Throwdown Your Questions Ep. 22

Tony Polanco from The Koalition writes:

"Here are all the questions we answer this week:

*What fighting game do you prefer to get this gen?
*What old game would you like to see remastered?
*How can you FAIRLY cover something when ALL of you are so anti-Nintendo and Microsoft, and are Sony and PC fanboys?
*If Microsoft got their way with DRM, what would happen if XBL (which goes down as much as PSN) went down?
*Which of the big three consoles has the best controller scheme?
*If you had to get rid of one of your senses for a million dollars, which would it be?
*Would Andrew Garfield have been a good fit for the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
*Do you think sites like IGN will remove review scores? Will smaller sites stay on Metacritic?

Bonus: We get into a deep discussion about The Order: 1886 and its (supposedly) short game length. This conversation also leads into our thoughts on multiplayer modes in games."

Read Full Story >>
Fonzy3148d ago

That whole selective hearing is a huge problem for many. Stupid arguments start because of that shit. The same thing goes for reading as well. I feel most people miss the point of the story when they read something that they don't agree with. Then they choose to ignore the rest.


The Order: 1886 pushed visuals hard in 2015 - And still looks stunning today

Digital Foundry : Released in February 2015, The Order: 1886 was a stunning PlayStation 4 game at the cutting-edge of rendering technology, with visuals that still hold up today. The game's release pre-dated in-depth Digital Foundry coverage, something we're looking to address with this new video! Ready at Dawn's game never received a sequel and never received a PS4 Pro upgrade, but thanks to developments with exploited, older firmware PS5 consoles, we can now show you the game running locked at 60 frames per second.

Read Full Story >>
VenomUK51d ago

The gameplay was bland and extremely frustrating at times with unnecessary QTE combat at points. But the world and the lore and the characters and the story were fantastic. I’ve always wanted a sequel. I still hope Sony will surprise us one day.

shadowT52d ago

Sony missed the opportunity to acquire Ready at Dawn Studios.

Tacoboto52d ago

But... Sony didn't want Ready at Dawn. Clearly

mkis00751d ago

I'm guessing had 1886 turned out more positively they would have.

RaidenBlack52d ago

And let's not forget,
Ready At Dawn showcased The Order 1886 running on PC at 60fps at SIGGRAPH 2015

isarai52d ago

I still stand by my theory that this game just released at the wrong time. Almost every outlet spent a lot of time in their reviews ragging on the game for not being an online experience, everyone was in the Destiny hype train and at the time they wanted EVERY game to follow suit, bashing any game that didn't. If this were released after everyone realized how much that wasn't future, people would've appreciated it more. I loved it, and I'm always disappointed that we'll never get a sequel

Tacoboto52d ago

That doesn't seem to be true about outlets complaining on the lack of online. The review summaries on Metacritic are very consistent: Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return.

Here's an example of how *little* time IGN spent talking about multiplayer:

"With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it."

It's the final sentence. They don't even take the time to say "online multiplayer"

MrChow66652d ago (Edited 52d ago )

"Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return."
You are right, that's what everbody was saying at the time, never heard anything about it not being online.
I've been thinking about trying this game for years, I may get it now that it's dirt cheap, no big loss if it sucks

MrChow66652d ago

Oh, add to that bad enemy AI, I remember that from the reviews, I saw a video of a wherewolf boss fight with a very weak AI

thorstein52d ago

And there we glowing reviews for shorter games. It was one of the times where hating this game was "cool."

CrimsonWing6952d ago

Can you show me the reviews that rag on it for not having an online experience?

I’m not doubting you or anything. I’m just being lazy.

isarai52d ago

Sorry, not multiplayer, open world is what I meant.

Tacoboto52d ago

That's also fake news, isarai. Again, the game was consistently criticized for what it was (Pretty but extremely short, extremely linear, hand-holding, no replayability), not for what it wasn't (multiplayer/open-world)

isarai52d ago

Nope, every review uses the term "linear" several times as if it's some inherently bad attribute. Not fake news at all. Since then there's veen plenty of short and sweet single player linear games that get lots of praise, again after the reality of everything being open world set it and it wasn't as great as everyone thought. But at the launch of the last gen everyone had open world fever, and especially the first couple years "linear" was a con in many games reviewed

Tacoboto52d ago

That's your own contortion assuming criticism of its extremely linear design is suddenly a call for it to have been open world.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 52d ago
zumlauf1452d ago

You totally made up a claim regarding an overall review consensus that isn't true. And, instead of just ignoring being called out for it, you respond with "oh actually i ment to say OPEN WORLD". Which literally isn't true either. You can't show us one review that bashed the game for "not being open world". And, somehow the other guy is getting downvoted. Over a bullshit liar.

isarai52d ago

Games were being criticized at that time for any game that wasn't open world or online. So yeah I got one mixed for the other, doesn't change my argument one bit that it would've been received better if it released later. People are agreeing because if you were not riding the "online and open world" hype train at that time, it was blatantly obvious there were biases in play for how games were criticized. Now after all that has happened since people want to say "oh wait these games were actually pretty good" cause they know better now

Rude-ro52d ago

The gameplay was very shallow and when one says repetitive, it is by the very definition for some fights. As in, completely identical but different setting.

The game has amazing potential.
The graphics, the lore, characters…
This could most definitely have been all corrected with a sequel and became a franchise hit…
Still would love to see an attempt.

Ie fantastic premise and moments that shine…
But it had its downfalls that deserved the negative marks.

thorstein52d ago

It was the "game to hate" when it launched. And right here, on this site, we saw people posting stories that were outright fabrications about the game. It was weird. The game launched, it was fun, a really cool game but the hate was too much. And so were the lies.

Minute Man 72151d ago

It was just too short....but I loved every minute of it....double dipped and grabbed the ultimate CE

babadivad51d ago

That isn't true. I remember people talking about how incredibly short it was and the somewhat janky gunplay.

KwietStorm_BLM51d ago

First I'm hearing of this. I don't know what multiplayer has to do with anything. The game was just dull. Amazing graphics, great narrative, great lore, boring gameplay sprinkled in pieces between cutscenes, and lackluster AI and controls.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 51d ago
anast52d ago

People cried this game was too short. No people are crying because games are too long.

isarai52d ago

Pretty sure everyone is complaining about bloated games lately but ok

anast52d ago

Thank you for the ok. I needed that.