The Order: 1886

gonna wait for a bunch of reviews before buying this... but if Sony release it at their usual (cheaper than US) price for my country, i may get it day-one :p
 
L. Scofield said:
In terms of criticism, I'd go for the lack of replayability argument. Seems too scripted and lacking in diversity in options in how to tackle encounters. Plus the human enemies don't seem particularly interesting and all we've seen from the monsters are scripted scenes.
Click to expand...

Actually there was a very short section of one of the more recent trailers where the player was shooting the Lycan-halfbreed under standard TPS gameplay conditions. I believe it was the same scene from the E3 demo, but played out diferently.

From what they've shown so far though, I'm almost certain they've been pretty deliberate about only showing limited gameplay sections fighting mostly human enemies.

I mean the game is about an Order of knights formed for the sole purpose of fighting the half-breed monster things. If RAD then went and made a game where for the majority of the game you fight crappy uninteresting human enemies they must be literally clueless!

I'd like to think based on their track record that I have a bit more faith in them than that.
 
Laa-Yosh said:
What exactly do we know about characterisations? I've tried to watch at least all the material linked in this thread but everything was way too short to learn about the characters and their relationships. Well maybe that they're not big ugly space marines ;)
Click to expand...

Dude, they grow moustaches and beards, ladies make buns out of them hair, and they are the "Knights of the Order" which fights werewolfs through thousands of years ! What more can you ask for :runaway: !

On a serous note, they have shown quite some character interactions in quite some footages (thats why people keep saying its all cutscenes ;)). The latest trailer showed our hero renegading against the Order probably. Also, Tesla and Edison being rumoured in there, I think thier characters are pretty interesting to begin with anyway. Not to mention the amazing amazing recreation of Victorian London which I believe is the biggest Character in there.

My only fear si the game taking itself too seriously and goofing up. Otherwise, I see a unique solid premise, solid cast, amazing atmosphere with a heavy/slow shooting gameplay for that slight touch of authenticity. The recipe seems perfect, hope they didn't undercook it or burn it.
 
Prophecy2k said:
Actually there was a very short section of one of the more recent trailers where the player was shooting the Lycan-halfbreed under standard TPS gameplay conditions. I believe it was the same scene from the E3 demo, but played out diferently.

From what they've shown so far though, I'm almost certain they've been pretty deliberate about only showing limited gameplay sections fighting mostly human enemies.

I mean the game is about an Order of knights formed for the sole purpose of fighting the half-breed monster things. If RAD then went and made a game where for the majority of the game you fight crappy uninteresting human enemies they must be literally clueless!

I'd like to think based on their track record that I have a bit more faith in them than that.
Click to expand...
Yeah but at the same time I don't think it's a very good sign that they hide those monsters. It's fine to leave surprises for when the consumers actually play the game but the fact that we've seen so little of them suggests to me that they're going to be a one trick pony. At the same time, if the human enemies are an important part of the game you'd think they'd make them more interesting and fun to engage.
 
I see nothing that suggest the monsters are one trick pony, quite the opposite they seem to be a central part of the story and I applaud them for avoiding spoiling their own game. We know the first part of the game the monsters are invincible. There's a secrecy about when, and how we'll be able to kill them. Kind of expecting this to be the second act climax?

Anyway, we know very little of the story. So far I'm rooting for the monsters to win and kill everyone. :devilish:
 
Sony show much less of 1rst party game than last gen. Very often on PS3 they spoiled half of a game but it was needed to sell the console.
 
chris1515 said:
Sony show much less of 1rst party game than last gen. Very often on PS3 they spoiled half of a game but it was needed to sell the console.
Click to expand...
Publishers and developers can't really win. If you show little then people think you're hiding things or that the story or gameplay is shallow, if you show too much you risk spoiling it for those who buy it.
 
Arwin said:
The only true warning sign for me remains the relation between review deadlines and the actual releasedate.
Click to expand...
True and the embargo data is the 18th, two days ahead of the release. Of course it depends when review copies go out - Dying Light reviews copies went it very late so most reviews trailed the release.

I'd be astonished if Sony (as publisher) were to do this, though.
 
L. Scofield said:
Yeah but at the same time I don't think it's a very good sign that they hide those monsters. It's fine to leave surprises for when the consumers actually play the game but the fact that we've seen so little of them suggests to me that they're going to be a one trick pony. At the same time, if the human enemies are an important part of the game you'd think they'd make them more interesting and fun to engage.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between something "looking" not fun to play, and something actually not being fun to play. For me, I'd rather reserve judgement until I've got the disc in my PS4 and the controller in my hand. Not sure how you can make a criticism about how any game plays based solely on short 2-3 mins videos...

I thought Knack looked vapid and dull to play, but I bought the game and had an absolute blast with it. A surprising amount of stretegy was required to the gameplay, despite the simple mechanics.

Tl;DR - don't be too hasty to judge a book by its cover.
 
Prophecy2k said:
There's a difference between something "looking" not fun to play, and something actually not being fun to play. For me, I'd rather reserve judgement until I've got the disc in my PS4 and the controller in my hand.
Click to expand...
That's all very well if can afford to spend $60+ on a rubbish game that's no fun. For many gamers, knowing ahead of purchasing whether a game is fun or not is very important so they don't waste money/time on it. But then that's what reviews are for. Nothing wrong with having a sense from PR material as long as one doesn't stick to that after reviews say otherwise.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
That's all very well if can afford to spend $60+ on a rubbish game that's no fun. For many gamers, knowing ahead of purchasing whether a game is fun or not is very important so they don't waste money/time on it. But then that's what reviews are for. Nothing wrong with having a sense from PR material as long as one doesn't stick to that after reviews say otherwise.
Click to expand...

The problem is that these days even reviews aren't all that helpful in actually informing gamers about how fun or not a game actually plays.

If the game hasn't been hyped up the wazoo by the press and the publisher's monolithic marketing machine, then I won't expect a fair representation among most of the gaming press' published reviews (and I'd be even more suspicious of the game if it had).

Most gamers nowadays would be better informed by watching Youtubers or by playing a physical demo fo the game, than most Gaming Site's published reviews.

I've a long list of games from last gen that were dogpiled by reviewers, and yet I played and enjoyed them immensely.

Fundamentally, I think it's a matter of expection. Reviewers seem to tend towards extremes. Either a game is "OMGWTFBBQ GOTY", or it's utter shit that's not worth your time. Whereas, as a gamer I'm not looking for every game to be the absolute pinnacle of gaming nirvana. I'm fine with some games being flawed but enjoyable romps, whilst others being excellent, whilst others being not worth £40-50 but easily a fun distraction at a lower price. However, this is not the kind of guidance we get from review sites. I mean, just read Eurogamer reviews! I can't even get through more than a couple of paragraphs before I give up reading their pompous self-indulgent drivel, that doesn't in anyway help me to better decide whether I would find a game fun or entertaining or not.
 
chris1515 said:
I preorder The Order 1886. If the game is not very good. I will at least be impressed by the game and maybe play a good story.

After Drive Club reviews I only have confidence to player "review" from forum like B3D.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. Since Driveclub is awesome, even without the the online components. With those fixed it's just icing on a seriously addictive cake :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
I gave up on the Resident Evil series...
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
3K
Zombietoid
Z
Z
Its not just me, games used to be better
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
4K
Seanspeed
S
Cyan
Screenbound (PC). Jumping in 2D and 3D at the same time. Really interesting concept.
Replies
0
Views
412
Cyan
Cyan
S
PC cooling
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Scott_Arm
S
G
Combat Champions
Replies
0
Views
446
GhostofWar
G
Back
Top