Making the case for The Order: 1886 when nobody else will.
It was sh1t just let it go.
Spot on. One of the best experiences I have had gaming. Unforgettable characters (Graham McTavish as Sir Percival) and I loved the inclusion of historical personages (Lakshmi Bai, The Rani of Jhansi - people should read about a life lived boldly, and Tesla as well as well as London with an alternate time twist. Very tight combat. And not everything has to be open world for the sake of a claim to the feature. I have several unfinished open world titles that lost themselves. As a fan of the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate Cycles, the cornerstone of the story was definitely a draw for me.
Look, I'm a big fan of Sony's exclusives but let's be real, not even I could look past The Order's failings, and I paid full retail for the game at launch.
The Order had fantastic graphics, an interesting story seed for a franchise going forward, and the most bland gameplay you've ever seen. It deserved all of the criticism about its lack of diversity in weapons, repetitive combat, and broken AI.
What they really need is a sequel to get it right, tweak what didn't work and take another kick at the can, but The Order was a 6/10 at best.
EDIT: Oh right! I forgot that it was also ridiculously short. The value proposition also irked me at the time.
It was bad.
Great voice acting.
I see the order like the first killzone. A decent attempt at something new but definitely not perfect with room to improve if a sequel is to be made.
Killzone 2 was a huge leap in fidelity and features and if an order 2 is announced then i feel it too will be a leap over the first as well.
Good game with potential to be something great.
Dude the first Killzone was an underrated gem. I wish GG would remake the first.
The Order, on the other hand.....
You know what? Gonna buy it this weekend and play it and Ryse while I'm at it. Maybe 30 years of gaming experience had failed me and I'm being fooled by reviews
This industry is so backwards and illogical it hurts. They highly criticize this game for "not having enough gameplay" but then go right ahead and praise those garbage telltale series. Flat out hypocrisy. This game was not bad by any means.. and it also wasn't amazing.. if you ask me it's between good and great. Amazing story telling and transition between cut scenes and gameplay. Very interesting story and characters, was there not alot of gameplay/replay ability? Not really.. but anyone trying to make this game out to be terrible is just so wrong and obviously never played it. Very well done game, just not quite enough gameplay, but even then I feel like it only falls short maybe 2 hours of gameplay? I feel like if it just had 2 more hours of gameplay no one would have even said anything.
"It was bad.
Great voice acting.
Everything else? Are you Shitting me?
Septic, you are stench.
You wouldn't know.
It was worth the $5 I paid for it in January, but not much more in my eyes, now until dawn, I just finished that one, it was QTE and slow movement done right. That one I enjoyed a lot. I liked the order more then I liked uncharted one, but it wasn't very good
You can look at my trophies, I played it
Incomplete story + like two types of enemies that are beat by QTEs.
Too many people here blinded by it's great visuals to see the flaws of this game. The hate was and still is justified. It's baffling that they sold this at $60, maybe that's why people here are trying to defend it. They know it wasn't worth it but they won't admit it.
For a first instalment
It wasn't bad, just stupid ass hate... The Game was short and with QTE most didn't appreciate it also the 60 $ price didnt go well with many... I just hope for a sequel.. finger crossed... Sony should give them another chance... and i hope RAD does it much bigger and better IF given another opportunity ....
Some of the worst A.I for the halfbreeds, just the worst, but enjoyed the story...or most of it.
Was a good rental, nothing more.
Yeah, this game was terrible. If you enjoy chores and static game world, with bland and generic mechanics, this game is for you!
For everyone else, move on!
Ya know whats funny is that this game was panned because it was short yet on howlongtobeat.com every Halo game is around the same length.
So yea, it was unfairly judged.
Unfairly judged? Length isn't a big of a factor when you're comparing the experience to it. If that 5 hour experience is amazing then it should be praised for that. But if that 5 hour experience is not fun or just bad, it needs to be criticized for it.
Aside from the graphics, this game doesn't absolutely nothing substantial. Story is subjective. But the most generic TPS gameplay mechanics, and bare minimum, but also generic cover system followed by forced slow walking corridors is not fun. It's not good, it's not smart design. It's an even lazier way of being lazy and trying to "play it safe". Its design and mechanics do nothing for the game or genre. I paid $10 for this during a Flash Sale on PSN and after 2 hours I couldn't take it and deleted it.
There's a reason why Titanfall 2 short campaign was highly praised. Because while it was extremely short, that experience was a fantastic one. It kept you on your toes, it kept you engaged and it left you wanting more.
As for your comment about Halo, I think you should re-read the reviews for Halo 5 and listen to what they say about the campaign. It was heavily criticized, and it lost points for it. BUT, it still got decent ratings (84 meta) because of the other aspects of the game that weren't lacking i.e multiplayer. The Order has no extra content, no multiplayer, so that $60 experience is based on 5-10 hours of repetitive, generic, boring and lazy gameplay.
What differs this from say Gears? The gameplay is more or less the same. Yet one of them gets better rated. I think the inconcistency of game "journalists" is a lot worse.
Because Gears doesn't rely on one thing and one thing only. Gears also has an INSANE amount of content. Between 2 player co-op campaign with tons of a variety, action packed scripted events, vehicles, turrets, etc. Not to mention local MP with bots, online multiplayer, hoard mode, etc etc. You pay $60 and you get all that content. You pay $60 for The Order and you get the bare minimum of Gears shoot and cover gameplay and THAT'S IT. You don't get the co-op, you don't get the multiplayer, you don't get the hoard mode, you don't get variety.
I guess Haze and Halo 3 were pretty much the same game when they came out because they both offered guns and a FP view right? Inconsistency with journalism isn't with The Order. The Order was reviewed correctly, for the entire experience. Which was generic and average aside from the visuals. The inconsistency comes when reviewers ignore half of the package of a new IP. Already established franchises do get a free pass on certain things. Games like Dragon Age (for example) is a well established franchise that added MP. And it was reviewed fairly. It was added bonus points, but not taken away from the entire experience because it wasn't necessary and not a staple in the franchise. It was included in the final release as something extra.
The Order was a new IP. New IP have much more to prove. If you go the SP only route on a new IP, that SP better be damn good. A PERFECT example is Horizon Zero Dawn. New IP, no MP and SP focused. At first glance many would say it reaks of Ubisoft style open world format. But it's much more than that, and it offers variety, if offers a slight familiar but incredible combat system with mid combat crafting, side missions that aren't just fetch quest, and the biggest factor. Replay value. Something else The Order had absolutely ZERO of. Yet here comes Horizon sitting at an 89 on Meta being HIGHLY praised. You know why? Because it's a damn good game. The Order was not.
The length was really never an issue for me. although 12 hrs would have been more in tune for this kind of game.
The A.I. on the halfbreeds was god awful, some of the worst I've played in gaming was getting early 90's flashback to shitty A.I. although it was good back then, lol.
So does the Order include multiplayer like Halo?
Oh, okay. Apart from that, there are great games that are short, and crappy games that are short. Take your pick.
I love HALO and I will say thank goodness it doesn't include the MP that HALO has become - a twitch fest with little more than a revolving REC door that is quite frankly microtransactions in an anorexically thin disguise.
Nope. That is not why it was panned. It was not just 1 thing but several things mixed together.
The length doesnt need to bother if what is in that length is good and enjoyable throughout.
The gunplay was unsatisfying and the enemy AI awful. The lycan fights where done extemely poorly. Although the first melee fight was something new and satisfying but there should have been something more to it.
The story never hits its peak and the most interesting part is the thought provoking ending. How will it continue? What will he do now?
@Kirbwalkers comment. Why is it marked inappropriate???? This is weird.
Gears has completely different gameplay and enemy AI as well as environmental game design made for cover system. Also the gunplay is more satisfying. Much more. I've heard this types of comparisons before. To halo and gears and Im left wondering. Do these people play a varied amount of games and actually see the differences between similar games and what makes one's mechanics better then the other? I play tons of fps and can immediately tell the flaws in them. I can tell when the shooting is satisfying or isnt. When the cover system works or is tacked on, etc. Same thing here.
1.) Using a vague term like "around the same length" doesn't help in this discussion b/c by that rubric pretty much every shooter today is around that average length too. When looking at hard numbers however, there's a different story.
The Order: https://howlongtobeat.com/g...
All main Halo entries:
https://howlongtobeat.com/g... https://howlongtobeat.com/g... https://howlongtobeat.com/g... https://howlongtobeat.com/g... https://howlongtobeat.com/g... https://howlongtobeat.com/g...
So...already we're seeing an average runtime for the main Halo games, each included with often-robust MP options, that's 2 hours longer than The Order.
2.) You're forgetting just how padded The Order is JUST TO GET at that 7 hour runtime too. Over three hours of unskippable cutscenes, several forced walking sections that only sometimes allow the player to trot during those segments, other railroading segments that are there to be hidden loading screens. You're talking maybe 2 1/2 hours of actual combat were you to segregate each individual gameplay element.
3.) I don't want to ignore the quality vs. quantity aspect of determining a game's 'value' here--which I think The Order falls flat on too. That's another conversation to be had though b/c you specifically brought up its brevity and tried to call out double standards by bringing up the Halo series.
no, it wasn't. I loved the story and want a sequel. my biggest gripe was there wasn't enough exploration in that beautiful world - but, I'm sure that will be addressed . I don't get the gripes below about it being short. it took me 9 hours to play the first time through - not every game needs to be 40+ hours.
Being short isnt the problem with the game. I beat the game in about 6-7 hours and I was playing the hardest difficulty on my first run. Different skills, different lengths, so the length of the game isnt the issue.
It wasn't though was it. It simply wasn't worth the price of a full game because it was extremely short and had zero replay value. If it had launched for £30 instead of the £45-£50 range that it actually did, it would have done much better.
Take your own advice.
Graphically it was impressive, but everything else was pretty much a disaster. Everyone complained about Ryse having QTE controls, but when The Order 1886 also got them, fanboys were giving it a pass. Sorry, the QTE were just as bad as they were in Ryse. Like The Order 1886, Ryse also had some impressive graphics. As we know, graphics is only 1/4 of a game. The game wasn't unfairly hated. It was hated because it wasn't a good game.
Yes, let's just listen to you. /s
This game has potential for a sequel.
Sony doesn't think so...
And you know this because...?
And Sony can't change their mind and work on a sequel?
And who is going to make that sequel? ND seems Sony's team that fits the IP the best but I don't see them picking up another team's project. Other possibility is Santa Monica who helped RAD with the 1st game but they're busy with GOW and personally if they're going to continue another team's project I would rather see them make a Heavenly Sword sequel. Maybe Bend but if Days Gone proves to be a hit, they'll probably start working on a sequel. Then you have Sucker punch but I would rather see a quality platformer from them as there are too many TPS on the market and not enough AAA platformers.
I don't think that Sony needs another TPS and quite frankly I think that it would be a waste for one of their teams to make The Order 2 but yes, it is possible that Sony gives their IP to one of their teams or maybe to a 2nd party dev.....
I wouldn't say any game is complete shit. At least not triple A. They always have some good qualities.
The game had an amazing setting, lore and plot. And definitely characters you wanted to learn more about. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way but the potential is still 100% there and perhaps it just needs a sequel developed by the right people.
The next game should keep the cinematic feel but quadruple down on gameplay mechanics and systems.
Average at best.
Masterpiece you mean
Average masterpiece, looked good but not much else.
Halo 4 and 5 were shit and MS just keeps pumping them out
What has halo got to do with this. Typical fanboy statement that game isn't on my system it must be s**t. I'd rather play halo than god of war, unchartered or killzone.
It's worrying how many Sony fanboys are defending this game
Because they've actually played it?
Been coming here for 10 years and I don't think I ever saw a comment with as much agrees/disagrees! That must be a N4g record! Well done dude :)
It was Gears of war with taste, but wasn't reviewed like Gears usually is by some hypocritical fanboys calling themselves "journalists" because;
1) it was a Sony/PS exclusive and
2) it had graphcs that ran circles around all the xbox one (and a lot of PC) games
It was barely a game....
Define game. You could say the same about Telltale's The Walking Dead games and they win GOTY awards.
You're right, the difference is that the first Walking Dead game was at least somewhat entertaining and very rarely removed your ability to run through long non-interactive stretches just to artificially lengthen the game. The Order looked great and had some fairly solid combat but it was an absolute chore to play through. You can let this one go lads, the PS4 has plenty of good games at this point -- you don't need to pretend anymore.
@ PhantomTommy: I'm not pretending, I genuinely thought it was a good game. Why else would I play through it twice?
I find the Telltale "games" incredibly boring. I like games I can actually play
Telltale games are $25 and people know what they are getting. The Order was marketed as a triple A 3rd person shooter for $60. Game was nowhere near worth $60. Should have launched at $30, worth no more than $10 now.
The Order was advertised as a story driven game that resembles a movie. That is exactly what it was so people knew what they were getting themselves into. Everyone knew about the length and everyone knew it just had SP and nothing else. I do believe you that it wasn't worth 60 bucks. They should of made it 49.99 at first just have a different price and people wouldn't jump the hate train.
I think what ZaWarudo is saying is that it had lacked certain elements that accompany 3rd person action adventures games these days....but of course it was "a game".., but with all the good they did for it, there was just as much that they didn't...
Zawurdo comment is just a troll comment. Ignore it.
Nobody has the right to define what a game is or isn't. It is entertainment media. It can evolve to whatever it wants.
But the problem is Telltales games are about the story and choices you make. Thats the premise of the game. It doesnt try to be a shooter, action, adventure, thrid person story driven game.
It focuses on the one thing it does well. And they do it well. If not people wouldnt rate them so high. It's also a method that works with other plots and stories as we can see.
The order on the other hand was trying to be a third person shooter, story driven cinematic game. So if we consider that and rate them based on what they were trying to acheive then that is where the low ratings come from. Its action was poor, the enemy AI poor, the story was poor although the premise and lore was a 10/10 but that premise and lore and what we wanted to see was not in the game.
still think it deserves a sequel. Because I enjoyed it enough that I wouldnt mind playing the next one.
No. He means in what they tried to pulloff....it wasn't a game. When you purchase(d) Telltale games you know EXACTLY what your getting into. You Sony Fanboys need to cut it out,What are you going to try to defend next, Driver's Club?
I'll say that about Telltale's games. That said, Telltale games are up front about what they are and they cost much less than $60.
It's a game, 100%. But it was hot trash though.
It was a great game that succeeded at what it wanted to do. It was made with a lot of polish and attention to detail, had an intriguing story, awesome presentation and a unique setting. Played through it twice.
"Succeeded at what it wanted to do".
You'd be hard-pressed to find many that agree, but I certainly do. The only thing wrong for me was a lack of content (I wanted so much more when the credits rolled). Then again, this is a good thing, because, at its core, The Order was a very polished experience with little-to-no bugs to speak of, unmatched visuals at the time, the game-play was incredibly entertaining (important), solid voice acting + performances, and a strong enough story to get the job done.
Was it treated unfairly? In my view - yes.
I agree with him. It wanted to be a show piece. a "look what the PS4 can do". and the game is gorgeous.
So, it didn't want to have engaging gameplay? It didn't want to be fun?
I love it too :3
I felt the game was unfinished. The graphics were super polished, and the game play was solid, although not flawless. But the incomplete parts existed in the lichens, and there were sections that seemed set up to have fights where they never came....in particular the vampire stuff.
I do agree with the rest of your sentiments though.
Reasonable thinking for sure. The game was not perfect, and I am under no illusion that it was, but I do think the very minor flaws were not enough for this game to be attacked like it was. Victim of hype and expectations for the game to be something the developer never claimed the game to be.