The Player 1 Podcast Topic
- Thread starter GhaleonQ
- Start date
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Who are these people who think Ryse is a good game now?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I'm right here pal. Ryse was dope.
dont remember it much, father son story, father dies, i wanna say? i got nothing. it was really fucking short. i kinda wanted to try coop, but couldnt convince anyone
nckillthegrimace
Member
Maybe the Order just sucks. Sometimes a game just doesn't turn out well, and it isn't case of players or reviewers missing anything.
Neuromancer
Member
One thing The Order does better than Uncharted, in my opinion, is combat never outstays its welcome. Combat sequences are more brief but more intense as a result. Also the enemies in The Order (outside of werewolves and armored guys) aren't bullet sponges.
In Uncharted 2 (the only one I've really played through to conclusion) I was really tired of shooting hundreds of dudes. I never felt that way in The Order. Sometimes less is more.
In Uncharted 2 (the only one I've really played through to conclusion) I was really tired of shooting hundreds of dudes. I never felt that way in The Order. Sometimes less is more.
So you've never disagreed with the critical consensus on anything?
there's disagreeing with the critical consensus and then there's the situation with The Order
did you go in the review thread? I've seen some outlandish notions that go far beyond just disagreeing with reviewers. it's embarrassing to be completely honest about it.
well you are much smarter than I lol. I always get dragged into debates stemming from crazy notions. someone in the review thread thought that it would be beneficial if there was a system for identifying "wrong" review scores on metacritic and then retroactively changing them later. someone else thought it'd be a good idea to only give review copies to sites that favorably review the games. another thought review copies should be abolished completely and that professional critics should buy these games on day 1 like everyone else. never mind that it's their job. some are using outlier reviews to shame the gaming media as a whole. some are saying stuff like "reviewers got it wrong" which lumps every single unique review about the game into a broad generalization, never mind the fact that there are plenty of sites that gave this game an 8+. I could go on and on and on.
what it boils down to is that we as a collective gaming audience still haven't figured out how to properly handle criticism. it's really as simple as that.
Have you listened to this week's show? You should hear what Greg says about it.
nckillthegrimace
Member
Of course I have. But the P1P crew never even suggested the possibility that the game might not even be good. They went straight into people misunderstanding the game or reviewers having an axe to grind with cinematic games.
HamPster PamPster
Member
I rate games (and other things) based on how terrible the threads are. The Order? Terrible threads = terrible game. Player One Podcast? Great thread = great podcast.
Flawless system IMO
Flawless system IMO
The_Darkest_Red
Member
I know what you're saying, I got the same feeling.
Also, the game did get some good reviews so it's not like every critic panned it.
I did, but perhaps I should give it another listen
I'm not going to lie, Pete Dodd isn't my favorite guest (no offense intended if you're reading Pete!) so I only half pay attention when he's talking and he dominated that discussion
I was a little annoyed by that myself. I would have been less annoyed if any of them (aside from Pete) had played enough of the game to decide if it is actually worth defending. Sometimes games are mediocre, it's fine.
Neuromancer
Member
It's more than just low review scores. There was also a weird kind of glee on display from certain members of the enthusiast press; for example:
I don't know if that kind of stuff was what the panel was referring to but it made me root for the game before I'd even played it.
I don't know if that kind of stuff was what the panel was referring to but it made me root for the game before I'd even played it.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Is that really glee for him to favorite it? If you don't like it - very clearly do NOT like it and someone else makes a joke about that...I don't see the problem there.
I think it's weird they defended it without playing it, but I do agree it was this years Too Human, a game a lot of the reviewers decided was shit before playing it for whatever reason.
I think I am going to go back to my "stuffed in a locker" theory. Andrea Pessino looks like a guy who stole their lunch money and it's time for revenge.
To me the scores were fine. I'd say 7.5, and it's a 6.5 on metacritic, whatever. It's the bizarre glee surrounding the fact that their bubble didn't enjoy the game.
I think I am going to go back to my "stuffed in a locker" theory. Andrea Pessino looks like a guy who stole their lunch money and it's time for revenge.
To me the scores were fine. I'd say 7.5, and it's a 6.5 on metacritic, whatever. It's the bizarre glee surrounding the fact that their bubble didn't enjoy the game.
yeah I really don't see the glee. I see some people making jokes about a game they didn't like.
see this is something that I take issue with. the tin foil hat theories. is it really that hard to accept that some people didn't like a game as much as you did? like you said, you'd give the game a 7.5 and it has a 6.5. so it seems that the "consensus" isn't that far off from your own impressions yet you're accusing reviewers of having made up their mind before playing the game. I find that troubling. also most of the reviewers probably had played the game before. it has been playable at multiple trade shows and if I'm remembering correctly The Order mostly got middling impressions as well. it's really not a surprise then that the final product received middling reviews, considering.
see this is something that I take issue with. the tin foil hat theories. is it really that hard to accept that some people didn't like a game as much as you did? like you said, you'd give the game a 7.5 and it has a 6.5. so it seems that the "consensus" isn't that far off from your own impressions yet you're accusing reviewers of having made up their mind before playing the game. I find that troubling. also most of the reviewers probably had played the game before. it has been playable at multiple trade shows and if I'm remembering correctly The Order mostly got middling impressions as well. it's really not a surprise then that the final product received middling reviews, considering.
I've not finished the game yet, but I can fully agree so far. The encounters in The Order are punctuated compared to the nigh endless waves of enemies in Uncharted, and I find myself more often enjoying the slaughter-fests whereas Uncharted regularly had me sighing when an obvious ambush stretched on for minutes at a time. I never really dug the combat design in those games(and I've finished all three).
The Order does commit several other blunders that weighs it down though.
Given that one of the people in that screenshot have actually said that post was a mistake and it came off as jubilant when that wasn't his intention, I don't think other people seeing glee there is far fetched.
I think 6.5 is fine, but I'm not part of the enthusiast press that for years has given games inflated scores which makes people look at them with raised eyebrows.
I am listening now, and really don't like the discussion.
It's weird that people are rebelling against negative previews since we've always complained they were too positive. I agree that articles like "Don't pre-order The Order 1886" were a bit much, but eh. But then saying that critics didn't know how to review it, but saw it was primed for dog-piling, but they did that... seems odd.
It seems like speaking more broadly about the industry since none of them have played the game, and one even noted would buy when cheaper.
And the notion that cheaper games devalue a platform holders stance is strange when the Order released the same day as a budget-priced title from Nintendo.
I think great advertisement would overcome any "shortcoming" a cheaper price would have.
It's weird that people are rebelling against negative previews since we've always complained they were too positive. I agree that articles like "Don't pre-order The Order 1886" were a bit much, but eh. But then saying that critics didn't know how to review it, but saw it was primed for dog-piling, but they did that... seems odd.
It seems like speaking more broadly about the industry since none of them have played the game, and one even noted would buy when cheaper.
And the notion that cheaper games devalue a platform holders stance is strange when the Order released the same day as a budget-priced title from Nintendo.
I think great advertisement would overcome any "shortcoming" a cheaper price would have.
nckillthegrimace
Member
Also, no one gave a shit about Spec Op: The Line's tacked-on multiplayer, so it's pretty disingenuous to bring the game up in that context. People cared about its attempts (arguably successful) to do something interesting with the shooter genre. That seems like a more important consideration when arguing about its value compared to The Order.
Once Dodd set up the tone for The Order discussion I just sorta zoned out. Sounds like it was for the best.
I'm not super trusting of reviews myself, but they are more or less what we had heard about it at preview events and concerns about the game were pretty clearly laid out. I ran the 5 hour playthrough on my 2nd monitor and nearly every time I glanced over I saw a forced walking section, QTE or cutscene. It's no mystery why a lot of people wouldn't like this game.
I'm not super trusting of reviews myself, but they are more or less what we had heard about it at preview events and concerns about the game were pretty clearly laid out. I ran the 5 hour playthrough on my 2nd monitor and nearly every time I glanced over I saw a forced walking section, QTE or cutscene. It's no mystery why a lot of people wouldn't like this game.
ClayKavalier
Banned
Eh, I don't know. The game's pacing feels really antiquated to me. I'm only about halfway through and it's too neatly cut up into exploration sections and combat sections. I wish it would surprise me occasionally.
The spawns suck too. I died a few times during an early combat section where you're walking through a town and people are boarding up their windows when they see you and warning each other that you're there. Eventually you get to an open area where you have to kill a bunch of dudes to move on.
The area is kind of split in two, there's an elevated area with a rifle you have access to and an area you can bunker down in just below it, then there's some space between you and the enemies and then a bunch of stuff they can take cover behind. I kept trying to fight my way over to their area so I could flank them or melee them, and it's hard. Groups of enemies will spawn behind you, using melee is dangerous since you're vulnerable during the short cutscene that plays, shotgun guys kill you extremely quickly if you don't catch them sneaking up.
The best way to do that fight is to just stick up in the elevated area and snipe everyone. That's also the most boring way to do that encounter.
I don't think the review scores are unfair so far, curious to hear what the P1P guys think about it.
I'm curious to see what this discussion is about. I'm all for budget games, Capt. Toad and Kirby are great, I'm for cheaper games that are short but have quirky, unique gameplay.
It might be not be feasible depending on how much it cost to make but I bet "cinematic" games like the Order would avoid the shitstorm the Order has received if they were $30 and dowload-only.
Maybe the severity of the shit storm would be different but we've had some very embarrassing threads about Telltale games and how GAF is the reason gaming is dying because The Walking Dead almost won Game of the Year 2012.
I don't think it's immediately obvious what is supposed to be so horrible about the Order that whatever they talked about is considered "too generous."
I've created and participated in a lot of threads where publishers have done shady tactics so I'm all for going in when I think something unjust is happening.
ClayKavalier
Banned
I think Pete and CJ underestimate how much knowledge people have about games. In my experience people who are into "hardcore" games like CoD or Destiny or whatever usually have some knowledge about games in general just from reading IGN or some other site.
I don't really get how The Order in particular would be devalued by a lower price tag. All it takes is a second of seeing the game in action to realize it's not a budget game. I would think CJ of all people wouldn't get behind that idea since most games that make money on mobile are freemium. Was Castle Doombad devalued when the price dropped from $3 to free?
People think something like "This game is cheaper, maybe it isn't as full-featured as others." But the thing is, the Order DOES have fewer features than a lot of $60 games. Publishers should be realistic when pricing games. Arbitrarily pricing them the same as other games that are longer or have more modes just gives people more incentive to wait for the inevitable price drop like Rich.
Also, CJ was a bit confused when he was dressing down Sewart. LBP3 was $60 at launch, and PvZ was $40. Since PvZ was a timed exclusive on Microsoft systems the rules on pricing might be different for it. There have been a few games that launched at $40 on Xbone (Zoo Tycoon, Project Spark) but I'm not sure there have been any others on PS4.
I don't really get how The Order in particular would be devalued by a lower price tag. All it takes is a second of seeing the game in action to realize it's not a budget game. I would think CJ of all people wouldn't get behind that idea since most games that make money on mobile are freemium. Was Castle Doombad devalued when the price dropped from $3 to free?
People think something like "This game is cheaper, maybe it isn't as full-featured as others." But the thing is, the Order DOES have fewer features than a lot of $60 games. Publishers should be realistic when pricing games. Arbitrarily pricing them the same as other games that are longer or have more modes just gives people more incentive to wait for the inevitable price drop like Rich.
Also, CJ was a bit confused when he was dressing down Sewart. LBP3 was $60 at launch, and PvZ was $40. Since PvZ was a timed exclusive on Microsoft systems the rules on pricing might be different for it. There have been a few games that launched at $40 on Xbone (Zoo Tycoon, Project Spark) but I'm not sure there have been any others on PS4.
There is no rule that you can't be a retail release without also being a full price title.
What a platform holder cares about is getting their $9-12 per ordered disc.
ClayKavalier
Banned
Huh? Sewart was saying on the show that Sony places restrictions on what prices games on their systems can be sold at. Not sure what you mean though.
And he is mistaken about that.
Coming up with justification and exceptions to explain away games that don't follow this imagined rule is just futile.
There is The Last of Us: Remastered.
That they don't do it is probably because the economics don't work out for them any more. The cost of having a disc printed by the platform holder are the same whether or not you sell for $60, $80, $120, $40 or $5 in a bargain bin.
ClayKavalier
Banned
Makes sense, since now that I think about it Walking Dead was $30 or something on disc.
Still, I can't think of any games that launched less than $60 on PS4 unless they were retail releases of formerly digital-only games or multiplayer only. So even if publishers are technically able to price games lower than $60, clearly they don't.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
If a bad game is a bad game, why can't it just be a bad game?
At this point, it's pretty much a known quantity that people who buy the first game in a new IP end up being unpaid beta testers for the inevitable sequel that's better in every way. I think Dodd brought up UC1, but it's not like UC1 is suddenly a better game with hindsight. The fact that you have to use the sixaxis to throw a grenade is enough to make that game unplayable for me nowadays.
At this point, it's pretty much a known quantity that people who buy the first game in a new IP end up being unpaid beta testers for the inevitable sequel that's better in every way. I think Dodd brought up UC1, but it's not like UC1 is suddenly a better game with hindsight. The fact that you have to use the sixaxis to throw a grenade is enough to make that game unplayable for me nowadays.
Neuromancer
Member
I don't think the Order is a bad game. I guess that's where all of this falls apart for you.
Also people who buy the first game in a new IP make it possible for the next game in the IP to exist. Why should I feel bad about that?
Also people who buy the first game in a new IP make it possible for the next game in the IP to exist. Why should I feel bad about that?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yes, but what if all the reviewers think that way and don't have some kind of secret agenda against Sony first party games or whatever?
I can understand the great dichotomy in reviews for Kirby, where some people are getting something out of it while others seem to hate it, but if there's universal discord amongst the critics when it comes to The Order, maybe it's as simple as it not being that great a game.
I can understand the great dichotomy in reviews for Kirby, where some people are getting something out of it while others seem to hate it, but if there's universal discord amongst the critics when it comes to The Order, maybe it's as simple as it not being that great a game.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
There's always the simple possibility that everything is exactly how it sounds - most people didn't really like it. The review scores should reflect that.
Also I don't know if I agree (actually I definitely don't) with everyone saying Ryse was "blasted" and "killed" at the ratings when it got above-average. I understand in a 7-10 rating world that's poor, but...how are we actually looking at ratings?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I'll just be curious if the whole "linear TPS" complaints happen when UC4 comes (probably not). That said, I'm sure that The Order is a far cry from any of the Uncharted games. It really seems like it should have been a launch game, where the visuals would be enough to get people to overlook some of the other problems.
Neuromancer
Member
Oh I agree there's no conspiracy among reviewers. It's just for me, and this has been happening for a long time now, critical consensus has been so far off base of my own opinions with so many different games that the idea of using Metacritic or whatever as a buying guide has gone completely out the window.
I'm more likely to go back and read reviews after I play a game now, for different perspectives and for entertainment. But not for consumer advice.
I'm more likely to go back and read reviews after I play a game now, for different perspectives and for entertainment. But not for consumer advice.
I agree, especially about sub-79-averages, still being perfectly enjoyable games, but when metacritic ranks something above an 88 average, it's generally pretty damn good, objectively. Which leads me to believe when all is said and done reviewers get the really good ones right, even if they can miss some rougher gems consensus wise. But usually at that point quality is debatable anyway, as we're seeing now.
No one said that
Neuromancer
Member
Not objectively. Subjectively. Even if 99 people out of 100 thought, say, Bioshock Infinite was a 10/100/*****, that would still be subjective.
This is why Metacritic is kind of fucked up. People take the average as absolute truths, when in reality it's equally subjective as any one score.
yeah i said "objective", and you're right, it can never really be, i guess what i should say is objectively for me
i'd have a hard time finding an 88+ rated game i didn't like, well, except for LA Noire, fuck LA Noire
meh, even as someone who likes metacritic averages, i dont see many people taking it for absulute truth, just a good indicator hopefully. i mean killer7 and god hand are some personal faves, that if i relied on metacritic averages i wouldve skipped.
that's not really a metacritic problem though, it's more of a gamer problem and perhaps a problem with the industry as a whole.
Publishers do, especially when bonuses are tied to Metacritic scores. *cough*Obsidian*cough*