Oh shutup, as someone pointed out earlier, no one is running to Grown Up's defense, why can games not be called out on being shitty if the reviewer feels that way?
I don't know. I enjoyed Ryse and I Am sure I would enjoy this game also. Not every game can be a masterpiece as I am just looking to have some fun with my game time.
I have to admit, I've got the Premium Collector's edition sitting behind me, delivered by amazon and I'm really torn as to open it and play or return.
When the reviews first hit I was set on just returning it(would have rejected the delivery if UPS had knocked).
But now the internet seems firmly divided between "it sucks" and "it's way better then the reviews are giving it credit for."
I don't normally get stuck in an undecided state like this but I am with this game.
For the record I ordered it because I love the look and style of the game world. Expecting a 3rd person shooter.
Depends who you're listening to. Giant Bomb have devoted many a podcast segment to bashing the two for their problems, especially Jeff Gerstmann (his "it should fucking work" rant on MMC is amazing) who also recently criticised The Order while giving credit where credit is due. If the people you're listening to are inconsistent then you might want to consider moving elsewhere for information.
Apparently it's worth spelling out the opinion that technical issues shouldn't be the primary concern of game criticism.
Books can have perfectly fine sentence structure and physical binding, and still be worthless as entertainment due to their poor writing or redundant ideas. Games are no different, with the added pitfall of gameplay and story. Yes, people should be able to know the extent of a game's technical shortcomings if they interrupt the experience, but that's not what makes a game good or bad in the eyes of basically anyone I'd take seriously. If your retort to creative shortcomings in a book is to say "the page binding is very strong," you should be laughed at. The same is true for games.
Controls and the gunplay are probably the areas where the game has been slammed the least. So before you attack the reviewers, at least read the goddamn reviews.
So now the amount of content is all the matters? Nevermind the issues that a lot of people have had with the SP in that game?
If people are looking to reviews to get recommendations on whether to purchase a product or not inconsistencies like this aren't really helping.
If people have the opinion that the order is a bad game, that's fine and they should write about it. However, turning a blind eye to potentially game breaking issues in other games while giving a thumbs up is doing a disservice to everybody.
Apparently it's worth spelling out the opinion that technical issues shouldn't be the primary concern of game criticism.
Books can have perfectly fine sentence structure and physical binding, and still be worthless as entertainment due to their poor writing or redundant ideas. Games are no different, with the added pitfall of gameplay and story. Yes, people should be able to know the extent of a game's technical shortcomings if they interrupt the experience, but that's not what makes a game good or bad in the eyes of basically anyone I'd take seriously. If your retort to creative shortcomings in a book is to say "the page binding is very strong," you should be laughed at. The same is true for games.
I have to admit, I've got the Premium Collector's edition sitting behind me, delivered by amazon and I'm really torn as to open it and play or return.
When the reviews first hit I was set on just returning it(would have rejected the delivery if UPS had knocked).
But now the internet seems firmly divided between "it sucks" and "it's way better then the reviews are giving it credit for."
I don't normally get stuck in an undecided state like this but I am with this game.
For the record I ordered it because I love the look and style of the game world. Expecting a 3rd person shooter.
Christ, i just can't understand this. You have the game there with you and you still need reviewers and haters to tell you if you should play it or not? Just play the game and judge it yourself.
I have to admit, I've got the Premium Collector's edition sitting behind me, delivered by amazon and I'm really torn as to open it and play or return.
When the reviews first hit I was set on just returning it(would have rejected the delivery if UPS had knocked).
But now the internet seems firmly divided between "it sucks" and "it's way better then the reviews are giving it credit for."
I don't normally get stuck in an undecided state like this but I am with this game.
For the record I ordered it because I love the look and style of the game world. Expecting a 3rd person shooter.
You should always judge for yourself, reviews lose any legitimacy when they can give broken games higher scores than games that actually work. As to this game, it's better than I expected but I don't go into games with unrealistic expectations.
That's the thing, no one excuses bad movies. There wasn't a 100 page thread when Grown Ups 2 came out where people were telling other people that they shouldn't be so harsh on Adam Sandler for making another bad movie.
This would be a valid comparison if the game was as bad as the reviews made it out to be but
its not
. Therein lies the problem. The media literally waged a year long smear campaign against this particular title and it begs the question, why?
Was it because of ill advised PR statements where story was placed over gameplay? Was it because a member of their team previously defended Destiny against their harsh criticisms? Was it because of the "Steak" analogy? Or perhaps because the media was labeled bullies by someone involved with this game? Whatever the reason is we will never know but there is a serious disconnect with the vast majority of people who have actually played this game (even those that were not that interested in it) and what the reviewers would have you to believe. Does that mean that everyone will like the game? no there is no game that everyone will like. Are some of the scores questionable? In my opinion very.
Disclaimer:
None of the above is related to any insidious hive mind anti Sony/Rad conspiracy theory. Just observations that have been made as this thing has unfolded.
Depends who you're listening to. Giant Bomb have devoted many a podcast segment to bashing the two for their problems, especially Jeff Gerstmann (his "it should fucking work" rant on MMC is amazing) who also recently criticised The Order while giving credit where credit is due. If the people you're listening to are inconsistent then you might want to consider moving elsewhere for information.
At the moment gametrailers for regular games and then the inside sim racing guys for racing games are the only peoples opinions that I tend to value at the moment. Why? Because they are balanced and don't resort to hyperbole to get their opinions across.
And then people who can write balanced opinions and posts on GAF of course.
I have to admit, I've got the Premium Collector's edition sitting behind me, delivered by amazon and I'm really torn as to open it and play or return.
When the reviews first hit I was set on just returning it(would have rejected the delivery if UPS had knocked).
But now the internet seems firmly divided between "it sucks" and "it's way better then the reviews are giving it credit for."
I don't normally get stuck in an undecided state like this but I am with this game.
For the record I ordered it because I love the look and style of the game world. Expecting a 3rd person shooter.
Your spoiler is an opinion. You don't get to tell other people their opinions are wrong just because you don't agree with them. The only problem here is with you thinking that your opinion that the game is good makes anyone who disagrees with your opinion wrong.
I still think there's a place for narrative-driven games in the industry. In fact, I think it's some of the most exciting content being produced right now, when well executed.
Games like Gone Home, Life Is Strange, The Walking Dead, Sunless Sea, etc. are hella-short on the gameplay dept., but each rank as some of my favorite gaming experiences over the past couple years.
I still needs my twitch-gameplay, but I'm also heartened to see thoughtful and authentic storytelling finding a place in the medium.
I can see where you are coming from (although Gone Home was easily the worst out of all them, that was just an interactive story) but I feel there isn't really a place for video game movies. They sacrifice too much of what is a video game to be like a movie. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go do just that, why does the industry feel the need to emulate something that has been around longer and does it better? If they want to go direct their C-List movie then go do that, but it just doesn't fit in this medium.
Some games have managed to accomplish this, such as the Telltale Walking Dead games. I theorize this is due to the extremely cheap cost per episode, the bite-sized content, not more than 1 hour, and it is done very well for what it is. Telltale managed to come up with a successful formula that works, but there have been cuts to the overall game itself - something we don't view as a $60 8-12 hour experience, which has become synonymous with games these days. For the Order 1886, the price, the overall time it takes to complete, the bland and uninspired gameplay (which is based on Gears of War - which came out nearly 10 years ago), the (major spoilers)
final boss which is the same as the first encounter with the wolf monster and ends in a QTE battle
, half of the game being cutscenes, and lastly the awful implementation of QTE (which is at every corner). They made too many compromises to try and get their movie vision out the door, which is obvious by the overall poor combat/story. It's no wonder it didn't do well by reviewers.
Of course there will be some people that enjoy this type of content. But for a good portion of gamers they look to a more fulfilling experience and not a movie-esque game, if I wanted a movie I'd go watch it.
Let hypothesize for a second, that the game had solid gameplay and a solid story, the game would just be a gears of war clone. They haven't added on to the formula, they haven't revolutionized or made any changes to how current games function. After nearly 10 years I would've expected more than just another GoW.
This would be a valid comparison if the game was as bad as the reviews made it out to be but
its not
. Therein lies the problem. The media literally waged a year long smear campaign against this particular title and it begs the question, why?
Was it because of ill advised PR statements where story was placed over gameplay? Was it because a member of their team previously defended Destiny against their harsh criticisms? Was it because of the "Steak" analogy? Or perhaps because the media was labeled bullies by someone involved with this game? Whatever the reason is we will never know but there is a serious disconnect with the vast majority of people who have actually played this game (even those that were not that interested in it) and what the reviewers would have you to believe. Does that mean that everyone will like the game? no there is no game that everyone will like. Are some of the scores questionable? In my opinion very.
Disclaimer:
None of the above is related to any insidious hive mind anti Sony/Rad conspiracy theory. Just observations that have been made as this thing has unfolded.
Disclaimer:
None of the above is related to any insidious hive mind anti Sony/Rad conspiracy theory. Just observations that have been made as this thing has unfolded.
Are you serious, though? This game was what, like, number 10 on 'GAF's most hyped games of 2015'? And yet you think that the lukewarm response from the media is somehow out of the ordinary or demands explanation? Not the enormous level of frothing hype for a game that even its most ardent defenders often admitted looked pretty lacklustre at every tradeshow RAD showed it at?
Mediocre games get mediocre scores all the time. The only reason it's noteworthy for GAF this time is because a not-insignificant contingent were expecting The Order to be a gamechanger, the Uncharted of the new generation.
And, honestly, without wanting to be too glib or dismissive; you really, honestly expect me to believe a guy with an Order avatar that the press are biased and have some kind of agenda to push, but that you're speaking a moderated and bias-free assessment of the game? The OT and impressions thread are full of people who have either been frothing with anticipation at the arrival of this game or who are at least interested in it enough to plop down a not-insignificant amount of money in the face of some less-than-warm writeups. Do you really think that I should take their views as being somehow genuine and sincere, free from bias or agendas, rather than the people who are being paid to play it because it's their job?
What are the largest complaints about the game? Because
- unskippable cut scenes don't bother me, I always choose to watch them
- frequent cutscenes don't bother me, story is my #1 element in a game
- 6-8 hour length doesn't bother me, it means I'll actually finish it, and my GF may actually watch
I'm leaning more and more towards a purchase... even though I keep telling myself I shouldn't until a price drop, or just rent it. But I feel this will be a major part of PS4's legacy one way or another.
Your spoiler is an opinion. You don't get to tell other people their opinions are wrong just because you don't agree with them. The only problem here is with you thinking that your opinion that the game is good makes anyone who disagrees with your opinion wrong.
As stated in my write up everyone will not like the game..... thought I made that clear. It is very possible to play this game and not like it. but to play it and say its a 2-4 is questionable. Even if you hate it and think its an absolutely average game then that's a 5 if were using the entire scale of 1-10. Not saying anyone's opinion is invalid I am suggesting that their scores are questionable at best.
I can see where you are coming from (although Gone Home was easily the worst out of all them, that was just an interactive story) but I feel there isn't really a place for video game movies. They sacrifice too much of what is a video game to be like a movie. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd go do just that, why does the industry feel the need to emulate something that has been around longer and does it better?
As stated in my write up everyone will not like the game..... thought I made that clear. It is very possible to play this game and not like it. but to play it and say its a 2-4 is questionable. Even if you hate it and think its an absolutely average game then that's a 5 if were using the entire scale of 1-10. Not saying anyone's opinion is invalid I am suggesting that their scores are questionable at best.
How is it questionable? If someone plays it and absolutely hates it and wants to say its a 2, who are you to say its questionable? Because its pretty? That's not a reason. "It can't be this low because its pretty!" Like all things, the pretty goes away with time. What remains after you get used to the pretty is what makes a game great/good/bad/etc. If a person hates what remains enough to rate it poorly then so be it.
Local Redboxes don't have it yet, but when they do I'll snag a copy. 3 bucks is worth checking this out. I probably have a free rental voucher in my inbox somewhere too.
Well, as far as I know the MCC was reviewed before the servers really got strained, and most of the 'muliplayer' that the sites played were LAN/splitscreen. Also, the single player component is quite impressive and something to applaud, even if they aren't perfect. As for AC:Unity, that's a very valid point and I would agree with you, to a lesser degree though.
AC:Unity is like Watch_Dogs (almost like they've got something in common...), where there was a lot to do, and it could easily take you 25+ hours to really touch on everything. I think both are bad games, though. Plain bore-fests that had little to add to a very, very tired genre that Ubisoft championed back in 2009. My personal opinions for those games were well below the 'average' [read: metacritic] scores. I could write an essay (might just do that now) on why they were bad, too.
Plus, you know, you could play through all of those games without having your hand held for 80% of them...
Maybe it's just that the reviewers and gaming industry at large are starting to wake up to these types of games and don't want to be duped anymore. IDK, I'm not a prominent figure in the industry; nothing more than a lowly programmer.
Therein lies the problem. The media literally waged a year long smear campaign against this particular title and it begs the question, why?
...
... there is a serious disconnect with the vast majority of people who have actually played this game (even those that were not that interested in it) and what the reviewers would have you to believe.
...
None of the above is related to any insidious hive mind anti Sony/Rad conspiracy theory.
What are the largest complaints about the game? Because
- unskippable cut scenes don't bother me, I always choose to watch them
- frequent cutscenes don't bother me, story is my #1 element in a game
- 6-8 hour length doesn't bother me, it means I'll actually finish it, and my GF may actually watch
I'm leaning more and more towards a purchase... even though I keep telling myself I shouldn't until a price drop, or just rent it. But I feel this will be a major part of PS4's legacy one way or another.
Lack of enemy variety, lack of weapon variety, insta-fail stealth QTEs, extreme hand-holding, linear corridors with zero exploration, an anti-climactic ending, lack of real "wow" moments... Pick your poison.
As stated in my write up everyone will not like the game..... thought I made that clear. It is very possible to play this game and not like it. but to play it and say its a 2-4 is questionable. Even if you hate it and think its an absolutely average game then that's a 5 if were using the entire scale of 1-10. Not saying anyone's opinion is invalid I am suggesting that their scores are questionable at best.
If you really don't like the idea of what they were going for, I could easily see someone giving this a 4. People put different weight in different aspects of things, and unless you're trying to point out some factual inaccuracies in peoples opinions I don't think you have the right to go around calling other peoples opinions questionable.
What are the largest complaints about the game? Because
- unskippable cut scenes don't bother me, I always choose to watch them
- frequent cutscenes don't bother me, story is my #1 element in a game
- 6-8 hour length doesn't bother me, it means I'll actually finish it, and my GF may actually watch
I'm leaning more and more towards a purchase... even though I keep telling myself I shouldn't until a price drop, or just rent it. But I feel this will be a major part of PS4's legacy one way or another.
"ill advised PR statements where story was placed over gameplay? Was it because a member of their team previously defended Destiny against their harsh criticisms? Was it because of the "Steak" analogy? Or perhaps because the media was labeled bullies by someone involved with this game?"
All of these things happened and are facts that can be checked easily through the history of this games development.
"there is a serious disconnect with the vast majority of people who have actually played this game (even those that were not that interested in it) and what the reviewers would have you to believe"
This is also happening all of you in this thread that have not played the game slamming it as if the reviews are gospel. There is something off with everything surrounding this entire situation.
Lack of enemy variety, lack of weapon variety, insta-fail stealth QTEs, extreme hand-holding, linear corridors with zero exploration, an anti-climactic ending, lack of real "wow" moments... Pick your poison.
Due to the circumstances of being able to sell this for a profit and getting an 8 hour platinum, I can't complain too much. But I do side on the lower end of the reviews the game is getting. It doesn't do much right and a game like that will live or die on its story. like I ended up enjoying Bioshock, but this felt like a slog.
I'm really glad I dont listen to game journalists and publications and their reviews. Bought the game 2 hours ago and I'm enjoying it thus far (I'm on chapter 2). I get the complaints about the qte and RAD taking the controls away from the player too often or too soon. but damn the story telling, gunplay, and visuals coupled with cinematic presentation is awesome. I get what ready at dawn was trying to do.
"ill advised PR statements where story was placed over gameplay? Was it because a member of their team previously defended Destiny against their harsh criticisms? Was it because of the "Steak" analogy? Or perhaps because the media was labeled bullies by someone involved with this game?"
All of these things happened and are facts that can be checked easily through the history of this games development.
"there is a serious disconnect with the vast majority of people who have actually played this game (even those that were not that interested in it) and what the reviewers would have you to believe"
This is also happening all of you in this thread that have not played the game slamming it as if the reviews are gospel. There is something off with everything surrounding this entire situation.
I'm pretty sure this should be obvious to everyone, but let me spell this out for you.
Roger Ebert is one of the most important figures in the history of cinema, and certainly one of the most well-known and respected critics of media OF ALL TIME.
So when he writes a review like that, after 40+ years of writing about film, it means something. He earned the right.
Games journalists haven't even earned the right to have me trust that they do even the most basic fact-checking (looking at you, Polygon).
I'm really glad I dont listen to game journalists and publications and their reviews. Bought the game 2 hours ago and I'm enjoying it thus far (I'm on chapter 2). I get the complaints about the qte and RAD taking the controls away from the player too often or too soon. but damn the story telling, gunplay, and visuals coupled with cinematic presentation is awesome. I get what ready at dawn was trying to do.
It's not ridiculous, it's the absolute truth. Particularly on consoles.
Can you even name, say 20 games with an excellent story?
Mass Effect? B grade sci-fi, nothing exceptionnal
MGS? B grade espionage stuff
Silent Hill 2, ok
TLOU, ok
Compared to dozens and dozens of brilliant movie stories. There's just no competition. Most game stories are teenage boy fantasies.
Bioshock 1 and Infinite
Half Life 2
Portal 1 and 2
The Telltale games Wolf Among Us, Walking Dead Season 1 and the first episode of Tales of The Borderlands (Which has some of the funniest writing I have seen for a while now in general)
Final Fantasy 7
The Witcher 1 and 2
Kotor
Spec Ops the Line
Metal Gear Solid 3 (You say B grade espionage and I say bullshit, what B grade movies are you comparing it to? Story and writing is better than most 007 movies)
Mass Effect 1 and 2 (Again this has been listed as B grade and I actually want to know why this games story isn't as good as Star Wars. The characters again are by far the most memorable.)
Red Dead Redemption
Shadow of the Colossus
ICO
Call of Duty Modern warfare 4
Uncharted 2
The Darkness
I am actually pretty sure I can find a lot more as well since I haven't even gone much into the older RPG's like Baldur's gate and I don't play many JRPG's except some final fantasy games also indei games.
You brush off games like Silent Hill 2 and The Last of Us as ok and I would love to see the movies that have come out in the past year that beat them in terms of writing.
I would really love to see why you think all these games are comparable to B grade movies (The room, sharknado, Birdemic and whatever piece of shit movie you can think of because they all mostly fall into B grade)
Just because something happens because of the writing doesn't mean you feel good because of the writing of the video game. I played Far Cry 3 and 4 and half payed attention to the plot because it was horrible. It didn't make any of the things I did in the games less enjoyable. I had fun shooting down a helicopter with a grenade launcher because the act of shooting down the helicopter was fun. Not because someone in a cut scene told me to go do it. I couldn't have cared less about any of the characters in the last two Far Cry games, they're horribly written and boring characters. There is much more that goes into what happens in a video game then just the writing of the story, and those things (Level design/mission structure/controls) and overcoming those things are what makes me feel triumph.
I didn't feel good about beating Far Cry 4 because I saved a bunch of fictional people and their island, I felt good about beating Far Cry 4 because I beat the challenge the game put in front of me. If I were to base my feelings solely of how I felt about the characters I would have just quit the game, because I didn't care what happened to them because they were all written so badly.
My point was that the highest points of video game writing rate about as high as mediocre writing in movies to me. I like some action movies that aren't written fantastically, but video games are like if the entire movie industry was like those action movies. It doesn't even come close to comparing in quality. Just because I don't think every video game story is complete shit doesn't mean I think it holds up to what I see as quality writing in other mediums.
You are saying the best written games are only comparable to mediocre action movies which is just ridiculous, throwing them all under the bus like that is just lazy. As I have said many times the experience from games can easily be better than movies and that's because of great writing and gameplay blending into one another. Horror games are shit all over horror movies, the writing in the Walking dead is better than the TV series, Uncharted 2 was more enjoyable than 90% of the action movies that have come out last year and I happily compare it to the Indian Jones movies, and it being a lot better than Crystal Skull.
You can say the very best movies are better than the best games but I think dismissing them all as no better than medicore action movies? We must be playing different games or something.
I'm really glad I dont listen to game journalists and publications and their reviews. Bought the game 2 hours ago and I'm enjoying it thus far (I'm on chapter 2). I get the complaints about the qte and RAD taking the controls away from the player too often or too soon. but damn the story telling, gunplay, and visuals coupled with cinematic presentation is awesome. I get what ready at dawn was trying to do.
I can see where you are coming from (although Gone Home was easily the worst out of all them, that was just an interactive story) but I feel there isn't really a place for video game movies. They sacrifice too much of what is a video game to be like a movie.
Of course there will be some people that enjoy this type of content. But for a good portion of gamers they look to a more fulfilling experience and not a movie-esque game, if I wanted a movie I'd go watch it.
I just fall in the latter category who enjoys the content described above. I don't know, perhaps it'd be more accurate to call it Interactive Entertainment or something to make it less divisive. In my mind they're all video games, but that's another discussion entirely.
One thing I've noticed with the more successful narrative games is that they've broken free of the typical game tropes that have shackled the industry for the past 30 years. The stories are more intimate and personal. The characters are not saddled with saving the world. There's generally no combat or violence. Many of the more interesting new breed take place in 100% normal settings with 100% normal/mundane characters.
After decades of playing the comic book superhero in games, I find this deviation to everyday normal refreshing as hell. There will always be a place for Micheal Bay bombast and urgency. I'm just digging the diversity that is emerging thanks to self-publishing, digital distribution and varying price points. I think it give the developer more opportunities to take chances on niche game types and the consumer more choices in game selection.
Lack of enemy variety, lack of weapon variety, insta-fail stealth QTEs, extreme hand-holding, linear corridors with zero exploration, an anti-climactic ending, lack of real "wow" moments... Pick your poison.
enemy variety - can make this complaint about almost any game, expecially shooters
weapon variety - lol, I don't even believe this one... especially from comments I've been reading
insta-fail stealth QTE's - I enjoy stealth sequences in games... I don't even understand the hate for them
extreme hald-holding - I'm not a fan of this, but pretty much all games do it now
linear corridors with zero exploration - linear games >> open games for me
anti-cllimactic ending - yah, that would indeed suck
lack of real "wow" moments - would suck as well
pick your poison - Honey Jack + 7up
My GF and I STRUGGLED to sit through The Last Of Us until the end... it took me over a year to finish it. By the end of it we were just glad it was over. And at the time, felt no real impact from the ending. This game may be much more suited to us.
At first I was confused on why Sony would allowed the type of project the Order is to continue development, but then I remembered Heavy Rain and Beyond Two Souls. So Sony is not afraid on heavy QTE interactive games and I'm sure Sony is proud of what RAD has accomplished in the Order.
