Support NeoGAF

[INFINITY TR1GG3R]

I can see where he is coming from to an extent. But critics are allowed to have their opinions and review games accordingly. However in the case of the Order we had critics jumping on twitter openly making caustic jokes about the game. Which is just spiteful, unnecessary and wholly unprofessional.

True, but more than this, a lot of the hate, from my experience with the game, is totally unfounded.

It's very hard to grasp how it appears an entire community of professionals have attacked this so unforgiving despite it actually being good.

Everyone is entitled to there opinion but taking all reviews into account, the hate seems way over the top.

 

[lostinblue]

I hope they manage to do a sequel, I also thought their first God of War Chain of the Olympus was short and sucked balls, pretty much a tech demo sold on stores (and praised for some reason), but I can't say that in regards to Ghost of Sparta.

These guys want to please and they listen to criticism, or would even if it was not overwhelming. As is they're only listening to criticism.

Most developers don't get everything right (or much) at their first try, look at the boring experience provided by Assassin's Creed 1 or Gears of War 1, who went on to become major franchises last genre, first entries were ok at best.

The issue here is really that they had budget and time, and invested it in the wrong places, but that means it's in a class of it's own technically and that means people see potential in it, had it not tripped over itself - gameplay doesn't suck (?) either but they probably interrupted it too many times in a row so it became overly obvious, not being able to play with it - it's the same thing as on-rails shooters on the Wii a few years back and how everybody (me included) hated it and thought it was a cheap way out, that's true. That makes people overly critical towards it.

I wasn't excited for this, I don't care, but I like the guys at Ready at Dawn, they try and the end product even if it missed all it's notes really shows, people often forget there's people behind these decisions, and they get it and will have to digest it at this point. I just hope Sony doesn't go corporate on them, closing communications et all. These guys are overachievers that can't be said enough, it's not Silicon Knights and the "we should be working on this but we're slackers/taking the money and people from this project to some other", technically it's easy to see they gave it their all.

I just hope it doesn't cost them contracts and their whole existence, do I have to remind people of Lair on the PS3 a few years back? All it took was a bad game and a few canceled contracts, no company has money on the bank to keep going for years.

That or (I don't know how many people are there) they might become a treat for a company like... Crytek. "Your tech is fancy and we want to use you, screw your ideas though", like they did with the timesplitters team (Free Radical) and the Darksiders team (Vigil Games).

 

[Atram]

You can't seriously be using metacritics user score to make a point. Those are always a complete joke. I'd bet 80% or more of the user scores on metacritic are from people that haven't played the game.

so 944 people are wrong and trolling about this game? Did you see the mass of positives user reviwes?

 

[jellies_two]

You can't seriously be using metacritics user score to make a point. Those are always a complete joke. I'd bet 80% or more of the user scores on metacritic are from people that haven't played the game.

yes a few days ago the user score was 4.8
it is too volatile to draw any conclusions, perhaps is never worth the pixels it is printed with.

 

[MaLDo]

You can't seriously be using metacritics user score to make a point. Those are always a complete joke. I'd bet 80% or more of the user scores on metacritic are from people that haven't played the game.

I don't care about numbers, but producers and devs use it. What source we have to compare reviews/users opinions other than subjective interpretations?

 

[Spades]

It's very hard to grasp how it appears an entire community of professionals have attacked this so unforgiving despite it actually being good.

Attacked? Because the majority of reviewers didn't like the game, they're attacking it?

 

[WordsintheWater]

so 944 people are wrong and trolling about this game? Did you see the mass of positives user reviwes?

User review scores on metacritic are a joke, that's all there is to it.

 

[GHG]

so 944 people are wrong and trolling about this game? Did you see the mass of positives user reviwes?

Yeh and a lot of those will be fake as well.

He's not wrong about metaceitics user score generally being inconclusive.

 

[thebloo]

both ways are wrong in my eyes, >4/10 is bullshit bit <8/10 is bullshit too. This game has to many wrong things besides the awesome graphics.

And RAD can tell me so many times "this is a cinematic experience", in the end this is not a movie, it´s a game an not more and as a game The order fails.

It's clearly a personal opinion. I was just saying that scoring this game as a 4/10 or 2/10 is "wrong". Giving it a 9.5/10 is also "wrong". So, while the average is about where it should be, if a bit on the low side, I disagree with some opinions that got it there.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Does it fail as a game though? I mean what gameplay it has, it does well. It's not full of bugs and glitches.

Is this our gold standard for what gaming should be now?
"Does something a lot of games have done before and has an acceptably low amount of bugs or glitches"

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

I don't understand that a game that has averaged out at 65 is being treated like it's been badly done too. A 65 seems perfect from what I've read and seen. Some people like it, some people really don't. Simple as that

 

[Apenheul]

The only negative on the gameplay is perhaps it could be more varied and perhaps longer, with added reasons to replay.

I never harp on games online nor is that my intention in this thread but, really? The only negative on the gameplay? I bet even anyone on the development team can at least name 10 things that could've been greatly improved in the gameplay department.

 

[MaLDo]

Yeh and a lot of those will be fake as well.

He's not wrong about metaceitics user score generally being inconclusive.

You're right. So reviews are not reliable. Users in metacritic are not reliable. Forums are not reliable. I think I get it.

 

[INFINITY TR1GG3R]

Attacked? Because the majority of reviewers didn't like the game, they're attacking it?

Ok, maybe that was a poor choice of words. But personally, to me, having finished the game and loved it, without any experience of any technical issues, the scoring is definitely incorrect.

I'm not blind to it's flaws, it could have been better but it sure is not the 5/10 they are trying to make out.

 

[GHG]

You're right. So reviews are not reliable. Users in metacritic are not reliable. Forums are not reliable. I think I get it.

You forgot YouTube.

 

[Atram]

Ok, maybe that was a poor choice of words. But personally, to me, having finished the game and loved it, the scoring is definitely incorrect.

I'm not blind to it's flaws, it could have been better but it sure is not the 5/10 they are trying to make out.

Yes because it´s 6.5

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

so 944 people are wrong and trolling about this game? Did you see the mass of positives user reviwes?

He's right though, using Metacritic user scores to prove anything is silly.

 

[Donthizz#]

I can see Devs taking the bungie approach. No embargoes, just send in the review copies late.

 

[darkkain]

Finished the game yesterday. Really enjoyed it. Good game with good potential for sequel. Best graphics in video games. Sure, it has many things to improve but overall in my opinion it's a good PS4 exclusive.

 

[Saint of Killers]

I don't know which 1886 thread it was, but someone was asking if we knew how well the game was doing. Well according to EuroGamer it is #1 in the all formats chart in the UK.

 

[SolidChamp]

I can see where he is coming from to an extent. But critics are allowed to have their opinions and review games accordingly. However in the case of the Order we had critics jumping on twitter openly making caustic jokes about the game. Which is just spiteful, unnecessary and wholly unprofessional.

Going to keep quoting truth facts from this thread.

 

[KidB]

look at the boring experience provided by Gears of War 1

What?

 

[lostinblue]

I don't know which 1886 thread it was, but someone was asking if we knew how well the game was doing. Well according to EuroGamer it is #1 in the all formats chart.

Let's call it the Destiny factor.

What?

Game was unfinished through and through. Lots of cheap level design going on, not enough variety and major difficulty spikes and "corridor" stalling reliying on stuff like flocks of birds killing you where there wasn't lights (wait, what?) all of those being there evidently just so it lasted more than... I don't know, 3 hours?

And that final boss, ugh. Unpolished through and through.

Of course it got some elements right from the get go, but it wasn't a good game. Gears of War 2 and 3 are AWESOME, that can't be said enough. But the first one, didn't only age badly, if you were to took it apart and judged it... it sucked. It was like if a main dish was made of pork leftovers, bones included.


I agree to disagree though.

 

[D-Stubbs]

It's funny up until a week ago I had no interest at all in this game but now I kinda want to play it just to get an impression of it myself. If I play it I'll just rent it seeing as it doesn't look like it's worth $60.

 

[Mohonky]

Does it fail as a game though? I mean what gameplay it has, it does well. It's not full of bugs and glitches.

The only negative on the gameplay is perhaps it could be more varied and perhaps longer, with added reasons to replay.

Still nothing to drag it across the coals for. Certainly not enough to ward people off buying this.

Just because it doesnt have any obvious bugs or glitches it should be an instant 7< game? Lets not worry about whether the game is 'fun' or 'enjoyable' and look at potential reasons why I did or did not enjoy it, lets just stick to its pretty and it runs.....

 

[fallen_dawn]

I don't understand that a game that has averaged out at 65 is being treated like it's been badly done too. A 65 seems perfect from what I've read and seen. Some people like it, some people really don't. Simple as that

I think 65 is fair enough for The Order. I just wish that other games which are either of a low quality, or don't actually work as they should would receive scores in line with that. Being harsh is fine, as long as you're consistent.

I also strongly disagree with scores such as 20% - those should be reserved for games which are fundamentally broken.

 

[Bishop89]

the graphics are amazing.

Just in awe with the transition from cutscene to gameplay. Looks the same!

 

[doomquake]

played and can totally confirm its a 5-6/10 . theres just nothing that can redeem the mismanagement of the release. Play it and then play Last of Us. Unfair comparison? maybe..but still, its like the Order devs live in a bubble. If you cant deliver a long gameplay experience and you are force to copy paste encounters and not make them fun (lycans..and elder lycans wtf seriously) - at least have the common sense to give players a gallery of concept art and model viewer and NG+ modes.

 

[INFINITY TR1GG3R]

I never harp on games online nor is that my intention in this thread but, really? The only negative on the gameplay? I bet even anyone on the development team can at least name 10 things that could've been greatly improved in the gameplay department.

Ok, that is true, and applies to most, if not all games but the gameplay here is far more solid than the reviews are suggesting though. That's all i'm trying to put across.

It isn't a perfect game, just much better than is being made out.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Game is a rental at best. There's not enough content to justify paying $60, it took me 6 hours to platinum. The gameplay is bog standard and the story is mediocre. If it wasnt first party I don't think we'd still be talking about it.

 

[Always-honest]

Big contrast

haha.
It's a score i can live with. There are a lot of things that are legit criticism to this game.

I do still think the 1 out of 5 dude needs to get the fuck out, but hey...

Game is a rental at best. There's not enough content to justify paying $60, it took me 6 hours to platinum. The gameplay is bog standard and the story is mediocre. If it wasnt first party I don't think we'd still be talking about it.

Did you play on hard with aim assist off? Cause that's pretty damn fast imo.
It's not first party by the way.

 

[Mohonky]

If it wasnt first party I don't think we'd still be talking about it.

Exactly this in a nutshell.

If it was multiplatform no one would give a shit.

Because its first party the brand must be protected!

 

[Hasney]

Let's call it the Destiny factor.

Make sense, especially when you think that the factor involved with both is marketing budget.

It's the only way to launch a new IP and hit the ground running it seems.Obviously that campaign has to be good as well, but it is a case of throwing money at it, Good to see Sony getting behind some of their games at least.

 

[INFINITY TR1GG3R]

Just because it doesnt have any obvious bugs or glitches it should be an instant 7< game? Lets not worry about whether the game is 'fun' or 'enjoyable' and look at potential reasons why I did or did not enjoy it, lets just stick to its pretty and it runs.....

Well it being free of issues is one reason i did enjoy it.

One great game spoiled for me was Fallout: New Vegas, the damn thing corrupted my saves all the time. Made something great, less great, certainly less fun.

Being free of issues is certainly a factor to take into account when reviewing.

This said, the whole package, story, gameplay, ect, i enjoyed greatly. I found it fun. But thats just me. My main gripe with the reviews is they are warding people off trying it themselves, this game is worth your time, even if you just rent.

 

[Always-honest]

E

Because its first party the brand must be protected!

No, people would just like to see an improved sequel. It has too much potential to let go to waste.
Fair critisim is great..

 

[notBald]

I can see why some reviewers gave the game a 6 or whatever, the only one's I can't wrap my head around are the ones that gave it a 1 out of 5 or a 2 out of 5.

They're probably doing it for the clicks.

To my eyes it looks like a fun game. Too bad it's PS4 exclusive.

 

[Feindflug]

Let's call it the Destiny factor.Game was unfinished through and through. Lots of cheap level design going on, not enough variety and major difficulty spikes and "corridor" stalling reliying on stuff like flocks of birds killing you where there wasn't lights (wait, what?) all of those being there evidently just so it lasted more than... I don't know, 3 hours?

And that final boss, ugh. Unpolished through and through.

Of course it got some elements right from the get go, but it wasn't a good game. Gears of War 2 and 3 are AWESOME, that can't be said enough. But the first one, didn't only age badly, if you were to took it apart and judged it... it sucked. It was like if a main dish was made of pork leftovers, bones included.


I agree to disagree though.

Gears 1 was not a good game and Gears 2 was better? lol.

 

[Chû Totoro]

You're right. So reviews are not reliable. Users in metacritic are not reliable. Forums are not reliable. I think I get it.

RAD is. Buy the damn game !!!

Spoiler

j/k of course

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Did you play on hard with aim assist off? Cause that's pretty damn fast imo.
It's not first party by the way.

hard, aim assist off with default sensitivity for extra challenge.

4hrs 24minutes for the speedrun on easy I did before I took it back to the redbox.

Its published by Sony so its basically seen as first party.

 

[Alienous]

Oh deary me, one of the Sony Santa Monica devs certainly got a bit upset

Oh deary, Dean. You just don't understand.

The Order: 1886's is a 65/100 game as much as The Last of Us is a 95/100 game.

 

[Bossman]

He's right though, using Metacritic user scores to prove anything is silly.

So, should we use GAF opinion then? because GAF has never been wrong!

 

[benzy]

Spoiler

meanwhile things like this are common place in the order from my experience.

I even have some hilarious gifs recorded of the AI being braindead. It's not smart by any means nor are the AI tactics up to the standard that I would expect from a 2015 game that has a shit on a ps4, a console that has a shit ton more memory than the ps3.

Spoiler

Implying that gif is representative of the A.I and common place is hyperbolic. Those are the shotgun rebels who charge in close range to give devastating blows and flush you out of cover, you get killed in two shots if they manage to hit you. There's a bug of some kind in that spot where if your in the cover stance, their attacks miss even though you're directly in their line of sight and wide open. I've replayed this level a bit and they don't just stand there and do nothing, here they shot at me three times but for some reason their hits don't register when I'm in cover.

Compared to when Galahad's out of cover, he gets hit by the shotgun blasts. Notice the different AI routine and one of them tries to do something else after I shoot at him.

Enemy strafing, Galahad killed in 2 hits

Different playthrough, same guy trying to get in even closer with the shotgun, different AI routine.

Enemies back up and weave in and out of cover.

Some of the other guys also try to dodge away after being shot at.

There are times where the enemies just reload their gun out in the open or slowly back up without firing at you, so the AI isn't without faults, and they're not super intelligent, but they're also not as braindead as you imply them to be. The only AI I'd call completely stupid and braindead are in those Lycan arena battles, just terrible all around there. Still would definitely like to see an improvement in AI in general if there's a sequel though.

 

[KidB]

Game was unfinished through and through. Lots of cheap level design going on, not enough variety and major difficulty spikes and "corridor" stalling reliying on stuff like flocks of birds killing you where there wasn't lights (wait, what?) all of those being there evidently just so it lasted more than... I don't know, 3 hours?

And that final boss, ugh. Unpolished through and through.

Of course it got some elements right from the get go, but it wasn't a good game. Gears of War 2 and 3 are AWESOME, that can't be said enough. But the first one, didn't only age badly, if you were to took it apart and judged it... it sucked. It was like if a main dish was made of pork leftovers, bones included.


I agree to disagree though.

It did have problems in retrospective, but playing it when it first came out was a lot of fun. The last thing I would call it would be boring and I certainly liked it better than its sequels. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the reasons why you don't like it. At least, I agree with you on the final boss!

 

[Always-honest]

hard, aim assist off with default sensitivity for extra challenge.

4hrs 24minutes for the speedrun on easy I did before I took it back to the redbox.

Okay. I've been too busy marveling everything i guess ;P

yeah i can imagine that bold part.

 

[TrouzzzerSnake]

True, but more than this, a lot of the hate, from my experience with the game, is totally unfounded.

It's very hard to grasp how it appears an entire community of professionals have attacked this so unforgiving despite it actually being good.

Everyone is entitled to there opinion but taking all reviews into account, the hate seems way over the top.

I snorted with laughter at the idea of professional games journalism. Good one man - that started my day off with a smile

 

[GHG]

So, should we use GAF opinion then? because GAF has never been wrong!

You take it all with a pinch of salt and only take into account the impressions/reviews of those who have played it.

With user reviews on Metacritic its impossible to tell the real from the fake.

Furthermore, on GAF you can actually interact with other users to understand their critiques in more detail and understand what other types of games that individual liked to determine if a game will be a good fit for you or not.

Its not all that difficult to grasp really.

 

[INFINITY TR1GG3R]

I snorted with laughter at the idea of professional games journalism. Good one man - that started my day off with a smile

It's a thing... I think. Ha!

 

[WITHE1982]

You take it all with a pinch of salt and only take into account the impressions/reviews of those who have played it.

With user reviews on Metacritic its impossible to tell the real from the fake.

Furthermore, on GAF you can actually interact with other users to understand their critiques in more detail and understand what other types of games that individual liked to determine if a game will be a good fit for you or not.

Its not all that difficult to grasp really.

To be honest it's not that hard to discern the real from the fake on metacritic but it's just utterly pointless. Click on the username of a 10/10 review and you'll see all Sony exclusives given the same rating, basically a sony fan-boy. Click on a 0-1/10 review and it's all 10s for Xbox games and 0s for every sony exclusive or a user with only a single review on the site.

They really need some sort of verification process on their reviews.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Click on a 0-1/10 review

lol, that's golden. I'm sure there are many more on either side of the fence on metacritic.

 

[Luke_Wal]

So, I started playing yesterday, and I actually quite like it. I think RAD has a lot to learn from Naughty Dog in terms of getting the player invested in both characters and the moment to moment goings-on, but I think there's a really solid foundation here. For reference, I'm on either Chapter 6 or 7.

Spoiler

The beginning of a combat sequence on a bridge to save Lord Hastings. Perceval was just replaced by Lafeyette/Luca