Everyone bashed The Order: 1886 for having long cut-scenes and for being linear. But a very similar title just came out, and we're not seeing the same flak.
Because the majority of the community buys Battlefield for multiplayer, and a single player campaign is just icing on the cake. The order has no cake, just icing. Sure it's delicious but you get sick after a couple of wooden spoonful's.
You eat your cake by a wooden spoon lol. Thats a first. JK. OT: The MP is bad in Hardline btw.
Icing with a wooden spoon. Cake with a shovel.
Yeah and after 6 mediocre hours of a campaign in The Order the is no multiplayer at all. So what would you rather have.
battlefield is a multiplayer game, sorry but if you buy battlefield for single player you must be missing something... I hardly do not recommend to buy it for single player since its childish, unrealistic arcade shooter with unrealistic characters and similar scenes from TV show.. same goes almost for almost all battlefield and COD single player stories.. all fake, all boring, all with unrealistic battles, explosions.. its just stupid.. you have to be a retard or a 9 year old to play these things.. at least in multiplayer battles are hold down by real players who do realistic things... and they can kill you, so no one man army there.. you have to work in team, and that's adds lots of immersion.. I talk about hardcore mode conquest of course!
Screw cake, it's all about the pie.
Did you ever watch Angry Joe's review on Hardline??? Because Hardline's MP is like a 1/10th in scale compared to BF4 FOR THE SAME PRICE!!! So your sad excuse of MP is where its at come back is such a fanboy retort.
So Hardlines MP isnt particurlarly good, we already knew that. You could still sell Hardline if there was no single player because there is a market for the MP portion. Hardline with no singler player is a dead horse, and it would get slaughtered in reviews problably below 6/10 all around. so yeah MP is where it's at, for alot of games.
I thank the Lord above i dont base games i want/should play off a review from a guy on youtube.. Thank you Jesus for common sense and allowing me to think for myself On topic: This is the WORST comparison ever LoL why not we jus Compare The order to skyrim better yet those cutscenes from Gta5 LoL. Not suprised this article came from a site called psxextreme.
you are talking about two separate issues. hardline is getting poor reviews because it's not a very good battlefield game compared to the others. with the order the game is short to begin with so of course the (unskippable) cutscenes are more of an issue because without them the game is even shorter. if they added online multiplayer it would have added more replay value.
This was only my second Battlefield game; the last being BF3. The reason I bought it was the cops and robbers angle with battlefield elements intrigued me. Not to mention EA gives you 24 hours for full refund if you're unsatisfied. I gamed the hell out of it the first day I bought it to make sure I liked it; like five hours of MP and it was enough to make me want to keep the game. Now 25-30 hours in I still really enjoy the game. I love the maps and modes. I've experienced virtually no technical problems as well. I have not played a single minute of the campaign but based on MP I would give it a 90/100. It checks all the boxes for me: gameplay, game modes, consistency, quality, performance, graphics, overall fun and enjoyment. I really like the game but no one is perfect so a 90% grade is very fair. I am getting my moneys worth and I have no desire to go through the campaign yet. This makes me question whether reviewers should approach this types of games differently with three scores: 1. Single player score, 2. Multiplayer score and 3. Overall score *influenced by overall enjoyment of the reviewer when playing the game. This game has Battlefield in the name but never claims to be your typical Battlefield and didn't come out at a time of year you typically get a regular Battlefield. Yet here we are seeing people penalizing the game for essentially not being Battlefield 3 or 4 with a fresh coat of paint. Get past the name and get to the game. You may highly enjoy what you experience. *I own the PC version.
Yeah. I think the answer to this question is obvious. And I had no issue w the Orders cutscenes and story. It was damn good. My problem lie in the filler they called comabt, the simplicity of boss battles and collectibles, and the fact that they didn't even add trophies for replayability. I rented it for 5 days and returned it two days later. It could be great! I don't want them to give up on the IP, but damn. It IS a PS4 tech demo. Thats what it is! They need to play Resistance, Gears, Mass Effect, and The Last of Us (especially).
Who writes this nonsense? Seriously? The clue is in the name of the website I guess but the victim complex is just lame. The Order was cack. Battlefield Hardline is NOT a very similar game ffs. The lengths people go to give their tears some weight.
Preach brother. I feel the exact same way. I platinumed it in about 11 hours. That was two roughly 6 hour long playthroughs. Now what? I traded that poor excuse of a game in on Tuesday for Bloodborne. And even though I've got my ass handed to me at least 30 times it's still a much more fun game.
Because adding a mediocre, done it before a dozen times, generic multiplayer with a few maps is enough to make a game great Funnily enough though, when killzone launched with an excellent, slightly offbeat but different multiplayer, all the reviews focused on the single player (which was admittedly average, but still better tthan the usual cod / battlefield nonsense. Any guesses why?
Maybe, but if you'll read the reviews, many thought the multiplayer wasn't that special either.
"The order has no cake, just icing. Sure it's delicious but you get sick after a couple of wooden spoonful's. " that may be the best analogy of this game I ever read ....
The cake is a lie
* How come nobody is complaining ? Because we aren't Lying Media Click Bait Wannabe Hack Journalists who try to instill fear into ever living human being just to sell their agenda or make ad money. It's like the video game media can't handle when we are happy. It's like they NEED drama. Pathetic.
"I'd just love an explanation for this obvious double standard. But I imagine I won't get one." Its funny that this question is coming from the ones who were bashing The Order 1886 and Sony with worthless clickbait articles. Double standard much. And to answer the question, most likely people will say because it had Multiplayer which was quarter the content of what BF4 had.
Totally different hardline sets and ends the episodes with cut scenes while the order is littered with them everywhere period. why are you fan boys still butt hurt about the order jesus go play bloodborne and move on
"bloodborne is going to get terrible reviews too, journalists are already preparing the excuses because it is a Sony exclusive" - Those same conspiracy nuts, 2 weeks ago
http://www.gameanyone.com/v... 72 minutes of cutscenes according to the video. The Order was more than twice that. The other difference is in replay value. Without the addition of an online mode, The Order doesn't offer much more. Hardline's multiplayer mode adds as many hours to the game as you want.
Also these articles have to understand that The Order being linear and long cut scenes were just a couple of problems in it's long list of problems that a lot of people complained about. And yes, Hardline has it's multiplayer which gives users a choice and gives the game extra legs that The Order never offered it's users but should have.
Which is why grim fandango, order of the colossus, thief 1/2, half life and resident evil were all crappie games
The Order is a story-heavy single player game; it SHOULD have more cutscene than Battlefield. That's called being relative. Similarly, replay value wouldn't come from an online mode, because it's a single player game. Like a movie- and recall that it IS intended to be a cinematic experience, so that applies- replay value is in enjoying its story. Not necessarily immediately, either, though that appears to be the only way that "gamers" judge things these days. Trying to say The Order needs online in order to have replay value is silly. The point is that The Order was criticized for its many and lengthy cutscenes, though this should have been in relation to its genre and story. On the other hand, Hardline has a considerable amount of cutscene, more than your average fps- a genre that doesn't usually need much in the way of cutscenes, particularly when the draw is multiplayer instead of single player- and nobody even cares. Why?
The Last of Us is an excellent example of a story driven single player oriented game. The story is very good and told very well without relying on cutscenes as heavily as the Order did. TLOU didn't "need" a multiplayer component, but the inclusion of one enhanced the replay value of the game. You say no one cares about Hardline's single player component. I guess that is why no one is complaining about having cutscenes. Do you think if the Order had some type of multiplayer element it would have been better received? Apparently people can forgive a lackluster campaign if there is a decent multiplayer mode. What is hard to defend is a lackluster campaign with no additional modes of play.
Well then that's why The Order 1886 got a low critical reception. The game doesn't have much going for it other than some relatively short story-driven single player mode with relatively shallow game mechanics, abundant cutscene, and an easy platinum for the completist type. The game tried to be more of a movie than an actual game. How surprising that gamers didn't judge the game how you wished...
Your continued defense of why this game is lacking is truly baffling, it makes absolutely no sense. You say the replay value is in enjoying the story, but what if there's no joy in the story, not everyone enjoyed that clichéd story as much as you pretend. Especially when that same story left so many holes and plot points wide open for the all to well-known sequel that [email protected] will obviously make. "The point is that The Order was criticized for its many and lengthy cutscenes,",that were drawn out, boring and served no point but to hide the loading of the next scene or to throw in a surprise QTE the gamer's way. Your last paragraph is equally puzzling as you start to make up what is required for a specific genre. Where is this rule written? And nobody even cares? Wow, that strawman! Just a minute ago I read from some on here and also you that you prefer single player more than multiplayer. Could this game be trying to cater to both crowds? Naaaaw, I guess "gamers" only want one or the other.
In May, The Witcher 3 graphics 'downgrade' vs The Order. In June, Galahad didn't become Batman at the ending of the Order and nobody complained? In July, The Order QTE vs GOW
When everyone thinks the game sucks they normally don't play the game. No one plays the game then they won't see the cut-scenes.
Yet, one of the first articles that appeared on N4G about BF Hardline was Cliffy B... http://n4g.com/news/1693701... And he said he enjoyed the first hour but wished it had more doing then watching.
Don't show this to the author of this God awful article. It doesn't fit into his agenda.
No body has expectation to Hard line's singleplayer.....
well one is an exclusive that people bashed to feel better about not having it, the other one they get to play. its typical fanboy behaviour. dont tell me you in the industry and cant put this together yourself.
Don't tell me you really believe that. Do you really think the industry is filled with Microsoft fanboys that unfairly bash Sony games?
it works both ways. you get sony loyalists bashing MS exclusives all the time as well or do you not notice that happening. im not claiming its only sony who gets trashed, MS does as well. or have you not been on this site long enough to notice.
And then the same group of "haters" vanish when a good game like Bloodborne appears. There's the real issue. Why is there almost universal praise for one exclusive but those same critics were all xbox fan boys a month ago.
Can't go a week without seeing seeing a bunch of strawman arguments from fanboys defending The Order by comparing it to a completely different game that actually has less cutscenes and more gameplay depth.
Im just waiting for the next 3rd person shooter that has less than 12 hours of gameplay, and doesnt innovate to see if there is going to be a wave of complaints before that game releases. Gears of war, you better innovate or else.
When you say less than 12 hours, do you mean real 12 hours or 6 hours 12 hours? Gears not only had a co-op mode, it also had Horde mode which was really fun and added value to the game. These are a couple things people have come to expect out of games. The Order could have been a great game if Ready at Dawn would have put in more effort to add value.
actually look it up, the first Gears of War was something like 8-11 hours official .(either 8 or 11 i don't remember which was which because I looked at all of them). meaning slightly shorter than the 12 hours official statement for The Order). AND it did NOT have multiplayer. The subsequent Gears included multiplayer of course. So i guess the question is, when you say 6 hours, are you referring to a speed run through? because other games are not scrutinized such.
@S2Killinit The first Gears of War had Multiplayer. You obviously didnt "look it up".
You can't "speed run" The Order. The cutscenes can't be skipped and the game is extremely linear. You can spend an extra few hours searching for collectibles for trophies. If you aren't trophy hunting, the game is much closer to 6 hours. You are using Gears as a reference. Gears may have been 8-11 hours, but it also had multiplayer, co-op and Horde Mode. I personally finished the campaign solo and the completed the campaign again with a friend. On top of that I spent may hours in Horde mode. The campaign did have cut scenes, but they didn't make up half the time playing the game either. I'm not going to try and convince you that you didn't enjoy The Order. I don't think it should be that difficult to understand why others might be disappointed though.
I really don't care. I mean if they want to throw cutscenes into the game then why not? It adds a direction to the story. What is so wrong with that. Only since MGS4 have people started crying because they made you listen to the story elements of the cutscenes. Anyone want some cheese to go with your wine? A game is a game. Some devs like cutscenes to drive the story in a direction. Don't like it then don't buy it. Just saying its not like you want learn how many seconds of cutscenes are in the game in its launch week these days they will tell you how many trash cans you can knock over in an open world city game on launch day. Useless facts. Who cares. I just enjoy my brand of games. Don't care how they try to spin the story to me. The MP is fun and all as well. Hardline is about the same as BF4 as far as I can tell. Some things are improved and others not so much. Its an attempt to head in the Bad Company direction I believe, but with to many BF4 elements instead of Bad Company's direction. Just doesn't feel the same to me. Maps feel to small. Same as BF4, BF3. I believe its just this gen's Frostbite engine was not designed with all of the elements it needed to impress. Map scale needs to be bigger. Should be more tickets in a match for all the BF games this gen.
Because they're not boring as hell, and tbh they aren't long.
Order was an awful awful game because it wasn't much of a game, time to move on and pick up bloodborne which is a proper game that's actually good. Someone should have pulled the order developers over halfway during production and reminded them that they were making a game not an animated feature.
The complaint in the order was that the long cutscenes are unskippable, sprinkled with QTEs, and sandwiched between boring slow walk sections. They felt like an obstacle between the game and the fun parts of the game...
I like the long cut scenes in Hardline. It's a part of the experience.
Heard you can watch the cutscenes on Netflix if you wanted.
I loved both games personally.
What long cut scenes in Hardline? I was bus playing to notice. Oh and The Order is dope.
I still have yet to play either, although it's also probably fair to assume that these games are held to slightly different standards.
Before I will say I don't have a PS4 but I am very glad its doing so well. I don't have any affiliation or agenda apart from i like gaming. For example I am glad Bloodborne is getting good reviews and hope it sells well. Sooo that said, YES, the cut scenes in Hardline are rubbish and too long (as people like Cliffy B posted), no doubt.... but after early sections they improve and get less frequent. This article conveniently forgets Hardline also has multi-player. Whether it is any good or not is not the point. Its additional content. You cannot decry lack of balance, whilst also picking and choosing your facts. Well you can, but your undermine yourself and your argument by doing so. As for the MS fans guys who posted disinformation about Bloodborne on Amazon, nobody is denying that is pathetic. However, you cant tar an entire set of fans based on the actions of a few idiots. That goes for anyone....MS, PS, PC, Nintendo, whatever. It begs the does everything have to be a conspiracy theory? This emotionally stunted, 13 y/o intellectual level world view that says 'if you aren't with us your against us' is infesting sites like this and drowning out reasonable discourse and interesting gaming discussion by people who love games and replacing it with shouting matches between brand fundamentalists with no sense of humour.
if the order had multiplayer to it wouldn't be so bad. Even if the multiplayer in hardline is bad at least it has it, meaning that it has more replaybilty than the single player only order
So the problem I see with this type of argument is that you can't cherry pick a single issue with a game and ask why game B doesn't get the same criticisms. The problem with The Order which fan boys ignore is how people criticized the game for containing almost all gaming sins. So you have an article about why qte is fine in Shenmue or God of War, but not ok in the Order. Well it could be because the Order needlessly littered the game with them and made them a prominent feature, instead of an occasional thing. And then there's the way the Order hides loading, which I assume is the long walking sections. Batman did it. Gears did it. Other games did it But again, the Order took it to a new level above and beyond what other (better) games have done. When your game is 6 hours long, you simply have to find ways to fill out the time, so why not force the player to take in the scenery while loading? TLoU has long cutscenes. Gears and Uncharted both had hours of cutscenes. All skipable and not built into the gameplay. The Order forces you to watch these long scenes and even throws in a qte so you can't check your phone or take a leak. Other games also have bad boss fights. Other games have cheap enemies. Other games have poor AI. The point is, the Order has all of these issues which is why it scored what it scored and why those scores are justified. Not only does the Order has these issues, the damn game is built on them. How anyone defends this game is beyond all comprehension. I get those that are like, "I like it so whatever", but those in here pretending like it's anything but a mediocre game and defending qte, bad boss fights, insanely short content, unskipable cutscenes, etc are the types of gamers that are responsible for devs like Ready at Dawn or Crytek pumping out these games that are huge steps back in gaming.
People should stop buying bad games.
Because no one bought the game lol
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.