sequel. Look at how improved Ghost of Sparta was vs. Chains of Olympus (God of War series they worked on)

Well, I did not make the engine to make only one game.

 

[reKon]

Who told you this lie? Not that it matters, that whole "modified XYZ engine" issue was forever blown way out of proportion.

I might not have the details right, but is it not true that the developers created a new engine for the most part, for Advance Warfare?

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. The new COD looks ridiculously better than Ghost's did. The older CoD games ran well, but with each installment, there was barely any progression in visual fidelity - especially compared to other video game series with multiple installments.

 

[User 73706]

No it's fucking not.

"Don't be a slave to the corporo-consumer ideallagism of the mind, playstation man"

*pays RAD $10/hour for some QTEs and solid character design*

 

[DINOSAURS]

Yeah, cause a few seconds of seeing a game in action are the definite representation of the game as a whole.

So watch more.

Reading is hard.

For some people it genuinely is.

I don't get the point of comparing the scores...

The scores are arbitrary, part of my point, but regardless; the reviews themselves slam the game for design features that are ubiquitous in many praised games: scripted sequences, QTE, forced walking sections, whack-a-mole gameplay (Uncharted, Gears, COD, TLOU). Take the quotes from IGN and place them against any highly regarded game.

IGN

"In the end, a lopsided commitment to perfecting style and plot comes at the cost of sluggish pacing, a look-but-don't-touch world, and paint-by-numbers gunplay."

"The encounters in which you actually fight the monsters that are billed as such a large part of the game are dwarfed by those in which you’re simply whack-a-mole shooting goons."

"Constantly being ripped from gameplay to cutscene to restrained walking segment back to cutscene is a pervasive whiplash of false starts."

There's no point worrying over poor reviews, gaming critique isn't that consistent to matter... in my opinion on opinions anyway.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

See my edit for more context.

The game has been treated as "the enemy"for quite some time now for some reason.

Ok it's short, ok it might not be for everyone because of the style of the game. But yet, it's been treated as if it's some kind of threat to the existence of the industry.

Ironically, the game has no microtransactions, no DLC, no day one patch, etc, etc.

If the gaming press spent half the energy that they have spent lobbying against this game in the last few months lobbying against those things listed above then maybe we would actually start making some progress.

FWIW, this is not in any relation to review scores or anything, it's more of a wider issue at hand.

It's ok if people don't like the game, that it don't have a problem with I'm I'm respectful of opinions. However, a lot if what I've seen for this game has not been constructive criticism for some reason. The same with a lot of other games recently.

Can you point out a few examples from the months leading up to this game of the press "lobbying against" this game?

 

[freenudemacusers]

guys, the ISIS thing happened. It happened 20 pages ago. Let it die in peace. We don't need to try and top it with slavery.

I don't think reviewers made this binary at all, most compared The Order to obvious contemporaries that are not open world at all - Gears of War trilogy, RE4/5/6, Uncharted, TLOU - and found it lacking in weapon variety, encounter variety, enemy variety, movement freedom, puzzles, set pieces, replay value, boss encounters, AI, and multiplayer options. It's most direct sibling in the "cinematic shooter" genre, Max Payne 3, allegedly beats it handily in those regards as well.

It has kind of been the story of this gen, falling short of most of the masterpieces of last gen in everything except for graphics.

Oh i don't mean reviewers, I'm talking about the constant attitude of 'well it's cinematic what did you expect!' and/or 'well if you think this sucks I hope you are all happy with more open world games!' here.

 

[GatticusFinch]

The order is art though and the price of admission into the gallery is simply $60. I couldn't fathom actively telling others not to experience a work of art themselves and form their own opinions but instead listen to my opinion on it so they can save $60. I would be a criminal roving someone of culture, education and enlightenment... its literally colonialism of the mind. How is that good?

Colonialism of the mind? Is that a new Sid Meier game?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[thegirlleastlikelyto]

.. its literally colonialism of the mind.

I take it back, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

If that's what you think colonialism is (in any sense), you're very, very mistaken. For someone who lives with the after effects of colonialism your very poor analogy is actually pretty offensive, the more I think about it.

So these guys are what to you? Mussolini? The British Empire? One of their reviews is Amritsar? Nanking? I don't understand the mental gymnastics required from you to think that consumer reviews, which help consumers spend their hard earned money in the best way possible is somehow (SOMEHOW) anti-consumer.

You bought a shitty game. Deal with it.

 

[Scrulox]

Agreed, and while The Order may not be ambitious in terms of its gameplay systems, I think it's hard to argue that they weren't ambitious in terms of production values as a whole. It clearly sets a very new high bar in that regard, in my view (which many won't place any value on, but that's fine, I just think it's misleading to suggest The Order is completely unambitious).

To be frank, I don't find anything ambitious about the cookie cutter gameplay design of many big budget AAA games that a lot of reviewers tend to like these days. Stuff like Assassin's Creed or Far Cry for instance -- are these games ambitious simply because there's a lot to do and they're being made by mega studios that are hundreds of people large and are in development for years? If anything, these games are some of the safest titles around. The game design is just a mechanical process put together from disjointed studios in an assembly line fashion.

It's as if Ubisoft has a design document check list that consists of 1) Make a large open world, 2) Fill it with a million things to collect and customize 3) Don't give much, if any, thought to the core gameplay systems or the actual level/mission designs to make them fun, unique, and engaging. Just copy and paste enough garbage and maybe people think they're getting good value for their money. In my view, games like these are simply wasting what little time I have at the end of the day.

I'm more impressed by the ability of some independent studios with very small budgets to surprise me mechanically or artistically in ways the AAA studios have neglected by virtue of the fact that it's inherently risky. That's a lot more ambitious to me.

The most recent Far Cry and AC games I have played are Far Cry 3 and Black Flag. Both gave me tons of hours of gameplay that was both fun and innovative in some ways. For example, ship battles were extremely fun in Black Flag, and Far Cry 3 gave me tons of ways and tools to complete a mission. On top of that, both games have arguably good stories. I just find it funny that it seems like you are criticizing the gameplay area of these games without giving much thought.

 

[NBtoaster]

The scores are arbitrary, part of my point, but regardless; the reviews themselves slam the game for design features that are ubiquitous in many praised games: scripted sequences, QTE, forced walking sections, whack-a-mole gameplay (Uncharted, Gears, COD, TLOU). Take the quotes from IGN and place them against any highly regarded game.

It's not being criticized for having those things, it's being criticized for excessive use and poor implementation of those things.

 

[Purest 78]

I'll be playing in about a half hour, as always I'll form my own opinion. From my experience Reviews never really reflect how I feel about a game. I though dying light was great it got lower scores. I thought evolve was garbage it got pretty high scores.

 

[QaaQer]

You know what'd clear this up real quick? A good steak-out.

At Belagio's?

 

[Seventy70]

If a steak is mocked because it is well done, that is racism. The steak never had a say in how cooked it would be.

#EndSteakRacism
#NotAllWellDone
#MediumRarePrivilege