Sure, but no money is coming out of my pocket. The people who said the game looked plain from the get go are being validated by the critical consensus. that's all there is to it. The game is still available for purchase, and there are no conspiracies. You can choose to lobby for the illegitimacy of paid critics, but most won't cop to that.
-
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
Sure, but no money is coming out of my pocket. The people who said the game looked plain from the get go are being validated by the critical consensus. that's all there is to it. The game is still available for purchase, and there are no conspiracies. You can choose to lobby for the illegitimacy of paid critics, but most won't cop to that.
Primethius
Banned
The more I play this game, and look at the reviews, the more it reinforces in me the notion that reviews these days are nothing more then simplistic descriptions of whether or not a game works these days and the content it contains (perhaps they always were).
Don't take this to mean that the game has no flaws but by god, it also has some of the most fantastic gunplay in a TPS I've played.
And the flaws that the game does have, I don't feel are properly articulated by any of the reviews. They're so gung-ho on using buzz words and general descriptives that they're unable to articulate what the game actually doesn't do well and does do well aside from rudimentary things like "gameplay to cutscene ratio."
Edit: I suppose it's to be expected though, gaming critics have never particularly struck me well versed in their craft.
Don't take this to mean that the game has no flaws but by god, it also has some of the most fantastic gunplay in a TPS I've played.
And the flaws that the game does have, I don't feel are properly articulated by any of the reviews. They're so gung-ho on using buzz words and general descriptives that they're unable to articulate what the game actually doesn't do well and does do well aside from rudimentary things like "gameplay to cutscene ratio."
Edit: I suppose it's to be expected though, gaming critics have never particularly struck me well versed in their craft.
NullPointer
Member
Gotta admit I do have a favorite one myself. There's a moment in God of War 3 where you have to push in both sticks as Kratos jams his thumbs into the eyes of a particular Olympian - and that was perfection. Probably the best contextual prompt I've ever used
I wish it was like that, but it feels like Ready at Dawn was just a good Game Director away from having a really solid game. It just looks poorly designed from a gameplay perspective, and that is reflected in many of the reviews. I recently got down to playing Killzone: Mercenary and that game shows you the importance of competent game design, especially when you are dealing with technical limitations. The areas in that game aren't any more expansive than the combat arenas in The Order: 1886, but they are far, far, far better designed, by any metric someone could choose.
They didn't need more time or more developers, I don't think. They needed a Game Director who was determined to make the gameplay fun. Their equivalent of a Bruce Straley-type. The Order's gameplay blandness is strictly a design issue, IMO.
But what if they would have settled for a less demanding art style? What if they wouldn't have put so much energy and time into the technical foundation and tried to find a balance instead?
I think even small teams can create interesting games in the AAA space if they play their cards right. I can't shake off the feeling that RaD overprioritized one aspect and therefore dozen other elements suffered; the idea to create an ambitious visual framework that does the vision they had in mind justice seemed to completely overshadow anything else. I mean being 'corridorish' and short is one thing, but the game doesn't even offer any reasons to replay it; no unlockables, no challenges and no online functionalities. From what I read, this seems to be like half a game in terms of playable content.
If you want to play in the big league, you kinda have to be realistic what your studio is capable of; maybe this should have been their second or third game on a console and they should have begun with a more 'simple' title in terms of visuals/presentation. Another option might have been to just drop the TPS elements and create a Quantic Dream-esque experience, some kind of adventure game.
I don't mean to suggest this is worthless, but people make these sorts of "well on the bright side, things will be cheaper in the future because now we have the groundwork laid out with engines and experience and so forth," and while there is likely some cost saving, it never seems to wave a magic wand over the cost problems.
In a general sense, people said the same thing last generation, and yet, the cost of development continued ramping up steadily as the generation went on. Early games on the PS3/360 cost 20-30M to produce and market; by the end, you had 200M+ dollar affairs dominating the market. For instance, Ubisoft stated that Assassin's Creed 3 cost more to make than all the previous entries in the series combined, despite all being on the same platforms.
I'm not saying that the cost savings are worthless, but they are also clearly not a panacea, either. The cost of AAA development has relentlessly and ruthlessly climbed for years, even with cost savings factored in.
Gotta admit I do have a favorite one myself. There's a moment in God of War 3 where you have to push in both sticks as Kratos jams his thumbs into the eyes of a particular Olympian - and that was perfection. Probably the best contextual prompt I've ever used
IMO The Order one is better then that. It is really well done.
Their opinion is as legitimate as yours. You say it's the most fantastic gunplay you've ever experienced in a TPS, they say it's a paint-by-numbers, boring affair.
They used a few more paragraphs than you did to explain their position, though.
Then what are these said people defending.
Those who bought and paid for it have offered the notion that they have found it enjoyable.
What does the opposition stand on/for if not to stick around and tell people " told them so."
I hope you're not talking about what I think you're talking about.
I'm also not saying that the cost of AAA development hasn't become prohibitive, but it's also disingenuous to imply that making a new engine from the ground up on top of a game is the same as simply making a game.
Can you name a studio of their size producing "AAA" console titles in that time frame? I can't.
I don't mean to suggest that competency is irrelevant, obviously. But I think the dominating factor for quite some time has not been "are you good enough," but rather "do you have the money." I mean, I don't think anyone looks at Ubisoft and thinks of them as paragons of elite programming skills and enormous competency, but they have the money, and with the money, they can make a AAA game that doesn't cut corners.
Understanding that people have opinions. The game critics aren't wrong, they just disagree with people who think the game is good.
Not like it then?
Sucker Punch?
The climbing cost of AAA is definitely a worrisome issue. For comparison a team of about 70 worked on Halo 3 for 3 years, and they ended up releasing what was at the time one of the most value packed games on the market. The Order started pre-production in 2011 and the team ballooned to 120 with contractors, and even with a delay of a few months the game has a serious content issue.
Primethius
Banned
Umm, what? I'm not posting my impressions or review. Mine would be way more detailed if I did.
And paint-by-numbers doesn't mean much in regards to gunplay, they're probably referring to the actual TPS-style of gameplay.
I don't know their size, frankly. But even if we can come up with a few examples (I think the better one is CD Project Red), we're looking at the exceptions that prove the rule. If we think hard and come up with 2-3 studios that are 70-100 people that can put out AAA console titles, that suggests that it's really, really hard to do. Not impossible -- virtually nothing is impossible -- but prohibitively difficult.
After playing the game myself, I don't think I've ever disagreed more with reviews.
But isn't the conversation really between people who have played the game and the reviewers when it comes to actually weighing in on the game's merits.
Those who have not played and use a second hand opinion seem less likely to have any valid points to bring up.
I don't really think its a question of right or wrong, we are dealing with opinions, but aren't the opinions of those who played the game more weighted when it comes to actually having the conversation?
I believe there were somewhere in the region of 100 developers for Second Son.
Link?
This was also RAD's first AAA console game, and it will still probably sell well.
And we'll see more mid-sized studios because engines like Unreal Engine 4 has improved significantly since the launch window, and engines are cheaper than ever. The Order and other earlier titles had to spend a lot of resources making their own, which is no longer necessary. Titanfall, Wolfenstein, No Man's Sky, etc. all have relatively small teams and it's kind of amazing what the earlier titles have pulled off in such a timeframe.
It's one thing when people seek out validation for a pre-concieved outlook. There's a good amount of that out there, and it deserves to be ignored or politely called out. It's another to notice people attempting to discredit dozens of justified viewpoints, rejected mostly on the grounds that they happen to dislike/like the game.
Not if the opinion is that other opinions are invalid. Someone coming in blind can see why that should be invalid, and unless the information being shared in reviews is inaccurate or obviously malicious, there's plenty that people can glean from descriptions of the game.
Assuming that Alienous is correct, and also assuming that they began Infamous: SS production after launching Infamous 2, we would have ~3 years of development time. That would be in the range of 20-25M just for salaries of 100 people (20% more than RaD).
Consider that Infamous: SS was received relatively fairly well but not spectacularly, and crucially, consider that it was a launch game. I'm quite sure the hostility that The Order is receiving would be notably lessened if this were a showpiece launch title to show what technical wizardry the new console can produce.
Again, assuming that Alienous is correct about the head count.
Consider that Infamous: SS was received relatively fairly well but not spectacularly, and crucially, consider that it was a launch game. I'm quite sure the hostility that The Order is receiving would be notably lessened if this were a showpiece launch title to show what technical wizardry the new console can produce.
Again, assuming that Alienous is correct about the head count.
there's a lot of talk in here of the kind of confirmation bias which comes from finding something to like about the game you've just put a decent wedge towards, but i think that's not nearly as significant as the emotional investment of getting caught up in the positive feedback whirlwind that represents a modern first party AAA release.
as soon as your customise your avatar or pin it to the nearest hype_train.png, you're invested beyond the point where anyone else can rely on your judgement. this isn't universal, but on a site like GAF where you're forced to play the ball and playing the man gets you a red card, you'll seldom be called out on things that in any other field would be up for ridicule. hype train riding and custom avatars preceding a claim of rational clarity regarding the product you are neck deep in visible investment for is one of these things.
the thing that strikes me most about this thread is how little effort has actually gone in to engaging with the criticism on any level beyond a base description how you generally disagree with it on an emotional level: "i'm having a good time with it", "i'm enjoying the gameplay", "the story and characters are really good!".
take a paragraph from the maligned kotaku review:
"Early in the story, Galahad discovers a dark conspiracy that could go… all the way… to the top! The script never shies away from a good cliché: For example, two characters separately inform Galahad that, in truth, they and Galahad are not so different. The story itself is slight, rushed, and feels as though it was cobbled together from the shambles of a larger, grander tale. Its twists and turns are never surprising, and the script doesn't lay enough groundwork or develop its characters to the point where any of the plot developments feel consequential."
for me, this paragraph is perfectly on point, but if you have criticisms of the review, make an equally coherent argument against it. explain how the script defies cliche, justify the use of film school freshman lines of dialogue, explain why the plot twists are in fact surprising or innovative, demonstrate how the script lays a decent groundwork to develop and why it does have greater consequence.
the combination of clear and demonstrative reasons for emotional bias combined with a total unwillingness to engage with the criticism beyond spraying it with petulant discontent is creating an environment where while we are not supposed to play the man, the man has contorted himself around the ball to the extent that the ball is barely visible and we're left with the choice of kicking the man in the shins and getting sent to the stands or just walking away.
as soon as your customise your avatar or pin it to the nearest hype_train.png, you're invested beyond the point where anyone else can rely on your judgement. this isn't universal, but on a site like GAF where you're forced to play the ball and playing the man gets you a red card, you'll seldom be called out on things that in any other field would be up for ridicule. hype train riding and custom avatars preceding a claim of rational clarity regarding the product you are neck deep in visible investment for is one of these things.
the thing that strikes me most about this thread is how little effort has actually gone in to engaging with the criticism on any level beyond a base description how you generally disagree with it on an emotional level: "i'm having a good time with it", "i'm enjoying the gameplay", "the story and characters are really good!".
take a paragraph from the maligned kotaku review:
"Early in the story, Galahad discovers a dark conspiracy that could go… all the way… to the top! The script never shies away from a good cliché: For example, two characters separately inform Galahad that, in truth, they and Galahad are not so different. The story itself is slight, rushed, and feels as though it was cobbled together from the shambles of a larger, grander tale. Its twists and turns are never surprising, and the script doesn't lay enough groundwork or develop its characters to the point where any of the plot developments feel consequential."
for me, this paragraph is perfectly on point, but if you have criticisms of the review, make an equally coherent argument against it. explain how the script defies cliche, justify the use of film school freshman lines of dialogue, explain why the plot twists are in fact surprising or innovative, demonstrate how the script lays a decent groundwork to develop and why it does have greater consequence.
the combination of clear and demonstrative reasons for emotional bias combined with a total unwillingness to engage with the criticism beyond spraying it with petulant discontent is creating an environment where while we are not supposed to play the man, the man has contorted himself around the ball to the extent that the ball is barely visible and we're left with the choice of kicking the man in the shins and getting sent to the stands or just walking away.
Hmm, perhaps I was off. This is saying 120 team members. I'm sure I heard about the team being smaller, though. I remember being impressed that they made their own engine, and everything.
In any case, I thought Ready At Dawn was closer to ~100 team members? That seems to have been suggested in their Game Informer interview.
EDIT:
Nevermind, I found the Ready At Dawn 80 developer number.
Cut corners how? Look at Watch Dogs and Unity. Sure, they might be open world games that are filled with content, but how much of that content is worthwhile and how does the game suffer because of the amount of content in the game? It's difficult to look at either game and not see that corners were cut somewhere.
The conversation is about the reviewers and what they collectively scored the Order 1886. And the folks who try to brush the reviewers off as "not knowing anything," perhaps because they deemed this game to be mediocre on the whole.
But sure, in general, playing the game gives a person more context.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
The Order 1886 isn't really out of the ball park of the length of their other games, but when you are a small team and ramp up production to home console (and also make it with an engine that produces the best looking game on any console) with their first ever own IP, then something has to give.
We tolerate shorter games on handhelds, because the cost of entry is usually much lower, we also maybe tolerate certain mechanics and feature sets because we have lowered expectations about what a handheld is capable of.
I don't know, I think they've made a massive leap forward but there's still growing to do. The game world is amazing and the atmosphere is so good. I think the biggest shame would be for RAD to be disillusioned or for Sony to not fund another one. There's a "GOTY" standard game somewhere in that world and with the hard engine work done, they can focus on the game.
We tolerate shorter games on handhelds, because the cost of entry is usually much lower, we also maybe tolerate certain mechanics and feature sets because we have lowered expectations about what a handheld is capable of.
I don't know, I think they've made a massive leap forward but there's still growing to do. The game world is amazing and the atmosphere is so good. I think the biggest shame would be for RAD to be disillusioned or for Sony to not fund another one. There's a "GOTY" standard game somewhere in that world and with the hard engine work done, they can focus on the game.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
The thing is the order is a technically competent game that had other issues. If the content was good enough then it may have mitigated the expectation of the laundry list of features larger AAA developers use to pad out their otherwise mediocre games. Its for that reason I don't think the order's flaw is quantity of content but quality of content - the game design itself. This is something a RaD in a parallel universe may have gotten right and if given another chance, RaD can still get right. Wouldn't it be a victory if we can happily say a team of that size can make a AAA game with a AAA budget from two generations ago?
uomoartificiale
Member
After the hype, denial. How many times will have to suffer through this cycle this year? Let's at least hope bloodborne is as good as it seems to be...
In terms of content. One of the chief complaints of The Order is its lack of content: it's short, it's corridorish. What there is to do is very pretty, but there is not much to do.
I am suggesting that a primary requirement of modern AAA design is meat. You need tons of stuff to do, whether that be good stuff or bad, as in Watch Dogs. And meat is primarily a function of money.
Primethius
Banned
I can't respond to your example as I haven't beaten the game but I don't see why I would have to engage in a coherent argument against that. When I beat the game, I could have very well have enjoyed the game and agree with that line of criticism. To me, saying "I'm having a good time with it" is about as enlightening as reviews using buzzwords like "bland gameplay." They mean nothing without further elaboration.
The kotaku criticism seems valid. I might fully agree with it. But I don't think people should be expected to write in-depth refutations of the reviews when the reviews themselves are simplistic in nature.
Head counts don't work like that. I had 65 people in my team on my last project. The project lasted 11 months. But we ramped up from 10 and then down to 20, with an average of ~40. If you ask me, I'll still say 11 months/65 people.
While we're on the subject, I know From software has 230 employees split into at least two teams(perhaps more?) so they actually might have as many people working on their games as RAD. That being said, the Souls series was considered AA originally.
I think Wolfenstein is a more apt comparison than an ubisoft open world checklist-fest. Wolfenstein also did fine in reviews.
I think Wolfenstein is a more apt comparison than an ubisoft open world checklist-fest. Wolfenstein also did fine in reviews.
CD Projekt Red also has the privilege of being based in Poland, where it's much cheaper.
I think videogames from Eastern Europe are really impressive. Just look at 4A Games with Metro 2033. Have you read about their working conditions when they were still owned by THQ? Rubin himself was impressed a team could "survive" in such a shitty environment and still make something like Metro.
When posters are coming into a review thread and stating that all of the posted review sites are worthless and not worth listening to them at all.
I expect concrete examples and counter arguments explainng why.
Else the statements are just as empty as the supposedly worthless reviews that those posters are railing against.
To say nothing of the few conspriacy theories floating about in this thread.
freefornow
Gold Member
Great post! Probably lost on most.
Cinematics. Voice acting. Motion capture. This is the shit that takes forever and costs a fortune. A game like Bloodbourne probably costs but a fraction of what The Order cost. So it's not every AAA genre. It's the cinematic games trying to be like movies that are prohibitively expensive. Or the ones that are open world, easy to play and have a shitload of sidequest filler content like an Ubisoft game are also expensive to make.
Make a challenging game with minimal handholding, minimal voice acting, really solid game mechanics, and multiple ways to play through the game (classes) and suddenly that AAA level game becomes much more attainable. Or a strong co-op focused game with lots of replayability like Borderlands or Diablo.
There are attainable AAA genres still out there. Just not for genres like The Order is trying to fill.
Voice acting and cinematics are a huge deal. It's like having the cost of making a Pixar film and adding to it the cost of making a game.
whatevermort
Member
The number of developers means nothing. Everybody who isn't ubi outsources, and RAD will have been no different. It might be 80 in house, but the actual number of (nameless, faceless Chinese artist) people who worked on this will be far higher.
Primethius
Banned
I don't disagree that conspiracy theories are nonsense. But you were suggesting that liking the game without some sort of further elaboration is the result of some emotional investment in the game.
I could elaborate on why I disagree with many reviewers on some of the criticisms that the game has received and why I agree with some of them.
My point ultimately was, look at the state of this thread. Why would I want to? A simple "I'm enjoying the game" takes much less effort and is likely to be met with the same reaction.
The consensus here has already been met due to the middling reviews. That's fine. I'm only on chapter 5 and I disagree with quite a few criticisms and agree with a few. Will I post my impressions here and try to refute the reviewers? God no. This thread is a horrible place for that.
Well you also have games like Persona 5, and Catherine which are considered solidly AA games with shitloads of voice acting(probably no to limited mo-cap though) that I'd imagine cost even less to make.
I'd like to disregard all your points about hype culture. Please excuse me for this. I'd just like to get to the point. That paragraph about the story is correct. I wrote something similar in my own review. But it's something I could use to describe a lot of games. A good story is hard to find these days. Doesn't mean we should settle for less. On the contrary.
Thing is, when a game like Shadow of Mordor is nearly crowned GOTY just because of its Nemesis system (This game had a shitty final boss fight, a really mediocre story and a mostly empty world), is it fair to be less critical of the things it doesn't do right and then absolutely massacre a game like The Order 1886 when it isn't... perfect?
Again, The Order 1886 is by no means a 9/10 game. But 4/10? 2/10?! Too harsh, in my opinion.
there is one thing that I haven't heard about The Order. No filler aren't people always complaining about bullshit fetch quests and tacked on "rpg" elements? I have to admit I'd rather have some upgraded weapons or collectables but whatever. I'll play it. Now I'm curious about the sales numbers or even pre-order numbers.
aren't people always complaining about bullshit fetch quests and tacked on "rpg" elements? I have to admit I'd rather have some upgraded weapons or collectables but whatever. I'll play it. Now I'm curious about the sales numbers or even pre-order numbers.The quote provided from the review wasn't simplistic, though. It clearly illustrates the point that the reviewer felt the game had a weak story.
- Status