Then replace Siskel and Ebert with every movie critic ever.
Because subjectivity is the standard (and is necessary) for reviewing works of entertainment.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Order 1886 Review Thread
- Thread starter The Sarcastic Dude
- Start date
- Status
Because subjectivity is the standard (and is necessary) for reviewing works of entertainment.
Ambitious to me is something that hasn't been done before because the general consensus is that it would be "too hard" to develop. I feel like probably since 2008, publishers have been playing it safe, sticking with what's proven, ambition is so lacking that we have to apply the term to any game that seems even a bit different just so we can actually have a use for the word.
I'm not saying there haven't been some amazing games in the last few years, but anything "ambitious" or "revolutionary" during development usually ends up not by release. There are only 3 games that I think may deserve the title of ambitious right now and those are Witcher 3, No Man's Sky, and Star Citizen, and since none of those have been released yet, I can't be sure (although Witcher 3 is probably a pretty safe bet I think).
Portugeezer
Member
Ok I looked it up and they say it's pretty much a new engine (although it's a heavily modified engine). I only played the MP and graphically it looks about the same level as Ghosts.
Because those other games have other redeeming features (not to mention, some of those franchises you're mentioning are almost a decade old). Apparently, many reviewers feel apart from the visuals, the Order does not have redeeming features. A game is a sum of its parts.
Pointing out a game that was received as mediocre and a well received game share a flaw or two in common, and then griping about the difference in review score without looking at the other differences between the two games is a very disingenuous argument.
Hmmmm... I'll be renting this as soon as I can to actually see how it plays out, but... it seems like people are surprised or upset that this game got average reviews?
I mean, the game has been putting out an average vibe since the beginning. People should have been prepared for this. The developers have been pretty dismissive of the gameplay from the interviews I've seen. It's not surprising.
And this isn't a knock against linear, story-driven third person shooters. Uncharted 4 is the same thing and it actually looks really good. Decidedly above average. But they've actually commented on what they're trying to do with the gameplay and seem genuinely excited to expand on the sandbox nature of the individual arenas.
I don't know, I just feel like we've seen enough games to be able to sniff out the average from the rest, so why be surprised or upset when something like this happens?
I mean, the game has been putting out an average vibe since the beginning. People should have been prepared for this. The developers have been pretty dismissive of the gameplay from the interviews I've seen. It's not surprising.
And this isn't a knock against linear, story-driven third person shooters. Uncharted 4 is the same thing and it actually looks really good. Decidedly above average. But they've actually commented on what they're trying to do with the gameplay and seem genuinely excited to expand on the sandbox nature of the individual arenas.
I don't know, I just feel like we've seen enough games to be able to sniff out the average from the rest, so why be surprised or upset when something like this happens?
swazzyswess
Member
hahahaha....
HahahHAHAH!
I'm thankful for The Order because of posts like this. comparing colonialism and all it entails (slavery, pillaging of physical and cultural artifacts, etc) and reviews of games a person actively has to seek out to even know about. this game never stops giving.
User 73706
Banned
#TheOtherWhiteMeat
GHG
Member
I actually believe there was if you look back at it. I even shamefully participated at some points (relating to the microtransactions they intended to put into the game and their rationale behind it).
Then I actually played the game a few months ago and I actually enjoyed it. Turns out I disagree with many of the reviews.
What does that say?
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Agree to disagree, but I've given a lot of thought to it. Black Flag was a really bad game in my opinion. The mechanics are awful, the story was not good at all (even by Assassin's Creed standards), and the ship battles were a repetitive distraction if anything.
City of Dis
Member
That is a terrible guideline for writing reviews. If you want a checklist of what the game does and doesn't offer then look no further than gamefaqs user reviews. Not incidentally, they're extraordinarily boring to read through.
There's a reason that professional critics of every entertainment medium don't do this. Now you can argue that video games don't deserve the same critical treatment as film, music, or television, but frankly I applaud Eurogamer for being the only (save Gameological/AV Club) online publication that hires competent writers.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Games are art. It is impossible to be objective about a game's quality for this very reason.
I've read the Eurogamer review. They describe the story as trite and underdeveloped, the shooting sections as bland and barely adequate, and the QTEs/handholding as frustrating and immersion-breaking. Were you expecting a treatise on the mechanics of a third person cover shooter, a genre which has been popular for over for a decade, for a game that does nothing new in that regard?
Eurogamer has an objective review of the technical components of The Order, in their Digital Foundry section.
Edit: I really hope no one is taking hipbabboom seriously.
That could be a valid distinction, but all the games I mentioned were problematic in at least one of those areas; especially the whack-a-mole nature of cover based shooting; and all had extensive periods of inactivity while I waited for scripted sequences to play out.
It just seems to me that this game is being targeted for flaws shared across all major releases.
Man, just a few weeks ago, we were looking at those beautiful screenshots and I commented that I hoped those would be more than pretty backdrops for a linear ride. Now I am disappoint. Now I am waiting for it to be at Redbox.
On the hopeful side, since it's no longer a secret they set this up to have at least one sequel, let's hope they can pull something remotely close to an Uncharted 1 > Uncharted 2 type of improvement.
On the hopeful side, since it's no longer a secret they set this up to have at least one sequel, let's hope they can pull something remotely close to an Uncharted 1 > Uncharted 2 type of improvement.
GHG
Member
There is a difference between not liking something and stating that opinion, and lobbying against something while telling other people not to buy it.
Has there ever been a game reviewer/journo with a Pulitzer? (Ebert had one)
I just wanted to see the critical reception of The Order 1886 for consideration for my future PS4 purchase.
Why is there talk of ISIS, slavery, exclusive comparisons....what's going on? Some marbles are being lost me thinks.
I guess we simply are into different kinds of games. I honestly had a crap load of fun with those ship battles, and thought they were kinda innovative cause I never played anything similar to that before. May I ask that you give me some examples of games that you think are well-done?
User 73706
Banned
The Order 1996: You Can't Have Your Steak And Eat It Too
brandonh83
Banned
That's okay, some facets of this industry as well as the internet was already a laughing stock long before this thread.
CoD isn't a good comparison as it's a series built on its MP now. The value offered in that is what most people want, not the campaign.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
"Colonialism of the mind"...
Some of us here are truly losing their mind over a game getting bad reviews...
Some of us here are truly losing their mind over a game getting bad reviews...
foolishoptimist
Member
"Shallow and overproduced". Have you played it? I'm assuming you haven't.
Not saying you're wrong, but that kindof judgement has been spreading since before anyone played the game, because all we had was a video that showed they were employing 'QTE'.
Personally, I think that's the explanation. 'QTE' is a dirty word on gaming sites, and hate follows.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
I think its in the framework of past games that people find the order lacking. I guess i just see it differently because as simply taken for its visual excellence, its simply amazing. Its weird many reviewers keep saying you have to be rich to appreciate and evaluate the product at this level. I think the developers set out to make something that pulled most of its weight with its visually stunning cinematic and have always been upfront about it.
Its understandable that bit may not have been the game many wanted but its certainly the product I expected.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
I'm not a huge open world fan, but of games in that space I really liked Red Dead Redemption, GTAV, and InFamous SS.
Assassin's Creed just hasn't clicked with me. I found AC2 somewhat enjoyable, but the series has been downhill since. It's an extremely clunky series.
AkelisRain
Member
I must be cray, I just pre-ordered this not 5 minutes ago. Pretty hyped still. Digital download too.
Digital download too.What makes the Witcher ambitious?
kitschbeam
Member
The overall score is lower than I expected, but I'm still gonna get this game
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
That's true actually, the MP of the game is probably the more dominant aspect of the game when they consider its worth; it's basically 2 games in one.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Heh heh heh...
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
I totally just realized i fell into the same trap hip hop gamer did. Let me rephrase the analogy:
Telling people to listen to you and not play the game to form their own opinions may rob them of the opportunity to discover an interesting experience. Its like the hambugler stealing your happy meal because it might make you fat but only achieves leaving you hungry (... FOR KNOWLEDGE! Oooooooh! Truth bomb!!)
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I hate this line of thinking, simply because I think it implies that everyone should try the game first before formulating their opinion about it. It may seem like a legit position to take, if not for the fact that the game cost a bloody 60 bucks and not all of us are rich enough to throw away 60 dollars just for a "let me try it first" sentiment.
It is precisely because it is such an expensive cost that many are trying to gauge the quality of the game first by reading reviews by others. "Think for themselves..."..... if only people saying such things are willing to pay the game for the folks they're advocating that to.
Really? Are you telling me that if someone described The Order to you in detail you could mistake it for The Last of Us? In any case I did actually say that it should include some light assessment of how the features work otherwise, yes, you would be correct that it is not worth much. There is a balance to be struck. But right now it swings way too far one way.
Say Jimi are Eurogamer doing a review loves collectibles more than anything. He tells you Dragon Age: Inquisition is awesome; there is just so much to see and do you can never get bored. But you actually hate collectibles more than anything. What use was Jimi's opinion then? Whereas if he had actually just conveyed to you the information that there are a lot of missions revolving around collectibles in the game and he personally liked it are you not better informed on whether to get the game or not?
Wow. Imagine that. But I don't see how that's relevant since games are not movies.
Most of what I'm reading in the reviews, which I am sure were meant as criticisms, are making me want to play this game even more. I am fine with third person shooters that play rather straight forward, are around 8 hours in length (this goes for most single-player campaigns regardless of genre actually), have good presentation, and aren't overly challenging. Furthermore, QTE's and frequent cutscenes never bothered me - in fact when done well I quite enjoy them. I've discovered that most games Jeff Gertsmann does not think highly of I like a lot, so his below-average score is encouraging.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
You can rent it, or borrow it from a friend. I think majority of the people who like the game are going to try it and buy it whichever way they can to form their own opinion.
The majority is only concerned with the YouTube video and journalists reviews before they even attempted to play the game for themselves to see if maybe, just maybe the game is really as bad as it seems. Which a lot of people who keep saying the same stuff, has not done.
Are game reviewers running up and snatching copies of the game from potential consumers hands though?
You say it should be the consumer's choice on what they do regarding the Order. What if the consumer chooses to solicit the opinion of a reviewer and base their purchasing decision off of that?
Why is that so illegitimate a decision?
thegirlleastlikelyto
Member
So all reviews for consumer goods are garbage? I like how you quoted my post and didn't actually reply to it - if this is some elaborate troll joke I'm not getting it.
It's bland because there aren't much variety of enemy types(literally all of them are soldiers with typical guns), every encounter is very similar in the ways the enemies approach you, the guns are your typical rifles and pistols with a few interesting ones which you don't get to use often or in interesting ways, and the environment that offers gameplay doesn't give you any freedom at all to approach the enemies. In one sentence: it's more boring than your typical TPS. I got all that from the reviews I read about the game, and there are a lot of reviews that have the same criticisms.
I mean if I don't read these reviews, I could have bought this game expecting a lot of interesting guns and enemies that give me challenges or rooms in terms of thinking about how to approach but all I got is using typical assault rifles and pistols throughout most of the gameplay part of the game against boring soldiers firing similar guns at me. That's the sole purpose of a game review: to inform me of what's to expect from a game. Most people buy games simply to play them and have fun instead of treating them as a piece of art.
Kacho
Gold Member
The same thing happened to me last week with the n3DS. I think Best Buy does not allow pick up orders to be placed while the store is closed.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
But did you play it yet? You've heard what others have said. But have you played it yet?
graywolf323
Member
it does, I placed a pick up order for Porco Rosso on blu-ray a little over an hour ago and the store had been closed for over an hour already (east coast)
Fancy Clown
Member
I think the amount of absurd gang-piling on the game is unfortunate, not because I don't think the game should be criticized, but because it's getting in the way of any actual criticism. Hell, I even think the game looks like a failure at almost everything it sets out to accomplish (I haven't played it myself admittedly, but I have watched a large portion of it...which from what I gather watching is half the experience anyway), but I want to talk about why, and engage with people who do like the game.
To single out one one dismissal in particular that bugs me is "oh cinematic games aren't for you". Probably because I think this game does not look good, but I absolutely am the target demographic for the game because I LOVE cinematic action games. I think most people do, as its a popular "genre". Naughty Dog games, MGS, Resident Evil, those are my all time favorites. So people need to be willing to discuss why and why not this game's cinematic approach works for them. Why are people okay with watching cutscenes as much as playing the game? Is it because you think the story is that compelling? Do you just really like the atmosphere? Would you not rather have more interactivity and agency? Does the combat work for you? The enemy variety?
I think I'm so curious is because the game and its design decisions just confuse me. I don't know why this game was made the way it was. It's like the most literal interpretation of 'cinematic' you could have, and I'm not sure why RAD didn't at any point ask themselves if they needed unlockables for a short singleplayer game, or if they should have such limited enemy types and simple level layouts, or if they should have chapters that are just cutscenes (or chapters at all), or why for a such a story focused game it
, or if they realized how many cliches the story was built on, or that the characters aren't interesting, or why cutscenes aren't skippable, or why
.
Okay apologies for the rant. I think this game gets a lot of criticism and attention because it has so much potential, and they just made really odd choices with how to make a game around such a beautiful engine and lovely art. I really hope there is a very in depth interview with RAD at some point because I would very much like to hear their process for these decisions. I have a sneaking suspicion a large portion of them were made on time/budget constraints rather than feeling they served to make the game better though.
To single out one one dismissal in particular that bugs me is "oh cinematic games aren't for you". Probably because I think this game does not look good, but I absolutely am the target demographic for the game because I LOVE cinematic action games. I think most people do, as its a popular "genre". Naughty Dog games, MGS, Resident Evil, those are my all time favorites. So people need to be willing to discuss why and why not this game's cinematic approach works for them. Why are people okay with watching cutscenes as much as playing the game? Is it because you think the story is that compelling? Do you just really like the atmosphere? Would you not rather have more interactivity and agency? Does the combat work for you? The enemy variety?
I think I'm so curious is because the game and its design decisions just confuse me. I don't know why this game was made the way it was. It's like the most literal interpretation of 'cinematic' you could have, and I'm not sure why RAD didn't at any point ask themselves if they needed unlockables for a short singleplayer game, or if they should have such limited enemy types and simple level layouts, or if they should have chapters that are just cutscenes (or chapters at all), or why for a such a story focused game it
isn't even self contained like any self respecting narrative should be
the lycan fights are designed in such a way that makes them so minimally imposing that it defeats their point
Okay apologies for the rant. I think this game gets a lot of criticism and attention because it has so much potential, and they just made really odd choices with how to make a game around such a beautiful engine and lovely art. I really hope there is a very in depth interview with RAD at some point because I would very much like to hear their process for these decisions. I have a sneaking suspicion a large portion of them were made on time/budget constraints rather than feeling they served to make the game better though.
Naughty_Doge
Member
Colonialism of the mind...
That must be tag worthy.
That must be tag worthy.
Oh ok, makes sense. Sucks since I was waiting for a gyft.com code that I bought. ($15 BB credit for $10). I got it like 20 min ago and cant place the order now
Thanx for the heads up. Gonna go to bed and miss out on DLC.
- Status