Support NeoGAF

[EatinOlives]

Ready At Dawn wanted people to treat The Order 1886 as a cinematic experience and the Redlettermedia guys did just that.

And now people are mad.

"Cinematic" in the video game sense of the world is essentially "flashy, barely interactive scriptfest". Whether it's just as a sequence of a game or the entire thing, there's an inverse relationship between how "cinematic" the developers intend a sequence/game to be and how interactive it is. "Story driven" also tends to mean "lots of cutscenes/dialog". I can count in one hand the amount of games I've ever played that have a story that would actually be a genuinely good story even if compared against some literature/film/TV shows with great writing.

So basically, "cinematic" and "story driven" are just very superficial presentation attributes given to games more often than not.

 

[jett]

There is a reason why the thread got locked, those types of posts were one of them.

GG type arguements were flowing around the last third of it.

I don't even understand that.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Not the medium of video games. The medium of a video review, where you are seeing a considerable amount of footage of the game's graphics.

Like seriously, are there people who need an authority figure to tell you what you're seeing is pretty? It's the most obvious thing about the game.

I guess that makes sense but is that really the reason it was left out of the review? Is that a normal thing for video reviews, to leave out any discussion of the games graphics? If a game has graphical issues, you wan to know about it right?
Does it have a smooth framerate? Is there any tearing? If it does have issues, I would like to know. I would also like to know if it has no issues. I just think a games visual presentation and atmosphere should be mentioned in any sort of review, video review or not.

Edit: out of curiosity, could you point me to a video review of a graphically impressive game that has no mention of the games graphics?

 

[Crud]

I guess that makes sense but is that really the reason it was left out of the review? Is that a normal thing for video reviews, to leave out any discussion of the games graphics? If a game has graphical issues, you wan to know about it right?
Does it have a smooth framerate? Is there any tearing? If it does have issues, I would like to know. I would also like to know if it has no issues. I just think a games visual presentation and atmosphere should be mentioned in any sort of review, video review or not.

Edit: out of curiosity, could you point me to a video review of a graphically impressive game that has no mention of the games graphics?

My god I'm sure they thought the game looked good at some point. Still does not matter in the long run.

 

[Ayt]

It appears we are at the "they didn't review the game properly" portion of the program.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Man, by the end of that video I felt as angry as they did. What a piece of shit this game sounds like.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

My god I'm sure they thought the game looked good at some point. Still does not matter in the long run.

For them? No. Anyway, I just found it odd they never talked about the visuals which were a feat IMO. Not a big deal.

 

[DaMan121]

oh myyy goooood I don't think two people could be more annoying.

I'm so out once they start talking about auto crouching and run speeds, two things some of the best TPS did last gen. At that point you're just shitting on the game just to shit on it.

Which games?

 

[inky]

For them? No. Anyway, I just found it odd they never talked about the visuals which were a feat IMO. Not a big deal.

They cut the graphics discussion from the video (and game length discussion as well) because they were "non issues" (straight quote from them). Which simply means they would've mentioned them if they got in the way. I'm not sure they care if they are a feat or not, but they did call them "great" and "fantastic" several times on stream. There's probably more technically/visually minded reviewers out there who do care.

 

[Crud]

For them? No. Anyway, I just found it odd they never talked about the visuals which were a feat IMO. Not a big deal.

What else is there to talk about the visuals? Everyone with eyes knows they are some of the best of the best. If they said that would it of made the video less harsh to you?

 

[LookAtMeGo]

What else is there to talk about the visuals? Everyone with eyes knows they are some of the best of the best. If they said that would it of made the video less harsh to you?

Less harsh? No. More fair? Yes. FTR I agree with every single one of their criticisms.

 

[Crud]

Less harsh? No. More fair? Yes. FTR I agree with every single one of their criticisms.

Understood. I'll need to watch it again one more time.

 

[Acerac]

i don't expect less from two hack frauds

 

[Messofanego]

Gameplay comes first, no doubt. But to act like they are not important enough to mention in a review of a game when they are potentially the greatest of all time is ludicrous.

Umm if you don't want to mention the graphics, you don't have to. It's not ludicrous. We're not back in old review times where there are specific sections like gameplay/story/graphics/sound/fun etc that need to be talked about. I don't know why some people get dictatorial with reviews. You might call it incomplete but it's definitely not ludicrous.

 

[Messofanego]

oh myyy goooood I don't think two people could be more annoying.

I'm so out once they start talking about auto crouching and run speeds, two things some of the best TPS did last gen. At that point you're just shitting on the game just to shit on it.

Examples? I don't know what TPSs you're referring to that make you auto-crouch and dictate your run speeds throughout the game. The only example I can come up with is Assassin's Creed contextual controls that only allowed you to crouch when near a bush or when you're meant to be stealthy, before Unity added a crouch button. But that's not a TPS.

 

[Odrion]

Edit: out of curiosity, could you point me to a video review of a graphically impressive game that has no mention of the games graphics?

Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG0zJ89Fv8c

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

Man, by the end of that video I felt as angry as they did. What a piece of shit this game sounds like.

It definitely has some severe issues. I wouldn't call it a piece of shit, but I ABSOLUTELY am mind boggled as to some of the design decisions in this game.

Its like they made a list of tired and outmoded game mechanics and tried to include as many as they could.

Instal-fail stealth sequences, generic 3rd person human combat, QTEs, emphasis on cinematics over gameplay.

I still feel it is a decent game, somehow in spite of this, but it could've been great if they had designed the game like the one they promised in the reveal trailer.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Umm if you don't want to mention the graphics, you don't have to. It's not ludicrous. We're not back in old review times where there are specific sections like gameplay/story/graphics/sound/fun etc that need to be talked about. I don't know why some people get dictatorial with reviews. You might call it incomplete but it's definitely not ludicrous.

I said to act like graphics are not important when reviewing a game that has potentially the best graphics ever is ludicrous. I think thats a fair statement. I'm not dictating anything.

Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG0zJ89Fv8c

LOL touché.

 

[ProvenDeadly]

Why the fuck would a review video in which they are breaking down a video game in which they show video clips of said game need to explain that the game is pretty? They are explaining things that are not obvious at first that people who have played the game will know, such as

1. The story is poorly written

2. The gunplay is sub par.


Things like this are not easily apparent. But oh I forgot they didn't mention that the game looks good how dare they not tell you the damn obvious.

 

[SkyOdin]

A while now? It's not even a month old. I often check Youtube for video reviews when I'm curious about a game, no matter how old it is. I'd be annoyed to watch one that spoiled the game for me.

Since when was it ok to spoil a game in a review? Would it also be ok to spoil if they loved it?

To be frank, you can't fully and accurately critique something without getting into the gritty details. You can't have a meaningful discussion about a game's plot without actually talking about what happens in the game. It isn't possible to have a serious discussion about a game's strengths and weakness without getting neck-deep into spoilers, especially when you are critiquing the story. For example, you can't really have a deep discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Final Fantasy VII's plot if you are dancing around what happens at the end of Disc 1.

In any case, this video was pretty honest at the start that there were going to be spoilers. Any spoiler is fair game if they give you fair warning upfront.

 

[antitrop]

They are explaining things that are not obvious at first that people who have played the game will know, such as

2. The gunplay is sub par.

Sub-par gunplay is not something that I think most people will agree on. It's serviceable, at worst.

Even the reviewers weren't saying the gunplay was bad, they were comparing it to Gears of War. They're saying it does nothing special, not that it's "sub-par". It feels mechanically competent and polished enough to the level that one would expect out of a game of its genre, these days. It just doesn't really do more than that.

Encounter design is sub-par, sometimes bad, but not the actual mechanics.

 

[TDLink]

I said to act like graphics are not important when reviewing a game that has potentially the best graphics ever is ludicrous. I think thats a fair statement. I'm not dictating anything.

This is a text book example of why graphics don't make up for the rest of the game being bad. It could look like the best thing ever but all that does is make it a fancy tech demo. What is there worthwhile about it as a game? If graphics are the only real positive/element that can be said to be above "mediocre", there's a problem.

I really don't get how anyone puts graphics above all else to such a degree that they can't see that they don't make up for the rest. Sometimes I really think people just buy games to stare at how pretty they are rather than actually enjoy them.

 

[ProvenDeadly]

Sub-par gunplay is not something that I think most people will agree on. It's serviceable, at worst.

Even the reviewers weren't saying the gunplay was bad, they were comparing it to Gears of War. They're saying it does nothing special, not that it's "sub-par". It feels mechanically competent and polished enough to the level that one would expect out of a game of its genre, these days. It just doesn't really do more than that.

Encounter design is sub-par, sometimes bad, but not the actual mechanics.

You are correct I was just trying to explain what the reviewers were attempting to explain, mixed mechanics up.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

This is a text book example of why graphics don't make up for the rest of the game being bad. It could look like the best thing ever but all that does is make it a fancy tech demo. What is there worthwhile about it as a game? If graphics are the only real positive/element that can be said to be above "mediocre", there's a problem.

I really don't get how anyone puts graphics above all else to such a degree that they can't see that they don't make up for the rest. Sometimes I really think people just buy games to stare at how pretty they are rather than actually enjoy them.

I don't think it makes up for anything but if you were to hand me this same game with dated, non impressive graphics, I would have enjoyed it less.
Looking at pretty graphics is part of the enjoyment. Whats the problem with liking good graphics?

 

[cilonen]

Also, didn't MGS3 almost end with a similar cut to black - gunshot?

MGS 3, in one of the best story driven moments in gaming, seamlessly went from a cutscene into handing the player control back and making the player pull the trigger at the critical moment.

First time through it took a moment of realisation that it was expecting me to make the call and do it. It was absolutely fantastically done, and far from just 'fade to black... Gunshot'.

 

[TDLink]

I don't think it makes up for anything but if you were to hand me this same game with dated, non impressive graphics, I would have enjoyed it less.
Looking at pretty graphics is part of the enjoyment. Whats the problem with liking good graphics?

Sure it can be part of the enjoyment, but when it's all of the enjoyment there's an issue. Why would you pay $60 just to look at the pretty graphics? You can get the same thing from youtube videos or streams if you really want to look at that specific game's graphics.

 

[c0de]

If all a game brings to the table is its visuals then it may as well be a tech-demo.

Perhaps we see rad at a demo competition this year. 64k entry or something like that.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Sure it can be part of the enjoyment, but when it's all of the enjoyment there's an issue. Why would you pay $60 just to look at the pretty graphics? You can get the same thing from youtube videos or streams if you really want to look at that specific game's graphics.

I also don't think the graphics are all this game has going for it. Its definitely is strongest attribute and IMO is the one thing that brings the game from mediocre to o.k. I wouldn't recommend spending $70 (canada) on this game to anyone. My whole issue here is that when a game reaches this level of graphical prowess and its stable, it's worth a bit of praise in a review of the game. Its not a big deal, just a gripe I had with the review, it doesnt magically make the other problems with the game go away. Which I think this review did a great job covering.

 

[thunder_snail]

Sure it can be part of the enjoyment, but when it's all of the enjoyment there's an issue. Why would you pay $60 just to look at the pretty graphics? You can get the same thing from youtube videos or streams if you really want to look at that specific game's graphics.

It's not only about the graphics. Actually being able to move around the environment and interact with what's there is what makes it special, and so god damned amazing. There are things watching stream can't convey. It's a shame the rest of the game is just so bad.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I am about to play Order 1886 soon (just waiting for my copy to arrive) and let me tell you, things I read here (and many places elsewhere) really don't inspire confidence, lol.

Well, at the very least if I happen to dislike it I can throw the "but have you played it?" questions back at the defenders whenever I comment on it, lol.

 

[Messofanego]

I am about to play Order 1886 soon (just waiting for my copy to arrive) and let me tell you, things I read here (and many places elsewhere) really don't inspire confidence, lol.

Well, at the very least if I happen to dislike it I can throw the "but have you played it?" questions back at the defenders whenever I comment on it, lol.

How much did you pay for it?

 

[Laughing Banana]

How much did you pay for it?

Hmm if I were to translate my currency to dollar it's about 40 bucks.

There's a lot of people selling second-hand copy for it not long after it was launched, as expected.

 

[Messofanego]

Hmm if I were to translate my currency to dollar it's about 40 bucks.

There's a lot of people selling second-hand copy for it not long after it was launched, as expected.

That's pretty expensive considering where you're from. Indonesia, right? Isn't it cheaper as used?

 

[wildfire]

It's been awhile since I've seen someone burn a game in effigy. I hope Ready at Dawn team doesn't take this personally.

All these Order defenders who can't even watch a video, the one thing you'd think they would be able to handle.

Ice cold

 

[rpmurphy]

Funny video. Dracula controlling werewolves... that sounds awfully like it was pulled from some old Dracula-slash-Wolf-Man movie(s). lol

Maybe what they should have done instead is made this as an Abbott and Costello styled comedy adventure. Feel free to take this idea for the sequel, devs.

 

[Laughing Banana]

That's pretty expensive considering where you're from. Indonesia, right? Isn't it cheaper as used?

Yeap, it cost around 65-67-ish dollar new.

I *almost* bought it at that price but then the avalanche of bad press assaulted this game, made me think twice, hahaha.

Well, maybe even 40-ish bucks is still too high for some people, but eh, we'll see.

 

[Lafazar]

I can't decide whether I should laugh or cry when reading this thread. On the one hand it's frequently hilarious, on the other this shows what a deeply immature bunch many gamers still are which I feel is actually deeply problematic.

Some people here really really need to stop making their purchases a core part of their identity and then feel deeply personally offended whenever there is any criticism of said products.

It would not be such a problem if the perceived offence did not make these people react with such open hatred and hostility towards anyone who dares state their opinion on a freaking videogame.

 

[kyser73]

Funny video. I enjoyed the game enough, looking forward to the proposed photomode to capture some pretties.

If I'm generous about the game it's a super-pretty version of Army of Two - same non-interactive environments, same style of gameplay.

There are some genuinely strange design choices in there and it's pretty obvious that R@D were too embedded in an old design to radically change it.

Hopefully they'll get another crack at the whip and can take some lessons from ND or SSM in their next attempt.

 

[Fitts]

I've never seen one of these videos before. Do they always cut back and forth between the two dudes in rapid succession like that? I can't say I was a fan of the format.

Concerning what they had to say about the game it's about what I expected. From the minute it was announced it was presented as a "cinematic" game so I already knew with near certainty that it wasn't for me. I have no ties to it so I took no exception to their criticisms. Still, I found the burning of the game at the end with matchsticks spelling out "FUCK YOU" to be pretty cringeworthy. Is that a staple of their show or something? If not, I think the only way something like that would make sense is to do it during a DmC review. (that being one of Dante's catch phrases and parodying the whole "2 edgy" tone of the game)

 

[Auto-Reply]

...Still, I found the burning of the game at the end with matchsticks spelling out "FUCK YOU" to be pretty cringeworthy. Is that a staple of their show or something? ...

It is but it's usually reserved for bad movies, seek out Wheel of the Worst if interested, very entertaining imo!

 

[mclem]

Some people here really really need to stop making their purchases a core part of their identity and then feel deeply personally offended whenever there is any criticism of said products.

I think there's a tendency - and I'll admit it's a trap I've fallen into on occasion - that if someone points out flaws in a story that you ignored or didn't spot, you take it as an attack on your intelligence, the idea that you'd have to be foolish to enjoy it.

It helps to step back and try to understand where these criticisms come from and do some self-appraisal. And it's okay to come away from that self-appraisal with "I didn't take it that way, but it's okay that they thought it". It's not okay to go "I am absolutely right, and they are categorically wrong, and this is why". There's various shades of grey in between, of course.

(And, to be fair, that introspection perhaps should go both ways, too)

 

[SmokedMeat]

In any case, this video was pretty honest at the start that there were going to be spoilers. Any spoiler is fair game if they give you fair warning upfront.

Sorry, I didn't catch the spoiler warning in the beginning. As long as they warn people that's perfectly fine.

2. The gunplay is sub par.

Is this is your personal opinion after experiencing the game's gunplay?

 

[Metal B]

MGS 3, in one of the best story driven moments in gaming, seamlessly went from a cutscene into handing the player control back and making the player pull the trigger at the critical moment.

First time through it took a moment of realisation that it was expecting me to make the call and do it. It was absolutely fantastically done, and far from just 'fade to black... Gunshot'.

It wasn't even 'Fade to black -> Gunshot'. It's actually 'Gunshot -> Pause -> slowly fading to black", which also looks more like a basic transition from cut scene to gameplay,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIrJtj6n3ss

 

[PaulloDEC]

I can't decide whether I should laugh or cry when reading this thread. On the one hand it's frequently hilarious, on the other this shows what a deeply immature bunch many gamers still are which I feel is actually deeply problematic.

Some people here really really need to stop making their purchases a core part of their identity and then feel deeply personally offended whenever there is any criticism of said products.

It would not be such a problem if the perceived offence did not make these people react with such open hatred and hostility towards anyone who dares state their opinion on a freaking videogame.

Imagine this, though. Some people like "The Order: 1886". They're fans of the artistry, or the polish, or whatever it is they're fans of. They feel enthusiastic towards the game because they see potential in it perhaps.

Then there's threads like this. Every other thread about the game is already chock full of people who can't wait to put the boot in. Now we've got another thread that exists purely for the sake gathering around another highly negative review so everyone can continue merrily chatting about what a horrible, irredeemable game The Order is. Anyone who disagrees is probably an "apologist" or something.

If you're one of those people who like the game, that's all a massive bummer. It's a part of modern gaming forums of course, but that doesn't make it any less of a bummer. I daresay a lot of us come to forums like Neogaf because we love games, so any time a game is getting the kind of stomping we're seeing with The Order, you're going to find people who aren't having a great time of it.

And really, let's not pretend there isn't plenty of immaturity on both sides.

 

[More_Badass]

"Cinematic" in the video game sense of the world is essentially "flashy, barely interactive scriptfest". Whether it's just as a sequence of a game or the entire thing, there's an inverse relationship between how "cinematic" the developers intend a sequence/game to be and how interactive it is. "Story driven" also tends to mean "lots of cutscenes/dialog". I can count in one hand the amount of games I've ever played that have a story that would actually be a genuinely good story even if compared against some literature/film/TV shows with great writing.

So basically, "cinematic" and "story driven" are just very superficial presentation attributes given to games more often than not.

God of War games are cinematic experiences. Cinematic platformers? Shadow of the Colossus?

Cinematic doesn't mean "like Heavy Rain". Cinematic doesn't mean a game has to lack gameplay or not be a well-made game

 

[Alienous]

God of War games are cinematic experiences. Cinematic platformers? Shadow of the Colossus?

Cinematic doesn't mean "like Heavy Rain". Cinematic doesn't mean a game has to lack gameplay or not be a well-made game

Aye. You can take inspiration from cinema, utilize cinematography and still be a great game. ICO is a good example. Uncharted 2 is also.

Being cinematic doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with being interactive. A game like The Order: 1886 is conceptualised and designed in a way that limits interaction; instead of finding a way to deliver exposition outside of roundtables and cutscenes The Order is designed for exactly that, adheres strictly to those narrative devices, and its interaction suffers for it. Comparatively a game like ICO is designed to be cinematic and in a way that makes it very interactive.

 

[phanphare]

haha, this made me chuckle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG0zJ89Fv8c;t=19m48s

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Examples? I don't know what TPSs you're referring to that make you auto-crouch and dictate your run speeds throughout the game. The only example I can come up with is Assassin's Creed contextual controls that only allowed you to crouch when near a bush or when you're meant to be stealthy, before Unity added a crouch button. But that's not a TPS.

Tomb Raider did both, Uncharted games dictated your run speeds constantly.

 

[Mael]

People asked me what I would think if Metroid Other M wasn't using the Metroid IP and was called something else.
Specifically I remember being asked what I would think about it.

Well now I know :
it would be like the Order.
I wouldn't care and would watch vids on the net dismantling it to all hell chuckling at how bad they screwed the pouch
I'm being unfair to RAD, even without the technical prowess it's mechanically a far better game from what I've seen.

I don't get the outrage though.

 

[mckmas8808]

Saw this earlier today so I'll in my thoughts.

Their breakdown of the story really shows how presentation and storytelling are two very different things. Whenever someone says The Order's story is really good or even competent, I either assume they're mistaken and mean the presentation is fantastic or they're propping up a terrible story for some reason.

Sure, doing something first when it comes to plot, story, or storytelling doesn't matter nearly as much as execution, but the execution of story/storytelling in The Order is bad.

I actually thought the story was good and the execution of the story telling was well done. We disagree hugely on that.