Making the case for The Order: 1886 when nobody else will.
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.
@crazychris4124 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.
Much of the hate, at least on forums was a curse of it being exclusive. Was a pretty heated time since it was so close to launch, and at the time, the XBox was not doing all that well, so it was an easy target. That 5 hour completion video right before release just turned into a landslide of that being indicative of it being a terrible game, and any negative aspect that may have gotten reported on was conflated to mostly greatly over-exaggerated proportions. I think the reviews overall were kind of understandable though. It'd be a hard game to review because of how incomplete it was, and even some of the low reviews did say where it did really good....which I respect. The ones that put it well below average though I think were unreasonable, because the game wasn't broken or even bad, and what was good was worth playing IMO. The biggest problem with the game, beyond it being incomplete, was just the lack of varied content. What content was complete though was pretty decent.
Agreed. I played through it 3 times, after getting the platinum on the first playthrough. I just think it's a really good game, and I dearly hope that they get the chance to fix the few issues it had (mainly using the same boss fight twice) in a sequel. RaD are great developers, so here's to hoping that E3 holds some surprises.
If mediocrity was what RAD wanted, then I guess I have to agree with you.
"...that succeeded at what it wanted to do." I guess a central conflict with this notion would be what if what it wanted to do wasn't actually beneficial to the player experience. Pouring a bunch of resources into a game so hard-pressed on being 'filmic' to the point of actively trying to remove any sense of player agency. There are dozens of ways to craft a linear walk-a-thon, but when the artifice is readily obvious I can't help but disagree w/ the notion of such a game being great--let alone worthwhile. I get showing interest in the lore, but I don't get how the story was anything noteworthy--aside from seeming like some 10th-grader's creative writing assignment (his first draft at that) with some great voice acting talent.
If the game was 20$ I am positive it would have been recieved well. What was there was great, but there needed to be a lot more for $60 price tag.
Yup, it was the value proposition that was the problem. It was a 5 hour game, that's fine. but the lack of content was not. Other than that, my only real gripe was the repetitive QTE boss fights. But this and Ryse are my go to examples on one end when ever I make the case for not all games costing a standard $60. (the order should be less than $60 while something like witcher 3 should be more).
I disagree. That would only encourage publishers to demand filler and obligatory 'open world' mechanics to be put in every game just so they can ask a higher price. But not every game needs to be open world or 60+ hours.
Oh, it's pie in the sky now, for sure. But it didn't used to be all games came out with a standard price. But I acknowledge that it won't go back to that. We've already spoiled the publishers by gobbling up their DLC and season passes. and they won't let that money go. So even if EA charges $80 for mass effect, there'll still be dlc and micro transactions. Now CDPR would be the exception, but sadly they wouldn't be nearly enough to cover the EA's and Ubisoft's of the gaming world.
It gets really tricky when you go into content = price or does it, territory. I think the price by value isnt the problem. Its the economy. Most people thing 60$ is a tad bit expensive for a game and therefore decide that they must focus on content over quality in order to ensure their 60$ was worth it. If people had a lot more money then the 60$ wouldnt seem so bad now would it? The problem is people take their own economy and use that to price a videogame. Some people are rich, some poor, some in between, some care and others dont. We shouldn't use economy to determine the value of a game which isnt grounded on that same economy. Some games that are short I've enjoyed more then games that are super long. Does this mean they should've priced the short game higher? No. The value of the game should be determined by the cost of the game plus profit. If we decided what the cost should be it is possible that some of these companies would disappear because they sold at a complete loss and never made their money back.
*10 hour game
It's worth more than 20$ but I agree it was worth full price. It was 75 euro in Ireland. I think 55 euro would have been a better price for it.
Meant wasn't worth full price.
The AI was certainly not great. Werewolves ran straight at you, then ran straight back to where they came from, then ran straight back at you, then ran back where they came from. Easiest enemies in the game. Your idiot teammates did NOTHING. I don't think I saw one kill anything the whole game. Some of the enemies were broken, like the armored shotgunners. The environments were boring and walking around in them was pointless. Most of the pickups were pointless and did nothing to add to any lore or story. The end boss was a cut and paste of a previous boss. Which, ironically enough, just so happened to be the only two bosses in the game. Or does that make it one boss? Either way, it was barely a boss fight because it was just a QTE. Weapon variety was terrible. Way too many QTE's. Graphics and story were good, I'll give it that. But for a $60 game people expect WAY more, even if it had been released 2 generations ago. I'm not sure I can agree with "What was there was great". If it was $20, I'm pretty sure all the same flaws would have been pointed out, but with the disclaimer, "What do you expect for $20?"
where it ended,that would have been the perfect set up for the next half of the story.
I enjoyed it but there was definitely room for improvement. Content was lacking and the lycan battles were underwhelming. I loved the setting and the story though, the weapons felt powerful and good to use. Hopefully Sony greenlight a sequel because I'd love to play a sequel that has all the necessary improvements. If I had to rate it I'd give it a 7/10.
Yes! The lycan battles were really my biggest gripe. Having one qte boss fight would have been fine but to then have the same boss fight at the end was poor and the normal lycan fights where they run at you was badly done I thought. Everything else was great.
Which is around the average rating it got. I think that's fair.
Exactly. The Lycan battles really stood out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the game's quality. Shame really, with better boss encounters and not reusing the same mechanic in a different setting would have propelled this into a whole other realm.
Pretty much this. I also loved the atmosphere and just walking round looking in shop windows etc.
I just beat the game on Sunday. Gameplay killed the game. Half of the game felt like it was QTEs, walking and cutscenes. Lets not forget that horrible auto fail stealth mission. And every time you got a cool weapon the game would take it away after a cutscene. Feel bad for the people that spent $60 or more on the game. I only paid $3 and I was still disappointed with the game. Would love a sequel from the same team since they probably know all of the areas they need to improve. Maybe set it in America since they talk about it several times throughout the game.
I've had a similar experience this week. I never bothered getting it despite the environments and setting being right up my alley, but it turned out exactly as you described it, and kind of how I expected it to be. Maybe it's the lack of gameplay that makes me grow impatient with the game overall, Im not sure I haven't finished the game yet, but if things aren't improving I'm honestly not sure if I care about finishing it. Production and quality wise it's a great cinematic piece, but as a game.. not my thing.
Beat it during Halloween/October last year. It was pretty good, but has its flaws, including too many QTEs, you only get to use the coolest guns a handful of times, and the gameplay could have been better
this is a great game
I was one of those haters, until I actually played it. It's actually a solid shooter with the best graphics on the PS4.
Omg. Stop. The game was a glorified tech demo. It looked amazing but it wasn't amazing. The only parts that were fun were few and far between.
Has enough time passed already for us to look back through rose tinted glasses and see an average game as anything but average because it's exclusive? Pretty game. That's where it's strengths end. It was unfairly hyped rather than unfairly 'hated'.
That doesn't take any time at all. Exclusives are typically perceived as the best things ever from the moment they are announced.
I think those that like it seem to believe it was average. But being average doesn't mean that it isn't worth them liking it, or looking back appreciating what they played is seeing it through rose tinted glasses. The game was OK. It had flaws, but it had good stuff too. Some people have strong opinions on what was wrong with it, while others believe that those same things actually aren't bad, or were even good. The lichen fights are about the only thing I consistently see those who hate it and those how like it agree on. I think the focus on continuing to keep discussing the game, outside some random talk about hoping for a better sequel, is because it's exclusive, but I don't think those who like it, or now can have good things to say about it, are doing so because it's exclusive.
I own it and it is mediocre. It was a massive disappointment in every area, except graphics.
It's been like 2 years now. Think it's time to stop bringing it up at this point. I agree it was unfairly hated on though (there's been a few of those this gen). It wasn't perfect or anything like that but it was solid and fun. I do think however it wasn't a full priced game. From a consumer standpoint and as someone who really enjoyed the game, I felt that 75 euro was asking too much for what it offered and that being full price really worked against it on the market.
It was short, just that , too damn short.
I felt the game was ok, the graphics were amazing, it lack a better story, and better AI. There is potential to improve the game on the next sequel which I would check out.
I got it for $10. I think the game has a interesting premise but the gameplay is lacking. I think it's about a 6/10 game.
It was not unfairly hated. Yes from a technical standpoint it's a marvel graphically. The cover-based shooter gameplay was not nearly as well implemented as other games in the genre nor was the shoot-outs as exciting. The fact that some chapters were cutscenes felt a bit jarring. The repeated 3 boss battles I can't see anyone arguing were good. There is just a lot wrong with The Order. Now, does that make it so people can't enjoy it? Of course not, it's perfectly fine to like a bad game, just don't lie to yourself about it.
I loved The Order... I've played through it multiple times, and will again. It was a bit short but what is there is great. Haters talk about the quick time events as a major downfall, but there are only a few times in the whole game that these even happen. No where near as many as God of War. I really want a sequel, but that will likely never happen with all the hate this game got, half of which probably came from the Xbox only crowd that just wanted to slam a high profile Sony exclusive.
Agreed. Most of the hatred came from xboners or the "I own all consoles". The game can be improved, but is far from being bad.
It is how they handle these games. In an earlier thread I called it the Heavenly Sword Syndrome. Xbox fanboys did not know how to counter it. The first Uncharted they simply ignored. The press did not attack it, they pretended it didn't exist. But with Heavenly Sword they played dual cards. It is linear card and of course it's short card. They were doubly mad because it was a former Xbox exclusive that MS decided to drop and Sony picked it up.
It's criminal how many people missed out on Heavenly Sword, and how much hate it got. That game is great front to back. I had no idea it was going to be an Xbox game first.
The Order: 1886 is a really good game "in my opinion" I will continue to defend it when it's brought up in conversation. [email protected] crafted a game that was "VERY CINEMATIC" 3rd person action adventure game, as they said before release, that was the kind of game they were aiming to create. It had issues, such as towards the end of the game, multiple chapters are cutscenes, which was a mistake, and missed opportunity. The werewolf fights were poor, and not as exciting as the developers made them sound. And I would've preferred a combat system similar to TLoU. Oh, can't forget that awful Stealth section. But a sequel could fix those issues. Overall, while it has its issues, more than some other games, it was still a thoroughly enjoyable gaming experience! I hope we'll hear an announcement for a sequel in the near future...
It's a marmite game.... some love it, some hate it :)
Nah marmite is very polarizing. This game is middling. Few love it. Some hate it. Most are meh on it. There's no middle ground with marmite.
It was a solid first entry for a new IP, nothing amazing, but decent. Plenty of room for improvement of course, but I wouldn't call it bad.
I generally enjoyed this game from start to finish but I got it on a sale for $20 so I wasn't that upset but if you payed $60 I can understand your beef with it.
I enjoyed the game and felt the complaints about the game length are a little unfair. I've played so many games that are just fluffed up way too much with unnecessary quests. I felt that the order kept the quest going and flowed nicely.
I agree. It did flow nicely! Aside from multiple chapters being cutscenes towards the end of the game, I never once felt like I wasn't given enough gameplay.
By "Unfairly Hated" you mean "Incredibly short, linear, overly-cinematic, self-indulgent tripe that wanted to be a movie but fancied charging $60 for the privilege"?
OK,so it wasn't great but it was good enough in my opinion to give it an 8/10. It would make a heck of a sequel if it's done right.
it was boring asf. didn't even bother to click this apologist blog
I don't even remember what this "game" was about. Definitely was a product of over-hype, smh.