Support NeoGAF

[Withnail]

Well, here is hoping HellBlade with its team of 13 is good.

Well if Opiate is right and it takes 500 man years to make a decent AAA game, HellBlade should be ready some time around 2050.

 

[Primethius]

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.

Most of the reviews are simplistic in nature. I don't mean to suggest that every review or every element of every review is simplistic. I agreed that the Kotaku criticism is good and might end up being valid for me even.

 

[tuna_love]

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.

The filler is the shitty story between the average gameplay

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

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.

I simply don't get why a studio like RaD had to roll their own engine. Isn't succeeding in this space hard enough without that extra burden? Is UE4 or Crytek that far behind in rendering fidelity and performance given the type of game they wanted to make?

 

[Kill3r7]

I simply don't get why a studio like RaD had to roll their own engine. Isn't succeeding in this space hard enough without that extra burden? Is UE4 or Crytek that far behind in rendering fidelity and performance given the type of game they wanted to make?

Because had they delivered an amazing game and engine they would be set financially for the next 5 years.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

So did anyone here still pick this up\, despite the tepid reviews?

I still have my copy paid off on reserve.

Not sure if I am going to cancel it.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Because had they delivered an amazing game and engine they would be set financially for the next 5 years.

Wouldn't delivering an amazing game be enough, though? I don't know what commercial licensing agreements look like for UE4 or Cryengine, I guess.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

As someone who wasn't particularly interested in this game in the first place, the larger observation that the story of this game reinforces is a depressing one: AAA game development has become unattainable unless you are a very large studio.

Ready at Dawn is a team of ~80 that took ~3 years to make this game. If we assume an average salary of 80,000 (RaD is based in Irvine, so this is a safe estimate), this ~19 million dollars just on salaries for 80 people over 3 years, without considering anything else.

And even then, RaD clearly had to cut some corners. The game is short; the game is corridorish; the game is tightly controlled. I think to make a bigger AAA game of this type without cutting corners, you're going to need a team of ~250 people for 2 years, or 500-750 people for 1 year, to plausibly get the game out without cutting the sorts of corners RaD clearly did with this game. For those who don't want to do the math, that's more than 2x the burn rate that RaD would have faced for this game. I remember that we mocked (for instance) the size of Assassin's Creed teams just a few years ago. 500 people? 700 people?!?!??

It seems absurd, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that it's necessary if you want to make a game with "AAA" technical scope.

Software is kind of a (wonderful) nightmare?

 

[Superballs]

That's an asinine thing to say. How many studios created a masterpiece their first time out on their own?

Retro Studios?

 

[Elixist]

I simply don't get why a studio like RaD had to roll their own engine. Isn't succeeding in this space hard enough without that extra burden? Is UE4 or Crytek that far behind in rendering fidelity and performance given the type of game they wanted to make?

i think the visuals speak for themselves, worth imo. especailly if they dont have many or very good "gameplay" designers programmers etc.

 

[tuna_love]

So did anyone here still pick this up, despite the tepid reviews?

I still have my copy paid off on reserve.

Not sure if I am going to cancel it.

I still got it. Reviews said the story was all over the place but some here said it was a well paced story with great characters. Having just finished it. I agree with the reviews. OT looks really good though.

 

[Withnail]

Retro Studios?

Nintendo could get a great game out of just about anybody though.

Well apart from Team Ninja.

 

[Afrodium]

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...

No one's forcing you to ride that train, man. While everyone's in the cabin talking about how game X is going to be the GOAT you can just walk to the same destination and just think for yourself. If you arrive at the station and see a bunch of shitty review scores posted on the arrivals board, you can shrug your shoulders and turn around while the passengers wail, throw $60 at the conductor and shout as loud as they can about how much fun they're having.

That said, I'll take one ticket for the Bloodborne express.

 

[NowhereFaded]

Ready @ Dawn vs. the Internet

lol oh snap! Poor RAD... All that blood, sweat, tears.
Picked up my preorder copy. Said fuck it! How bad can it be?

 

[RibbedHero]

I don't get the sentiment that because the people who bought the game are enjoying it, it has to be a good game.

On one side are reviewers, who (generally) play a variety of games, regardless of whether they personally want to and regardless of whether they enjoy the game.

On the other side are those among the general public who chose to buy the game, and (for the most part) chose to preorder it. They have made a commitment.

One side has a selection-bias, along with the associated emotional investment and justifications, while the other is supposed to be impartial and far less biased a sample. Until a few weeks pass I know which group I'll generally trust (the reviewers).

 

[Stereogatari]

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.

Threads like these are stereotyped as being total trainwrecks, but I've seen some of the best posts I've ever read on GAF in this thread and yours is another.

 

[nycgamer4ever]

I apologize for picking on the poster. I was a jerk for that.

However, these reviews do serve a purpose here. Again, movies and games are different here. Movies are cheaper and take up less of your time than a typical game. However, if you're a family of four, a movie can become more expensive than a game, so those reviews are there to help a family determine what is worth their money to see.

Games offer few refunds and way more money up front. They serve a big purpose and are used by a great segment of the gaming population. $60 is a big chunk of money. Like it or not, people look at these reviews as the consumer guides they are (because they are NOT critical breakdowns of the game or in depth critiques) to help them determine whether to spend their money or not. When you pile on the fact that places to rent games are few and far between now, that we live in a microwave society, and refunds for games are a joke, these things become quite important.

So the people blinding rushing in saying REVIEWERS ARE A JOKE, MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND, are kind of missing the forest for the trees. How are people supposed to make up their own mind? Blindly throwing money around? It doesn't work that way.

On the flipside, Reviewers and increasingly... Youtube Reviewers need to take their work very serious because people really look to them. They need to respect the work, be honest, be informed, know your shit, fact check and get it right. Be able to back up your opinions and provide the best reviews they can.

Movie reviews are just as worthless. These are the opinions of other people and opinions differ form one to the other. Take a look at movie reviews. Almost all action movies do not fair very well at all. Movie reviewers are a finicky bunch and only the best of dramas and/or arty types do decent.

I agree reviews serves a purpose but when you can clearly show that there is no consistency in the way the media goes about reviewing games from one game to another, one genre to another one, multiplats compared to exclusives, how valuable really is the industry? It's also pretty obviously hard to remain objective when you are being paid big add revenues from the same companies that make and produce the games you are reviewing.

When and if the industry fixes the system and start taking themselves seriously that is when I will take them seriously. There is so many game over the last three generations that reviewed poorly that I enjoyed tremendously. If I had listened to the reviews I would have missed out. That once fact alone tells me that reviews are worthless.

I think the one thing that the industry can do to start fixing the problem is to do away with scores, as some outlets have started. This would also help to curb some of the fanboyism on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[N.Domixis]

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...

Spoiler

___________________________________

Bloodborne won't be cinematic like the order.
Bloodborne will be an amazing game.

Spoiler

___________________________________

 

[KooopaKid]

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.

Great post, bravo sir.

 

[KooopaKid]

That's an asinine thing to say. How many studios created a masterpiece their first time out on their own?

Not many. Rocksteady recently. Second game.

 

[Gaz_RB]

Spoiler

___________________________________

Bloodborne won't be cinematic like the order.
Bloodborne will be an amazing game.

Spoiler

___________________________________

Why do you do that obnoxious spoiler tag thing?

 

[Beefy]

I don't get the sentiment that because the people who bought the game are enjoying it, it has to be a good game.

On one side are reviewers, who (generally) play a variety of games, regardless of whether they personally want to and regardless of whether they enjoy the game.

On the other side are those among the general public who chose to buy the game, and (for the most part) chose to preorder it. They have made a commitment.

One side has a selection-bias, along with the associated emotional investment and justifications, while the other is supposed to be impartial and far less biased a sample. Until a few weeks pass I know which group I'll generally trust (the reviewers).

I'm liking the game but I can clearly see big faults. Is it a good game? Nope is it a bad game? Nope. It is a average game with a great atmosphere and amazing graphics and a ok storyline.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

I still got it. Reviews said the story was all over the place but some here said it was a well paced story with great characters. Having just finished it. I agree with the reviews. OT looks really good though.

So, it wasn't all that then?

::Sigh::

OH well .......... I'll give it some thought.

 

[RustyNails]

Despite somewhat mixed response, I hope RAD doesn't lose courage, and Sony doesn't lose their faith. When all is said and done, it seems like a technically impeccable effort from a first time developer on the new gen. Maybe invest more in design and production work in the future.

 

[Smash88]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidth...ws-prove-something-is-changing-in-videogames/

interesting read.

Great read. This is what I was trying to get at with my earlier posts. It just isn't anything special, it doesn't offer something unique to invest my time in (for example the Nemesis system Shadow of Mordor has). It feels like a cheap knock off of Gears of War which came out nearly 10 years ago.

Yes it is pretty, but other than looking good, it won't make the audience it is catering to excited to put their time in as it's just another cover based TPS. Especially in a day and age where people value their free time more than ever.

 

[ryuken-d]

The filler is the shitty story between the average gameplay

aaaawwww I knew someone would say that. fuck it, I'm out.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

As someone who wasn't particularly interested in this game in the first place, the larger observation that the story of this game reinforces is a depressing one: AAA game development has become unattainable unless you are a very large studio.

Ready at Dawn is a team of ~80 that took ~3 years to make this game. If we assume an average salary of 80,000 (RaD is based in Irvine, so this is a safe estimate), this ~19 million dollars just on salaries for 80 people over 3 years, without considering anything else.

And even then, RaD clearly had to cut some corners. The game is short; the game is corridorish; the game is tightly controlled. I think to make a bigger AAA game of this type without cutting corners, you're going to need a team of ~250 people for 2 years, or 500-750 people for 1 year, to plausibly get the game out without cutting the sorts of corners RaD clearly did with this game. For those who don't want to do the math, that's more than 2x the burn rate that RaD would have faced for this game. I remember that we mocked (for instance) the size of Assassin's Creed teams just a few years ago. 500 people? 700 people?!?!??

It seems absurd, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that it's necessary if you want to make a game with "AAA" technical scope.

I disagree.

It seems to me that RAD made some regrettable design choices that led them down this path. They didn't have to make a corridor shooter. They didn't have to make it so cutscene heavy. These are not requirements of AAA games; rather they are choices this particular developer made for their product. They seemed to approach the game with a different philosophy entirely: less game, more cutscenes. As if they took the worst lessons from MGS4 and The Last of Us and dropped this pile of mediocrity at the feet of gamers thinking the same crowds that bought those games would buy this. We've seen studios of similar size pump on quality AAA games this generation. I wouldn't conflate some of the failures we've seen to be symptomatic of a problem with smaller dev studios making AAA software. No, some studios just made some bad fucking choices and reaped the whirlwind as a result.

Maybe some still will. I suspect many who read reviews have been scared into renting the game. Considering how much marketing money Sony sunk into this game, they must be very disappointed today. It had to have a TV marketing budget as big as Destiny.

Oh well. Those of us who could remain objective about this shit saw the writing on the wall as time went further and further along while showing us little or no gameplay. There wasn't much of any to be had.

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.

Excellent post.

 

[ryuken-d]

Why do you do that obnoxious spoiler tag thing?

black bar joke maybe?

 

[dofry]

My short review of The Order 1886:

First things first. 7 hours on 'normal' for me.

Graphics:

Absolutely gorgeous. It's really hard to find any fault in the game on graphical level. The surfaces reflect accordingly and everything seems so unreal at times that you wonder did they spend all this time just tweaking the engine to perfection. Attention to detail is astonishing and you really have to search for any low poly things. Characters look like they belong to the era and the environments and items belong where they are. Hot coffee vapour looks like hot coffee vapour.

Audio:

I found that the default setting weren't good, so I dropped Voice and SFX to 8 and left Master and Music to 10. Game needed that slight music boost to create mood.
Orchestral tracks are good, but sometimes I felt they were missing from scenes. I needed them to create more atmosphere. One of the reasons I bumped up the music volume too.
Voice acting is standard. Good, but not mindblowing or anything. Sometimes the intensity heard in the voice of an actor does not correlate to the action on screen. Mostly it does, but some scenes could have been tweaked a bit to match the scene better and give a more convincing performance.
Guns and others I did not really pay any attention to at all. The thermite gun rattle is satisfying though.

Gunplay:

The standard pistols and rifles are there as they always have been and aren't that memorable.
The standout weapons are the thermite rifle, because it has that cool new twist and it's fun to shoot. The other straight up legendary is the three-barreled shotgun. It became my favorite weapon in the game when I saw the armless or legless enemies a plenty. It's one shotgun that is going to be in the top 10 of all time lists for many people.
Sadly, the game seems to let the player shoot on the special weapons really rarely. I do not understand why the more satisfying and different weapons are not given more often to the player, but are instead hoarded by Amiibo resellers. Let me shoot the nice things more.
When the shooting starts the game is where it should be. Bad guy+weapon+blood+missing limbs=gratification. It works and made me happy.

Gameplay and story:

The game starts super slow as the player is made to watch and suck up the game looks and feels in the beginning. Enemy confrontations are lashed out rarely and I felt weird the first 2 hours of the game. "Where's my shooting, I want to do more shooting" was on top of my head at some points when a shooty-bang session was cut short. The beginning has a bit of pacing issues due to the expectations that I had for more shooty and less other things. Plot itself is interesting enough but is explained sometimes a bit slowly and the character dialogue/script is not the greatest even though what you watch looks like a movie, sounds like a movie and plays like a movie. Some tightening could have definitely been made here. And don't make me mandatory walk at points if the character could run.
Suddenly at

Spoiler

Chapter 6 or 7-ish, can't remember

the game picks up the pace and I started to enjoy myself. But it left me wondering why this didn't happen earlier? The game needed a punchier and faster beginning. Building up the story is ok, but The Order was unnecessarily slow starter.

Once the game clicked at one point, I played it to the finish with a totally different feeling. The first two hours I thought I might trade this in, but now after the credits rolled I was happy and satisfied, so now I might keep this game. But just might. Definitely one more playthrough on Hard. It's gorgeous, gorgeous to look at and raises the bar more than I thought it would, but as gameplay is more important I hope a sequel arrives and RAD can now fully focus on delivering a tighter and improved gameplay experience. The graphics engine is there, the gunplay was good and the gameplay was solid but needed more flesh around the barer bones.

Notes:
- There's are no loading screens
- If you die, you pop back into the game in two seconds
- Insta death is there but if that happens, the automatic reload point is super close so you lose nothing really. Retrying is less of a hassle that way.
- Did I say the 3 barrel shotgun is the best? It's the best

There's a lot more I could write, but I don't want to bore people to death with a wall of text.

 

[cleveridea]

As someone who wasn't particularly interested in this game in the first place, the larger observation that the story of this game reinforces is a depressing one: AAA game development has become unattainable unless you are a very large studio.

Ready at Dawn is a team of ~80 that took ~3 years to make this game. If we assume an average salary of 80,000 (RaD is based in Irvine, so this is a safe estimate), this ~19 million dollars just on salaries for 80 people over 3 years, without considering anything else.

And even then, RaD clearly had to cut some corners. The game is short; the game is corridorish; the game is tightly controlled. I think to make a bigger AAA game of this type without cutting corners, you're going to need a team of ~250 people for 2 years, or 500-750 people for 1 year, to plausibly get the game out without cutting the sorts of corners RaD clearly did with this game. For those who don't want to do the math, that's more than 2x the burn rate that RaD would have faced for this game. I remember that we mocked (for instance) the size of Assassin's Creed teams just a few years ago. 500 people? 700 people?!?!??

It seems absurd, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that it's necessary if you want to make a game with "AAA" technical scope.

I don't disagree, but I think they missed some simple things that wouldn't dramatically raise the cost but could have made a replay worth it.

like why doesn't the game have a simple weapon upgrade system like wolfenstein, which would make collectibles meaningful, and then let you keep these upgrades in a new game plus. it fits right in with the alternate reality vibe of the game.

A big part of the reason I declined to buy this game is not the short length itself its that there is no reason to replay it and most the action seems to use conventional weapons.

There are all sorts of other ways to add replay ability without much work like like unlocking graphic filters, unlimited ammo, special weapons etc and make them only work on a new playthrough so it doesnt spoil the first run atmosphere or difficulty curve. I loved that on old silent hill games you could unlock something crazy like a light saber to really mix things up.

 

[arevin01]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidth...ws-prove-something-is-changing-in-videogames/

interesting read.

Yeah had this game released during a time when not every game is trying to tack on MP, a time where QTEs were fairly not common, where enemy A.I. weren't as sophisticated, a time where gamers didn't judge it on value, a 90 metacritic is absolutely not out of that ball park.

Sadly it is 2015, and a game of this nature is not very welcomed by the community.

 

[Cave Johnson]

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.

While this has been predicted way back, we need more context in this scenario. How much are talking when factoring devs like Naughty Dog to Ubisoft? I don't think ND had a huge bump in manpower compared to their last game. Only thing I know is that they probably had the same dev time period as TLOU since their PS4 devkits were used.

 

[Valentus]

As someone who wasn't particularly interested in this game in the first place, the larger observation that the story of this game reinforces is a depressing one: AAA game development has become unattainable unless you are a very large studio.

Ready at Dawn is a team of ~80 that took ~3 years to make this game. If we assume an average salary of 80,000 (RaD is based in Irvine, so this is a safe estimate), this ~19 million dollars just on salaries for 80 people over 3 years, without considering anything else.

And even then, RaD clearly had to cut some corners. The game is short; the game is corridorish; the game is tightly controlled. I think to make a bigger AAA game of this type without cutting corners, you're going to need a team of ~250 people for 2 years, or 500-750 people for 1 year, to plausibly get the game out without cutting the sorts of corners RaD clearly did with this game. For those who don't want to do the math, that's more than 2x the burn rate that RaD would have faced for this game. I remember that we mocked (for instance) the size of Assassin's Creed teams just a few years ago. 500 people? 700 people?!?!??

It seems absurd, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that it's necessary if you want to make a game with "AAA" technical scope.

The lesson we got here is that medium-size studios like Ready at Dawn must use third party engines (like UE4 or Cryengine) and spend all the time in the game mechanics' itself.

It seems that RaD used big part of those 3 years in making the engine, so they couldn't deliver in the game itself (in the graphic department, The Order is a Juggernaut)

Since last Gen we could see that only big studios could create engines from scratch (how many years capcom used MT Framework as their core engine?) and even then, those engines didnt paid off in the end as they should (Luminous engine)

Now, i can see that sony uses the order's engine in their future games, and maybe part of the deal between Sony and RaD was to make them a game AND a graphic engine for their internal studios.

I cant see this magnificent engine be used only for The Order and nothing else, that could be really burning money in a drum.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

My short review of The Order 1886:

First things first. 7 hours on 'normal' for me.

Graphics:

Absolutely gorgeous. It's really hard to find any fault in the game on graphical level. The surfaces reflect accordingly and everything seems so unreal at times that you wonder did they spend all this time just tweaking the engine to perfection. Attention to detail is astonishing and you really have to search for any low poly things. Characters look like they belong to the era and the environments and items belong where they are. Hot coffee vapour looks like hot coffee vapour.

Audio:

I found that the default setting weren't good, so I dropped Voice and SFX to 8 and left Master and Music to 10. Game needed that slight music boost to create mood.
Orchestral tracks are good, but sometimes I felt they were missing from scenes. I needed them to create more atmosphere. One of the reasons I bumped up the music volume too.
Voice acting is standard. Good, but not mindblowing or anything. Sometimes the intensity heard in the voice of an actor does not correlate to the action on screen. Mostly it does, but some scenes could have been tweaked a bit to match the scene better and give a more convincing performance.
Guns and others I did not really pay any attention to at all. The thermite gun rattle is satisfying though.

Gunplay:

The standard pistols and rifles are there as they always have been and aren't that memorable.
The standout weapons are the thermite rifle, because it has that cool new twist and it's fun to shoot. The other straight up legendary is the three-barreled shotgun. It became my favorite weapon in the game when I saw the armless or legless enemies a plenty. It's one shotgun that is going to be in the top 10 of all time lists for many people.
Sadly, the game seems to let the player shoot on the special weapons really rarely. I do not understand why the more satisfying and different weapons are not given more often to the player, but are instead hoarded by Amiibo resellers. Let me shoot the nice things more.
When the shooting starts the game is where it should be. Bad guy+weapon+blood+missing limbs=gratification. It works and made me happy.

Gameplay and story:

The game starts super slow as the player is made to watch and suck up the game looks and feels in the beginning. Enemy confrontations are lashed out rarely and I felt weird the first 2 hours of the game. "Where's my shooting, I want to do more shooting" was on top of my head at some points when a shooty-bang session was cut short. The beginning has a bit of pacing issues due to the expectations that I had for more shooty and less other things. Plot itself is interesting enough but is explained sometimes a bit slowly and the character dialogue/script is not the greatest even though what you watch looks like a movie, sounds like a movie and plays like a movie. Some tightening could have definitely been made here. And don't make me mandatory walk at points if the character could run.
Suddenly at

Spoiler

Chapter 6 or 7-ish, can't remember

the game picks up the pace and I started to enjoy myself. But it left me wondering why this didn't happen earlier? The game needed a punchier and faster beginning. Building up the story is ok, but The Order was unnecessarily slow starter.

Once the game clicked at one point, I played it to the finish with a totally different feeling. The first two hours I thought I might trade this in, but now after the credits rolled I was happy and satisfied, so now I might keep this game. But just might. Definitely one more playthrough on Hard. It's gorgeous, gorgeous to look at and raises the bar more than I thought it would, but as gameplay is more important I hope a sequel arrives and RAD can now fully focus on delivering a tighter and improved gameplay experience. The graphics engine is there, the gunplay was good and the gameplay was solid but needed more flesh around the barer bones.

Notes:
- There's are no loading screens
- If you die, you pop back into the game in two seconds
- Insta death is there but if that happens, the automatic reload point is super close so you lose nothing really. Retrying is less of a hassle that way.
- Did I say the 3 barrel shotgun is the best? It's the best

There's a lot more I could write, but I don't want to bore people to death with a wall of text.

Thanks for the impressions.

I am still going to try and play this. I really do want to pick this up, just to support the game and hope for an improved sequel.

 

[v1ncelis]

I don't get reviews theses days. Infamous SS, The Order, LA Noire, Driveclub names just of few I enjoyed a lot. Way more than internet critics darlings such as recent Call of Duty or Assassins Creed.
I'm a gamer with bad taste? I just don't get it.

 

[Friction]

Is it safe to post in this thread now?

 

[Cave Johnson]

I don't get reviews theses days. Infamous SS, The Order, LA Noire, Driveclub names just of few I enjoyed a lot. Way more than internet critics darlings such as recent Call of Duty or Assassins Creed.
I'm a gamer with bad taste? I just don't get it.

Reviews are just a consensus of opinions. You don't need them for validation of your gaming interests; that doesn't mean they have nothing worthwhile to say.

 

[Vice]

I don't get reviews theses days. Infamous SS, The Order, LA Noire, Driveclub names just of few I enjoyed a lot. Way more than internet critics darlings such as recent Call of Duty or Assassins Creed.
I'm a gamer with bad taste? I just don't get it.

Reviews are opinions and yours are different than critics. That simple.

 

[Bsigg12]

Why do you do that obnoxious spoiler tag thing?

It's a cinematic comment about a cinematic game.

 

[Derpyduck]

I don't get reviews theses days. Infamous SS, The Order, LA Noire, Driveclub names just of few I enjoyed a lot. Way more than internet critics darlings such as recent Call of Duty or Assassins Creed.
I'm a gamer with bad taste? I just don't get it.

Infamous got bad scores? It has an average of 80.

 

[Vitor711]

Is it safe to post in this thread now?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

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.

Paid reviewers to the best of their ability write an honest assessment of what they played. There's no emotional bias to color their view of the game. You might not have to write anything in depth to explain your take, but they do. The paid reviewer is inherently far more enlightening and worthy of trust than a day 1'er. The accusation that reviewers did not honestly assess the game and just used buzzwords is nonsense. What about this paragraph jumps out as meaningless buzzwords to you? (from Jim Sterling's review)

Outside of combat, things are little less enthralling. The game shamelessly opens with remedial quick-time-events through a network of restrictive corridors, all set at a plodding pace, and this framework comes to characterize much of the resulting campaign. Linearity is not a bad thing, but The Order has no interest whatsoever in exploration, curiosity, or player agency. You’re allowed to run only when the game tells you, your hand is held by immersion-breaking tutorial pop-ups that never stop and cannot be turned off, you’ll come to doors that you know you can open, but are barred from touching until the patronizing prompt appears.

 

[EightBitNate]

I don't get reviews theses days. Infamous SS, The Order, LA Noire, Driveclub names just of few I enjoyed a lot. Way more than internet critics darlings such as recent Call of Duty or Assassins Creed.
I'm a gamer with bad taste? I just don't get it.

LA Noire has an 89 and SS has an 80. Driveclub didn't really do anything special to warrant higher reviews other than graphics (same can be said for The Order). Meanwhile Asassassins Creed Unity has a 70. I really don't know what you're getting at.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I don't get reviews theses days. Infamous SS, The Order, LA Noire, Driveclub names just of few I enjoyed a lot. Way more than internet critics darlings such as recent Call of Duty or Assassins Creed.
I'm a gamer with bad taste? I just don't get it.

In my opinion, yes you do have bad taste.

However that being said, your game examples make no sense if we're just talking about Metacritic since all of those games were pretty well received. I mean, AC Unity is sitting at 70 while Driveclub is at 71. COD Advanced Warfare is at 83, while Second Son is at 80. If you ask me, your tastes appear to be right in line with most reviewers.

 

[Primethius]

Paid reviewers to the best of their ability write an honest assessment of what they played. There's no emotional bias to color their view of the game. You might not have to write anything in depth to explain your take, but they do. The paid reviewer is inherently far more enlightening and worthy of trust than a day 1'er. The accusation that reviewers did not honestly assess the game and just used buzzwords is nonsense. What about this paragraph jumps out as meaningless buzzwords to you? (from Jim Sterling's review)

I'm not saying paid reviewers have emotional bias, just that day 1 people don't necessarily have such a bias if their opinions are contrary to those of reviews.

Again, my criticism of the simplicity and buzzword usage is directed at reviewers at large, not any particular review or paragraph. The Jim Sterling paragraph is fine, though I disagree with the conclusions. But words like "player agency" in that paragraph mean little in the context he provides. And the examples, aside from the door one, don't even support the claim of "player agency" in that paragraph. Especially since the paragraph states that you can only run when the game tells you to and there are plenty of times in the game where you are allowed to run but the game defaults to a walking speed.

In the 9 chapters I've played so far, the amount of sections that I'm only allowed to walk in are minimal, the only one of note being a couple at the beginning of the game.

In my opinion, yes you do have bad taste.

However that being said, your game examples make no sense if we're just talking about Metacritic since all of those games were pretty well received. I mean, AC Unity is sitting at 70 while Driveclub is at 71. COD Advanced Warfare is at 83, while Second Son is at 80. If you ask me, your tastes appear to be right in line with most reviewers.

I don't get it. Being at a 65 is not well received but being at a 70 is?

 

[a.wd]

Is this review thread going to make it to 2? Also whats the longest review thread, I am actually still a 3rd of the way through.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I don't get it. Being at a 65 is not well received but being at a 70 is?

If you use the entire scale? Yeah, I'd say both scores are. However, my point was just that the choice of games used by the person to whom I replied in order to demonstrate how out of touch with reviewers they felt was not a particularly good selection given that it actually contradicted their premise.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Is this review thread going to make it to 2? Also whats the longest review thread, I am actually still a 3rd of the way through.

Pace is slowing down pretty. Wouldn't bet on it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Thread soft limit is 400 pages at 50ppp, this thread won't even come close.

 

[Astral Dog]

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.

Yeah the human eye can't get past 5 hours anyway

Spoiler

really, length doesn't seem to be the problem of the Order