The Order 1886 and the smear campaign of hate

[gf78]

Stop trying to defend the damn game already!!!! I really don't want this site to turn into an Xbox vs PS flame war.

Not everybody feels the same way about the games you like to play.

But it's cool. I'll make sure to defer to you personally before making any posts that you may deem unworthy.

Edit:  My apologies for praising or discussing a PlayStation game. It's obvious why you felt angered after seeing your large collection of inferior Xbox games. 

cheap, trollish, juvenile, and uneccessary shots.

The whole My opinion = right...(and - I'm gonna' tell you why & because right here & now) is ALWAYS kindling for flame wars & arguments on the interwebz.

you're certainly entitled to like what you like, share your opinions, and tell us what you like/don't like about a game.

Being objective (I can, because - from my pov - you're both starting in equal standing); meaning that I really don't know either one of you very well --and-- neither one of you has said/done anything to make me dislike you.

I'm going to have to side with betelgeuse on this one, because:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, gf78, and say that this topic *might* have once been objective, well-intentioned, and not a troll-bait and/or flaming sort of topic & thread.

It's gotten well past that point...awhile ago.

You're now coming-off as (a pretty damned good:) salesman/advertiser for the game.

I can understand annoyance at this; Hell if you (or me, or anyone!) was on the other side of a topic like this about a game that they strongly liked/disliked...well, I won't presume to speak for everybody, *but* I know that I'd certainly understand & share betelgeuses' perspective, opinion, and feelings here.

Don't get me wrong! 

As the VGC resident Sensei of sarcasm, cynicism, verbal-shredding, and 'up-frontness' (everyone here that's known/interacted with me for awhile - will know that I'm speaking the truth when I say that those members that I like...know damned well that I do so, because: I've told them so 

'other side of that coin = theThose here that I dislike...also know damned well that this is the case, because...well, I've told himthem so to 

not trying to turn you off to posting here actively *or* even trying to disuade you from posting cynically, sarcastically, snidely, condescendingly, etc, etc, etc if, like myself, it's in your nature to do so 

Let's just try to keep it classier & stay above such childish types of shots/insults; whatever

Well, I thought the emoticon with the tongue sticking out was a dead giveaway for the sarcasm. 

I didn't start the thread with any intention whatsoever for it to be a flame war or to force my opinion on anyone else. Which is also why I intentionally avoided telling anyone to buy the game. I don't like to see someone/something get a bad rap when it's not deserved. I have a huge problem with gaming journalism in general. These reviewers go beyond being objective and outright attack & trash games. Sorry, I don't believe someone who hates JRPG's (for example) should review them. They are going into it with a negative opinion to begin with. I pretty much detested Super Mario 64 and Zelda Ocarina of Time. But if it were up to me to review them, I wouldn't outright trash them because they didn't fit my idea of what they should have been.

As for this discussion, it's over. I'm fine with it and said all I needed to say. I don't post at any other site because I find the flaming and BS tiresome and unproductive. No offense was intended to Beetlegeuse and again, I apologize if it was taken that way.

[disgaeniac]

Stop trying to defend the damn game already!!!! I really don't want this site to turn into an Xbox vs PS flame war.

Not everybody feels the same way about the games you like to play.

But it's cool. I'll make sure to defer to you personally before making any posts that you may deem unworthy.

Edit:  My apologies for praising or discussing a PlayStation game. It's obvious why you felt angered after seeing your large collection of inferior Xbox games. 

cheap, trollish, juvenile, and uneccessary shots.

The whole My opinion = right...(and - I'm gonna' tell you why & because right here & now) is ALWAYS kindling for flame wars & arguments on the interwebz.

you're certainly entitled to like what you like, share your opinions, and tell us what you like/don't like about a game.

Being objective (I can, because - from my pov - you're both starting in equal standing); meaning that I really don't know either one of you very well --and-- neither one of you has said/done anything to make me dislike you.

I'm going to have to side with betelgeuse on this one, because:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, gf78, and say that this topic *might* have once been objective, well-intentioned, and not a troll-bait and/or flaming sort of topic & thread.

It's gotten well past that point...awhile ago.

You're now coming-off as (a pretty damned good:) salesman/advertiser for the game.

I can understand annoyance at this; Hell if you (or me, or anyone!) was on the other side of a topic like this about a game that they strongly liked/disliked...well, I won't presume to speak for everybody, *but* I know that I'd certainly understand & share betelgeuses' perspective, opinion, and feelings here.

Don't get me wrong! 

As the VGC resident Sensei of sarcasm, cynicism, verbal-shredding, and 'up-frontness' (everyone here that's known/interacted with me for awhile - will know that I'm speaking the truth when I say that those members that I like...know damned well that I do so, because: I've told them so 

'other side of that coin = theThose here that I dislike...also know damned well that this is the case, because...well, I've told himthem so to 

not trying to turn you off to posting here actively *or* even trying to disuade you from posting cynically, sarcastically, snidely, condescendingly, etc, etc, etc if, like myself, it's in your nature to do so 

Let's just try to keep it classier & stay above such childish types of shots/insults; whatever

I don't like to see someone/something get a bad rap when it's not deserved. I have a huge problem with gaming journalism in general. These reviewers go beyond being objective and outright attack & trash games. Sorry, I don't believe someone who hates JRPG's (for example) should review them. They are going into it with a negative opinion to begin with.

I agree with this 100%!

[insektmute]

I think just about everyone here gave up on gaming 'journalism' a good while ago...

[disgaeniac]

I think just about everyone here gave up on gaming 'journalism' a good while ago...

Isn't that oxy-moronic 

[gf78]

Just for fun, I made a list of all 32 PS4 games I own (retail releases, not counting PSN games) and figured out the average Metacritic score for them.  The average is 79%. 

So either I have mediocre taste in games or "gaming journalism" has been a much harsher critic of the new generation of gaming.   

[insektmute]

My standing theory is that the average game reviewer these days simply isn't qualified to be writing about video games. They lack experience and depth of knowledge, the experience they have is mainly restricted to mainstream games, and they're writing for the same kind of audience. Look at the average review of a shmup or fighting game - there's almost no focus on in-depth mechanics, just superficial details.

I could drone on, but the examples would be endless and doing so wouldn't change the situation. In a community like this, where members often have unusual or niche tastes, it's simply part of the territory that a huge chunk of what we like is going to review poorly.

[disgaeniac]

what Insekt said.

also, consider that one of, (if not *THE*) most widely-read sources of/for reviews -

going under the somewhat dubious -at best- moniker of:

"Game Informer"

is, indeed...

*Owned*

by...

GameStop

Holy clash + conflict of interests, Batman!

I'd confidently bet that, this situation and relationship, surely puts the franchise's *financial* considerations, interests, arrangements, marketing, advertising, commissions, + their current level/lack of love (read: current + potential profitability of the devs and/or pubs involved with the game)...ALL strongly come into play before + influence, dictate, and decide how they're going to "review" and score the game...weeks to months before any of their staff actually *play* the game in question.

I get it - it makes sense, and - it's a sound way of handling such things from a

...*financia*, *business*, and catering to & keeping their *stockholders* happy kind of perspective  -

I ain't gonna lie - if it was my company or, if it was a company that I was the CEO or CFO of and/or a company that I wa s stockholder in...I'd handle/want things handled precisely so.

But - as a gamer - *and*, since it's only said, stated, and/or found amidst the smallest & very finest; of the smallest and finest print...well - just apply any logic or common sense to who & what the owner of the magazine writing & publishing these games is

[betelgeuse]

I completed the game yesterday. It took about 6.5 hours total time. Most of the game is cut scenes with about 2.5 - 3 hours of actual game play. Most of that happens in the last few chapters as well.

The game is broke up into chapters. There are 4 chapters where you literally watch the movie and wait for the next chapter (Chap 7, 10, 12 and 13 I believe). Then there's a chapter where you aim the sniper rifle at the target and watch a movie (chap 2), and another chapter where you move a collapsed beam and watch a movie (chap 6).

I found it more enjoyable to not even use the cover system in the action scenes as well. The AI will always send the strong enemy (shot gunner etc.) after you while the others hang back. Take him out and you can just run around the level executing people LOL. This doesn't work in the areas you're carrying the lantern though  The game won't let you melee.

The visuals are definitely there, but I'd much rather play a game then watch cut scenes.

[devancowan]

For me, I would never pay full blown retail price for a game like this. But I look at it and realize there are a lot of people that don't have the time to sit down and play a 60 hour RPG. I would actually like more games to be quick (around 10 hours long) so that they don't get stuck in my backlog like a lot of other games I just never get around to finishing.
          When your a kid all you have is time and no money so you try to get the most out of every game. But its almost the complete opposite when your an adult. More money then time. I would consider paying 20 dollars for this but never 69.99! Not for a game that taking 6-7 hours to fully complete 

[kamikazekeeg]

For me, I would never pay full blown retail price for a game like this. But I look at it and realize there are a lot of people that don't have the time to sit down and play a 60 hour RPG. I would actually like more games to be quick (around 10 hours long) so that they don't get stuck in my backlog like a lot of other games I just never get around to finishing.
          When your a kid all you have is time and no money so you try to get the most out of every game. But its almost the complete opposite when your an adult. More money then time. I would consider paying 20 dollars for this but never 69.99! Not for a game that taking 6-7 hours to fully complete 

Well it isn't about getting a 60 hour game or anything, there's not a single thing wrong with a short game.  It's simply about whether someone can justify spending 60 bucks on something that will only generally take 6 to 7 hours to complete.  I personally can't.  The game doesn't look nearly exciting enough to warrant it as say a Platinum game, which tends to be fairly short, but usually are so ridiculous and crazy and fun and tend to have good replay value.

[krelyan]

I'd pay more for an excellent 10 hour game than I would a game with 10 excellent hours of gameplay and 50 hours of padding.  As someone who pays $20 for a movie fairly often, I wouldn't necessarily balk at paying the standard $60 for a shorter game (although, honestly, 5 hours would make me raise my eyebrows a bit).  Anyways, I played a bit of this game over at a buddy's last weekend and was pretty unimpressed and it's completely deserving of the scores it's received.  Well, the complaints about the black bars are kind of stupid, I think, but I agree with the the general consensus on the gameplay being rather mediocre.

Plus, I think it's a little silly to paint reviewers as the so-called villains in this.  Not because I happen to agree with the majority, but because I don't think you can have it both ways and say reviews and reviewers don't matter anymore and then turn around and blame them for the game's sales (which I have zero idea how it's selling).

[kamikazekeeg]

I'd pay more for an excellent 10 hour game than I would a game with 10 excellent hours of gameplay and 50 hours of padding.  As someone who pays $20 for a movie fairly often, I wouldn't necessarily balk at paying the standard $60 for a shorter game (although, honestly, 5 hours would make me raise my eyebrows a bit).  Anyways, I played a bit of this game over at a buddy's last weekend and was pretty unimpressed and it's completely deserving of the scores it's received.  Well, the complaints about the black bars are kind of stupid, I think, but I agree with the the general consensus on the gameplay being rather mediocre.

Plus, I think it's a little silly to paint reviewers as the so-called villains in this.  Not because I happen to agree with the majority, but because I don't think you can have it both ways and say reviews and reviewers don't matter anymore and then turn around and blame them for the game's sales (which I have zero idea how it's selling).

Letterboxing is such a stupid thing to do in a game, but at least it's not as miserable as The Evil Within lol

It's hard to say whether I would take a 10 hour excellent game over a 50 hour good game, though I feel I would go with the 50 hour game more often than not.  It kinda depends on what the 10 hour game brings too.  Does it have replay value? Can I play it multiple ways? Are there interesting items to collect that warrant going back to get on another playthrough?  Last of Us is a good game, it had better story and characters than a lot of games these days, but I wouldn't have paid 60 bucks for it because I'm only gonna do that one playthrough.  I wasn't interested in replaying it ever again.

Like if I had to pick a current game, such as Dying Light.  I put almost 40 hours into that for a mostly complete run, aside from some of the annoying collectibles.  The story isn't very good, the characters aren't that great, there's repetitions in side missions and such, it's a flawed game, but I had a ton of fun in it.  I'd take that more often over other games that are going to be the more well regarded games.  I'll take that over a Last of Us.

Of course, it is all subjective.  If I had more disposable income that I could throw at every single game I'm interested in, I might be abit less critical, but I like the game I can spend more time in than one I'm just in and out of and never touching again.

And yes, the idea that all the reviewers are ganging up on this is silly.  There's no evidence of it, especially with the general consensus of the game among critics and players is it isn't that great of a game.  A cinematic treat, but not the best of game.  Take reviews with a grain of salt, go with those you feel your views are closer to it, but reviews are still just guidelines.  I only look at them before a game to make sure the game runs right and doesn't have any significant issues that would bother me.  Mostly for PC games.

[gf78]

I'd pay more for an excellent 10 hour game than I would a game with 10 excellent hours of gameplay and 50 hours of padding.  As someone who pays $20 for a movie fairly often, I wouldn't necessarily balk at paying the standard $60 for a shorter game (although, honestly, 5 hours would make me raise my eyebrows a bit).  Anyways, I played a bit of this game over at a buddy's last weekend and was pretty unimpressed and it's completely deserving of the scores it's received.  Well, the complaints about the black bars are kind of stupid, I think, but I agree with the the general consensus on the gameplay being rather mediocre.

Plus, I think it's a little silly to paint reviewers as the so-called villains in this.  Not because I happen to agree with the majority, but because I don't think you can have it both ways and say reviews and reviewers don't matter anymore and then turn around and blame them for the game's sales (which I have zero idea how it's selling).

Letterboxing is such a stupid thing to do in a game, but at least it's not as miserable as The Evil Within lol

It's hard to say whether I would take a 10 hour excellent game over a 50 hour good game, though I feel I would go with the 50 hour game more often than not.  It kinda depends on what the 10 hour game brings too.  Does it have replay value? Can I play it multiple ways? Are there interesting items to collect that warrant going back to get on another playthrough?  Last of Us is a good game, it had better story and characters than a lot of games these days, but I wouldn't have paid 60 bucks for it because I'm only gonna do that one playthrough.  I wasn't interested in replaying it ever again.

Like if I had to pick a current game, such as Dying Light.  I put almost 40 hours into that for a mostly complete run, aside from some of the annoying collectibles.  The story isn't very good, the characters aren't that great, there's repetitions in side missions and such, it's a flawed game, but I had a ton of fun in it.  I'd take that more often over other games that are going to be the more well regarded games.  I'll take that over a Last of Us.

Of course, it is all subjective.  If I had more disposable income that I could throw at every single game I'm interested in, I might be abit less critical, but I like the game I can spend more time in than one I'm just in and out of and never touching again.

And yes, the idea that all the reviewers are ganging up on this is silly.  There's no evidence of it, especially with the general consensus of the game among critics and players is it isn't that great of a game.  A cinematic treat, but not the best of game.  Take reviews with a grain of salt, go with those you feel your views are closer to it, but reviews are still just guidelines.  I only look at them before a game to make sure the game runs right and doesn't have any significant issues that would bother me.  Mostly for PC games.

I feel the opposite. While I thoroughly enjoyed The Order for what it is, i find I have to push myself to continue playing Dying Light. The mission structure is predictable, the characters uninteresting to me and so far, it's been a constant fetch quest. The graphics are pretty nice as far as environments are concerned, but there seems to be a handful of the same zombies repeated over and over. The giant zombies in bio hazard suits, the vomit spewers and the night creatures are much more interesting. I don't know the exact amount of time, but it seems every time I get assigned a new fetch quest, it starts getting dark and I have to find a hiding spot for the night. I also find the ease in which you break your weapons annoying. Sorry, but whacking a mushy zombie with a big knife five or six times isn't going to break it. Just my opinion tho.

[evilnick]

I picked it up (oh hey, I should add it to my collection...) and am enjoying it for the most part.

Here are my gripes, for anyone on the fence: 

The biggest problem with The Order is that it feels a bit generic.  To be blunt, Gears of War did this kind of gameplay better and set a standard that The Order doesn't quite meed.  In that, it does not feel particularly fresh.

Cutscenes are a bit too frequent, and while they remain in-engine, they occur at a bizarre and unnecessary pace--for instance, you'll have a cutscene, then walk to a new location less than a minute away, and trigger another cutscene.  The walking between cutscenes feels empty and robotic.

The shooting, despite the fancy weapons, still largely feels like any other 3rd person or cover shooter.  I also find the PS Trophies to be rather banal.  Almost all of them are for using different weapons a number of times with nothing pertaining to story progression or anything like that.  There also are not very many--just over 20.  For a retail game.  If you're interested in that.


The upsides:

The story is picking up (haven't finished it yet, maybe this weekend), and starting to get interesting, even though it clings to "werewolves vs vampires" tropes.  The graphics are outstanding, and the combat is functional, if again, a bit generic.  Control is solid.



In the end, it's a solid, competent game where the biggest failing is that it simply doesn't feel fresh or unique in almost any way.  It's a gorgeous, generic shooter that lays on the cutscenes a little too heavily.

I think 6/10 is about right.

[gf78]

I picked it up (oh hey, I should add it to my collection...) and am enjoying it for the most part.

Here are my gripes, for anyone on the fence: 

The biggest problem with The Order is that it feels a bit generic.  To be blunt, Gears of War did this kind of gameplay better and set a standard that The Order doesn't quite meed.  In that, it does not feel particularly fresh.

Cutscenes are a bit too frequent, and while they remain in-engine, they occur at a bizarre and unnecessary pace--for instance, you'll have a cutscene, then walk to a new location less than a minute away, and trigger another cutscene.  The walking between cutscenes feels empty and robotic.

The shooting, despite the fancy weapons, still largely feels like any other 3rd person or cover shooter.  I also find the PS Trophies to be rather banal.  Almost all of them are for using different weapons a number of times with nothing pertaining to story progression or anything like that.  There also are not very many--just over 20.  For a retail game.  If you're interested in that.


The upsides:

The story is picking up (haven't finished it yet, maybe this weekend), and starting to get interesting, even though it clings to "werewolves vs vampires" tropes.  The graphics are outstanding, and the combat is functional, if again, a bit generic.  Control is solid.



In the end, it's a solid, competent game where the biggest failing is that it simply doesn't feel fresh or unique in almost any way.  It's a gorgeous, generic shooter that lays on the cutscenes a little too heavily.

I think 6/10 is about right.

Fair assessment my friend.  For me, the story really did ramp up toward the end.  Like I said previously, the ending and where it leaves Gallahad for me parallels what happened at the end of the movie The Dark Knight.  Take that for what you will and let me know if you see it the same as me when it's over.