VGCollect Forum
General and Gaming => Modern Video Games => Topic started by: gf78 on February 20, 2015, 10:00:11 pm
-
The amount of hatred and the pitifully low scores by "professional reviewers" has reached an all-time low as The Order 1886 gets torn to shreds by a huge portion of reviewers and fanboys from the Xbox camp writing bogus 0/1 scores on Metacritic. You know what I did? I ignored all of this, picked my game up and have been playing most of the day since about 11:00 AM. Long enough to get through a good portion of it and form a pretty solid opinion for myself. Here's my personal experience.
Quick-time events: I don't know when QTE's became the devil, but the notion this game is loaded with them is preposterous. I guess a prompt to push "X" or hold "triangle" is a hell-worthy sin now. There are no battles like God of War where you have to press buttons in a certain order. You are given a little prompt for things like picking up ammo, opening a gate, etc. it really reminds me of the prompts the Uncharted games present to you.
Cutscenes: If you play any recent Final Fantasy or any Metal Gear Solid game, those games are loaded with cutscenes. The Order has quite a few, but most of them are brief between moments of action. Most of them are small. Such as, after a firefight, the characters may interact with each other. Unlike just about every game I've played with similar scenes, the Order's are virtually seamless. There is no black screen afterward before you can play again. The camera simply pans around behind you and you take control again.
Gameplay: anyone familiar with snap-to-cover gameplay mechanics will feel right at home. The controls are simple and intuitive. Weapons are mapped to the D-pad. I have over six hours into the game so far.
Graphics & Sound: this is one of the most immersive, atmospheric games I have ever seen. It's a visual and audio delight and one of the best looking games I've laid my eyeballs on.
Look, no game is perfect and these "reviewers" that dole 9's and 10's out to Modern Warfare 57 and games that launch broken like Assassin's Creed Unity and have been giving this game 2/10 or 4/10 should absolutely be ashamed of themselves. Ready at Dawn set out with their vision to make a cinematic, single player adventure and that is exactly what they have done. They never said there would be multiplayer or that they were going to redefine the genre.
Why is this game being docked for lack of innovation when no game today has brought something new to the table? Did these guys even play past the obligatory hand-holding intro chapter? These guys bashing the story, did they even play long enough to see the real threat begin to emerge?
I can't think of many games that are a 10. But I can tell you that from the moment I started playing with the initial hook that made me think "WTF IS HAPPENING?!" That I have thoroughly enjoyed the story, controls, characters, pacing, gameplay, sound and yes-the graphics with no regrets that I spent $80 on the collectors edition. And when I'm done playing, I will play through it again.
I'm not going to tell anyone to buy this game or not to. I'm just telling you that for me, this game is giving me as much enjoyment as a God of War, Uncharted, Last of Us or inFAMOUS game. I hope that Ready at Dawn sells enough copies for Sony to give the go-ahead for a sequel. I love this games premise and would gladly drop 60+ bones on a sequel.
Well done RaD. Fuck the haters and thanks for this amazing game.
-
I keep looking at this game and wondering if I would like it. I may have to give it a go after all. :)
-
All I'm hearing from everyone is that it's good looking next gen game with average shooter gameplay, an alright story and characters, and it's incredibly short with little replay value and that the final boss is a QTE fight. Now I don't think all QTE's are the devil, they have their place and I'm fine with them, they can work in games like God of War, but more commonly recently we are seeing the final fights come down to nothing more than this and they make for the worst, most anti-climatic fights. Shadow of Mordor did it, taking an already weak ending and making it worse, and this was after the previous boss fight also being QTE and boring. Dying Light did it, but at least they tried to make it action packed, though it again wasn't any fun, and I could've easily made a much more creative boss fight. The Order apparently does it also, but seems to be far worse at it because it's also a re-used fight from earlier in the game.
It's totally fine if you can enjoy it, but the general consensus among most folks think it's a pretty underwhelming title, made all the worse by the lack of system selling games the PS4 needs. Still not deserving of anything below like a 5 though if people are scoring it. Even if a game is utterly devoid of originality and being fresh, the game is apparently incredibly polished and doesn't deserve anything less than an average rating.
It's probably not something I'll ever play anyways as it never really looked like a very good game to begin with. Never got the hype. It just looked like an average shooter with a mildly interesting setting. Heck, the more I saw the game, the less interested I became. Not once did I see them show off a moment that got me excited lol Only thing I've seen on the PS4 to get me hyped was Bloodborne and I'll probably get Infamous 3, though I never beat Infamous 2.
-
Let me know in 8 months when it gets a PC port. ;)
Edit: Nevermind. didn't realize it was published by Sony. Now I'm sad.
-
Let me know in 8 months when it gets a PC port. ;)
Edit: Nevermind. didn't realize it was published by Sony. Now I'm sad.
Now if it was an Xbone "Exclusive", this would be completely true lol Uggh, that just reminds me that Rise of the Tomb Raider is a timed exclusive and I have to wait for them to get through that. Perhaps that'll mean an extra good quality PC port since it'll have a lot of extra development time lol
-
It kind of feels like your playing one of the Tell Tale games at the beginning.
I'm not a big fan of quick time events either, but this is the first one I played that doesn't penalize you for clicking the wrong button. I'm mostly on Xbox so whenever it said to push "x", I kept hitting the square. It didn't seem to matter, I would just hit the "x" after hitting square.
The cover system isn't the greatest from what I've played so far. It seems almost impossible to miss a head shot and I never came close to running out of ammo. I also noticed if you don't feel like shooting the enemies, you can just run up to them and push "triangle" to execute them (LOL Kane & Lynch style!!!).
This game seems to be a mash up of everything. I got the feel of Assassins Creed, Wolf Among Us and Quantum Theory so far. I'm not too far into the game, but the reviews I've seen say It's under 8 hours anyway. Still wondering why I needed to go to the top floor of the building in chapter 1 if he was just gonna jump over the railing down to the street level.
Sad to say, I was expecting more as well...
-
short answer = REVIEWS:
read words + ignore #'s 8)
-
There's a certain level of venom that comes from AAA-releases these days, especially when they're exclusive. If I pickup a niche title people are genuinely interested to hear what I think about it, and whether I like it or not the concern is more for my time & enjoyment than the game. For example, when I pickup htoL #NiQ: The Firefly Diary next week, if for some reason I don't like it & explain why the general sentiment will probably be "oh, that's too bad, that game looked really interesting too!"
With releases like The Order, however, many people had already made up their minds on it before it released & are just looking for negatives to help justify their opinions. It makes no sense, they're both games and they both serve the same purpose - entertainment. Even if someone says they're enjoying the game, some people will just look for reasons to tell him that he either shouldn't be or probably isn't really. It's crazy.
TLDR; I have The Order too but I'm ignoring reviews & just playing the game, like I would any other game. It's just better that way. :)
-
"When did QTEs become the devil?"
When weren't they? I hated them the moment I encountered them for the first time in Shenmue.
-
HAVING NOT PLAYED THE GAME!!! at least from what I've seen I gotta agree with some of the critics on certain things. I'very only checked out GameSpot's and IGN'S reviews which were average/slightly above average. One thing that I heard and I know will annoy the hell out of me is the letterbox format obscuring the view in certain sections. While I don't think of QTE'S "as the Devil" I think an excessive amount can bring you out of the experience. positives for me are that the shooting parts look soild, the QTE's where you are fighting the werewolves actually look badass and more soild than that the knife fight in RE4, and the weapons look interesting. My conclusion for me is that it's what the main series resident evil has been trying to be, definitely not a killer app but a solid pro towards the PS4, and I will probably pick it up when it's around $30-$40.
-
I wouldn't get too worked up it. Review scores, Metacritic, the whole "fanboy" thing (really, dude?)... it's just a waste of time and energy.
The best you can do is vote with your wallet. It may not save games you love from the abyss, but as long as you're enjoying yourself and can find like-minded people who share your enthusiasm, that's really the only thing that matters.
Gaming as a whole would be a lot better off if people would stop worrying about what everyone else thinks.
-
I wouldn't get too worked up it. Review scores, Metacritic, the whole "fanboy" thing (really, dude?)... it's just a waste of time and energy.
The best you can do is vote with your wallet. It may not save games you love from the abyss, but as long as you're enjoying yourself and can find like-minded people who share your enthusiasm, that's really the only thing that matters.
Gaming as a whole would be a lot better off if people would stop worrying about what everyone else thinks.
Amen, brother Erik!
-
Anytime a game gets an enormous amount of hype and fails to be one of the best games in recent memory it gets bashed up and down.
This whole thing reminds me of when Liar game out on the PS3. It was a shitshow lol
-
Gaming as a whole would be a lot better off if people would stop worrying about what everyone else thinks.
It's less about that for many and more about whether there's good value. Getting a 6 or 7 hour game with little replay value and no extras for 60 bucks is pretty poor in my opinion, unless that game is just crazy amazing. Like I love Metal Gear Rising, I bought it on PC much later on with all the DLC on a sale, but had I bought that new for full price, I'd probably would've been pretty annoyed that game is only about the same length as The order, but at least that has lots of extra stuff to unlock and the VR missions. It's also a completely ridiculous and fun game, so it has higher standing for it.
With this in mind, I use reviews for the games I might be a tad unsure about. A basic gauge on things, though I don't look too in depth. If I know I'm gonna like a game, I don't check the reviews and just get it, cause I've gotten good enough to know whether something is probably worth it. The Order was a review game to me, something I wasn't particularly excited about and I'd wait to see what kind of consensus it had on it, with the consensus being, it's a rental game or buy it when it's cheap. Most likely on a sale.
-
There are no pre-choreographed fights that are composed of purely timed button presses. When fighting the huge lycan, the game will present a symbol of the right stick indicating which direction to push to dodge an incoming attack. Your free to attack at will. It's not like God of War where the battle is a series of timed presses and missing a press resets that part of the fight. I have completed the game and attest to this.
I guess my point is that this game has been hounded from day one of its first showing by the gaming media and singled out. Is it the greatest game ever? Nope. Does it deserve to get points knocked off some arbitrary number because it doesn't have a multiplayer mode? I guess we should dock a point because there is no racing section?
With the standards applied to this game, Ryse should be a 0 or 0.5/10 because of the prevalence of QTE's. Mario anything shoul be a 1/10 because they are all the same, don't innovate and are star and coin fetch quests. Gran Turismo and Forza should be 1/10 because there are no stealth sections and the controls aren't innovative enough. And Halo Master Chief collection should be 0.5/10 because it launched with completely broken multiplayer.
You can't say you shouldn't worry about what others think. This crucification the Order is receiving will undoubtedly assure no sequel gets made and that's a real shame. How can I ignore that fact? How can anyone who loved a game that the press destroyed and it never received a sequel or the developer went under ignore that?
I don't care who you are or what your opinion of a game is, but to score a game that isn't a broken, buggy mess a 1 or 2/10 like it's trash is nothing but pure hate and shows an agenda. Sorry if you guys don't see it that way.
-
It's less about that for many and more about whether there's good value. Getting a 6 or 7 hour game with little replay value and no extras for 60 bucks is pretty poor in my opinion, unless that game is just crazy amazing.
The problem with that logic is that "value" is an entirely subjective term, and there is absolutely no way to provide the kind of guaranteed quality that people have come to expect. Attempts to satisfy that kind of selfish entitlement are exactly why so many games take a formulaic approach and target the lowest common denominator, contributing to the lack of diversity in an already homogenous market.
-
Good read OP. I was planning to get it, and you have helped me confirm my decision.
-
I stopped reading reviews and going on websites like Gamespot and IGN a couple of years ago. I can't get past the fact that games with high review scores always just happen to have the biggest banner ads all over their websites. I don't believe that is a coincidence. Plus, there have been too many games where the reviewer's opinion and mine differed to the point where I found it hard to believe we played the same game. I wandered onto YouTube and after subbing and un-subbing from various channels, finally landed on channels where the YouTubers and I have similar tastes and outlooks on games. Below are links to first impressions videos to 2 such channels who's opinions on games I respect. And no, I am not affiliated with or know these people personally. I just like how direct and honest they are about their experiences with games and how they love to have fun while playing.
http://youtu.be/Ft9dIFlBrEk
http://youtu.be/lJeje5HhuoM
Also, I would like to add that I do not have the game but I will be buying it. I just know that if I buy it now, it will be just sitting there for a while due to lack of time.
-
Good read OP. I was planning to get it, and you have helped me confirm my decision.
I've been very interested in why reviewers have crapped on this game. So, I've been reading their reviews. It's become quite evident that many reviewers didn't bother to play very far into the game, let alone actually complete it. The first few opening chapters are full of hand-holding. For an experienced gamer, it may be a bit much but it's no more than just about any other game holds your hand at the beginning.
The game is linear, yes. The developers had a story they wanted to tell in a specific way and wandering around aimlessly didn't mesh with that. I don't see your "Halo's" getting knocked for pushing you from point A to point B.
The controls, aiming, etc are pretty spot-on. All the reviewers complaining about how Gallahad "lumbers along" must reeeaaaallllyyy have hated Gears of War. Oh, and they must never have bothered clicking L3 to run. Not an oafish "roadie run" either. I guess they are all Twilight fans who think running and climbing around as a large man adorned in armor, carrying heavy weapons should be as effortless as Edward scurrying up the side of a large pine with Bella on his back.
And I find it quite curious how all these reviewers talk about the Blackwater being an unexplained mixture (hint: it's quite thoroughly explained a little past the halfway mark) and never once mentioning vampires (hint: around the 65% mark through the story) can say they completed the game.
I've even seen one pro review criticizing the characters all breathing heavy. Gee, I guess they never get winded running around? Oh, that's right. Most reviewers never figured out how to click L3 to run. ::)
-
It's less about that for many and more about whether there's good value. Getting a 6 or 7 hour game with little replay value and no extras for 60 bucks is pretty poor in my opinion, unless that game is just crazy amazing.
The problem with that logic is that "value" is an entirely subjective term, and there is absolutely no way to provide the kind of guaranteed quality that people have come to expect. Attempts to satisfy that kind of selfish entitlement are exactly why so many games take a formulaic approach and target the lowest common denominator, contributing to the lack of diversity in an already homogenous market.
Of course it's subjective. My opinion is that anything under 10 hours is not really worth my 60 bucks. I didn't buy Last of Us and only rented it cause I knew it wouldn't have much more than a regular run time of like 10 to 12 hours or so and not interest me much in replaying it again and that game has fantastic characters and a solid story for the most part despite my issues with the gameplay and the final level. Played enough games to know what I'm looking for and what I feel is worth spending my money on. How someone might value the experience is important and most people put a few factors into their purchase choice, especially if they have a gaming budget. For me, I look how long the game might likely be, will have it some replay value after I beat it, does it have multiplayer that is worthwhile or not, what has the developer done before this, and probably a few other things if I can think of it. If they don't fit some of my criteria, I'll hold off on getting the game, usually waiting for a sale till it's at a more reasonable price.
There are no pre-choreographed fights that are composed of purely timed button presses. When fighting the huge lycan, the game will present a symbol of the right stick indicating which direction to push to dodge an incoming attack. Your free to attack at will. It's not like God of War where the battle is a series of timed presses and missing a press resets that part of the fight. I have completed the game and attest to this.
I guess my point is that this game has been hounded from day one of its first showing by the gaming media and singled out. Is it the greatest game ever? Nope. Does it deserve to get points knocked off some arbitrary number because it doesn't have a multiplayer mode? I guess we should dock a point because there is no racing section?
With the standards applied to this game, Ryse should be a 0 or 0.5/10 because of the prevalence of QTE's. Mario anything shoul be a 1/10 because they are all the same, don't innovate and are star and coin fetch quests. Gran Turismo and Forza should be 1/10 because there are no stealth sections and the controls aren't innovative enough. And Halo Master Chief collection should be 0.5/10 because it launched with completely broken multiplayer.
You can't say you shouldn't worry about what others think. This crucification the Order is receiving will undoubtedly assure no sequel gets made and that's a real shame. How can I ignore that fact? How can anyone who loved a game that the press destroyed and it never received a sequel or the developer went under ignore that?
I don't care who you are or what your opinion of a game is, but to score a game that isn't a broken, buggy mess a 1 or 2/10 like it's trash is nothing but pure hate and shows an agenda. Sorry if you guys don't see it that way.
And I said that anyone scoring it under a 5 is likely completely wrong, but not many reviewers are really doing that. According to Metacritic, only one has it down to a 2, with most giving it average and above average scores. I think you might be blowing the criticism out of proportion. There is no witch hunt here to take down The Order, there never has been. You might not see the game as an average shooter that looks good, but a ton of people are. It happens. Of course a AAA title that doesn't live up to the hype is gonna get knocked around a good bit, that's expected.
And I watched that last boss fight. It's just a QTE section. The actual gameplay is barely there. Sure you can slash when you want, but there isn't much to it. I'd be pissed to have that as a final fight. Especially since it's the same fight as the werewolf earlier in the game.
-
From Metacritic:
EGM: 4.5/10
Twin finite: 4/10
Game Revolution: 4/10
Giant Bomb: 4/10
Metro Game Central: 4/10
Digital Trends: 2/10
Any way you look at it, these are trash scores that only a broken, buggy, no redeeming value game deserves. They are click bait garbage, intentionally made to drag this game down. How did all these reviewers give a broken game like Halo the Master Chief collection such high scores? Isn't basic functionality a prerequisite to get a good score?
Again, I'm not saying the game is perfect and you and I agree that a 5/10 score or lower is bullshit. But in this rediculous world we live in, developers get (or don't) bonuses based on average Metacritic scores. And a click bait 2/10 score from some ignorant prick with a crappy website affects these people who gave it their all to make the game.
From everything I've read, these reviewers are criticizing the game for not having things it never claimed it would ever have. They never said it was a multiplayer shooter. They never said it was a stealth game. They never claimed it would have co-op. If you were disappointed with the boss fight, you must have hated the end fight in Arkham Asylum.
And as spoiler free as possible, the end of the game has Gallahad (you) make a choice earily similar to Batman's at the end of the Dark Knight when he chose to protect the memory of Harvey Dent. The game had a fine resolution that leaves it open for more. And I sure hope this smear campaign doesn't deter the developers and Sony from going ahead with a sequel and the chance to improve upon its shortcomings.
-
It's less about that for many and more about whether there's good value. Getting a 6 or 7 hour game with little replay value and no extras for 60 bucks is pretty poor in my opinion, unless that game is just crazy amazing.
The problem with that logic is that "value" is an entirely subjective term, and there is absolutely no way to provide the kind of guaranteed quality that people have come to expect. Attempts to satisfy that kind of selfish entitlement are exactly why so many games take a formulaic approach and target the lowest common denominator, contributing to the lack of diversity in an already homogenous market.
Edit: and with the order, it's a complete game. Not one that I paid $60 for and will have to buy a $30 season pass for a pack of guns and one new area to explore. ::)
Everyone has an individual opinion on whether something is a good value. Here's an example of my thinking. I paid $25 for American Reunion on Blu-Ray when it was released. The running time is 1 hour 53 minutes. There's some extras, but it's basically a two hour film. That's $12.50 per hour of entertainment if I only watched it once. To go to the movies and see it, it cost me $15 on average for a ticket.
Now it took me about 7-8 hours to get through my first play through of the Order. If I never play it again, I spent $7.50 to $8.50 per hour of entertainment. Better value to me than the passive entertainment of a motion picture.
-
If you were disappointed with the boss fight, you must have hated the end fight in Arkham Asylum.
Why would I? There was actually gameplay going on with that. Not that it was a great fight, but it had far more than that crappy werewolf battle. You have to dodge multiple guys, explosives, the sides are electrocuted. Joker himself though could've been so much better as an actual fight. It wasn't that good. Arkham City actually made it much better by having you actually fight at the end and it was a multi-stage fight. What The Order did, what Mordor did, what Dying Light did, are just lazy excuses for a climatic fight. I'd rather it just be a cutscene than pretending I'm participating.
-
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.
-
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.
Well, my apologies sir. Never once did I try to start an Xbox vs PS war, but ok. I guess pointing out inconsistencies in review criteria counts for starting a flame war.
I also never once told anyone to buy the game. Kamikazzekeeg and I were having a discussion and nothing more. 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. :P
-
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. :P
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 ;D
'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 8)
Let's just try to keep it classier & stay above such childish types of shots/insults; whatever
-
And this is exactly the point I was driving at in my post: VGC is a fairly positive, enthusiastic community that doesn't engage in trading insults, fixate on reviews, stir up the console war, or any of the stuff that permeates nearly every other gaming site. Quite a lot of us are friends, know each others real names, etc.
Threads like this are a black mark on the entire community, and antithetical to the spirit of what we've all tried to build here.
-
And this is exactly the point I was driving at in my post: VGC is a fairly positive, enthusiastic community that doesn't engage in trading insults, fixate on reviews, stir up the console war, or any of the stuff that permeates nearly every other gaming site. Quite a lot of us are friends, know each others real names, etc.
Threads like this are a black mark on the entire community, and antithetical to the spirit of what we've all tried to build here.
you did that much more succinctly than I did, E!
but, yeah - QFT & amen, brother ^_^
-
you did that much more succinctly than I did, E!
but, yeah - QFT & amen, brother ^_^
It's easy to be concise when I've only had one cup of coffee this morning. MOAR.
-
you did that much more succinctly than I did, E!
but, yeah - QFT & amen, brother ^_^
It's easy to be concise when I've only had one cup of coffee this morning. MOAR.
caffeine cowboys;
yippie-ki-yay
-
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. :P
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 ;D
'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 8)
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.
-
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. :P
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 ;D
'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 8)
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%!
-
I think just about everyone here gave up on gaming 'journalism' a good while ago...
-
I think just about everyone here gave up on gaming 'journalism' a good while ago...
Isn't that oxy-moronic :P
-
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. ???
-
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.
-
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! :o
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 ::)
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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).
-
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'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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)