• The Order 1886: Only 5.5 hours worth of gameplay
    318 replies, posted
Wow the combat in this game looks like absolute garbage, killing people doesn't even look or sound slightly satisfying I guess that's what happens when you focus on nothing other than making your game CINEMATIC, then again Max Payne 3 did that a million times better with no letterboxing, crazy good combat and you can actually skip cutscenes Concept might be interesting but that won't save your game from being boring to play
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;47152082]Collectables are a terrible way of padding out a game. HL2 didn't have collectables. It takes a good 8 hours to rush through, 13 hours on average if you aren't rushing.[/QUOTE] Half Life 2 pads fucking levels in, the entire car sequence could be thrown out for the amount of effort spent on it.
5 and a half hours is perfectly acceptable - if the game costs $15 on release.
two things nobody seems to be asking: what difficulty did he play on? You're all mocking how dumb-as-bricks the AI seems to be, but from what hits the dude was taking, he wasn't really feeling any damage. I've listened to people bitch and moan about various halo games' campaigns being piss-easy and beating it in 4 or 5 hours, spoke a lot to the fact they put it on easy and walked to the end And, has anyone confirmed you can't skip cutscenes [i]after beating the game/individual levels?[/i] Because Ive seen that a handful of times
To be fair, I just re-completed Half-Life 2 on hard mode in about 6 hours.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;47151982]I'd be less concerned with how short the game can be and more concerned with how shitty the enemy AI is. I haven't seen baddies this dumb since GoldenEye. Just check this shit out. Jump to 9:50 if you're up for cringing. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eepghS5td8E&feature=youtu.be&t=9m50s[/media][/QUOTE] Just based on that footage, seems like a pretty forgettable title if you take out the Fantasy Victorian aesthetics. Doesn't even seem to "use it's setting as a character" in the way that the Bioshocks did it for example, tho I'm hesitant to turn that into a full judgment just based on the second part of an LP. Then again, connecting the player to world and characters is most important early on, so unless everything gets dramatically better halfway through, I don't think I'll change my mind.
[QUOTE=Greetings;47151920]Exactly. Outside of RPGs, games were usually never long anyway outside of a few special cases like Deus Ex. That said, the value all comes down to if it's fun enough to replay or not.[/QUOTE] Does it though ? I've always seen replay value as a bonus and not an actual criteria. Some games are near impossible to replay because the twist/novelty only works once, while others are designed around multiple playthroughs.
I won't buy it on principle of it being 30fps. So sorry that I get slightly motion sick from gaming at sub-60 fps. If you're going to make your game objectively worse, at least be honest about why you're doing it. No it isn't more "cinematic", you're just bad at optimization.
[QUOTE=dai;47152262]two things nobody seems to be asking: what difficulty did he play on? You're all mocking how dumb-as-bricks the AI seems to be, but from what hits the dude was taking, he wasn't really feeling any damage. I've listened to people bitch and moan about various halo games' campaigns being piss-easy and beating it in 4 or 5 hours, spoke a lot to the fact they put it on easy and walked to the end And, has anyone confirmed you can't skip cutscenes [i]after beating the game/individual levels?[/i] Because Ive seen that a handful of times[/QUOTE] Played a final version of the game for a work event about two weeks ago and he was playing on easy from what I could tell. The few levels we played/saw were on the medium/normal setting and they AI was not nearly as dumb as they appear to be in the uploader's playthrough. We played the first hour and half, and some demo that we were suppose to play at the event which I think it half way into the game. It was some blimp level. The game was pretty fun though, except for some dumb stealth QTEs.
I knew this game was going to be bad the moment it was announced. Never understood the hype. It looks very underwhelming.
[QUOTE=redBadger;47152386]I knew this game was going to be bad the moment it was announced. Never understood the hype. It looks very underwhelming.[/QUOTE] I thought the same thing until playing the demo and trying out the final build.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47151799]No, 9 to 15 should what it would be with fluff. This whole idea that somehow singleplayer games need to be 9 hours long on just rushing alone is insane and ya'll have obviously forgotten how much terrain and shit repeated. [B]Actually, hell, most singleplayer games that ya'll pine for that weren't open world were 9 hours or less.[/B][/QUOTE] This is exactly it. Even the older games that were coming out before the industry apparently become awful were about the same length. Go back and check out Crash Bandicoot or Spyro and play them now, as adults. You can easily blast through them in a few hours, and the only thing that extends that time at all is collectibles and time-trials and whatnot. The price of games is obviously going to increase as production costs and the size of teams increases (and as the economy inflates) and I'm pretty sure that the price of a new release 15 years ago (about $80NZD if I remember correctly) hasn't increased to an unfair amount since then. There seems to be pessimism that we're past the golden age of gaming and we've fallen into a corporate butthole, and I feel like that just doesn't hold up.
[QUOTE=Makol;47152407]I thought the same thing until playing the demo and trying out the final build.[/QUOTE] What changed your mind specifically?
[QUOTE=redBadger;47152386]I knew this game was going to be bad the moment it was announced. Never understood the hype. It looks very underwhelming.[/QUOTE] if what makol guessed about the difficulty is true, this post is a major reason some developers would be justified in putting up embargos (regardless of other problems they may have). One twit walks through the game on easy just to be the first to post it all up to youtube and suddenly everybody thinks the game is objectively short and the AI is N64 levels of dumb
[QUOTE=Dracon;47151572]it took me about the same amount of time to beat Metal Gear Rising and it was well worth it.[/QUOTE] yeah but metal gear rising actually has unique gameplay (coming from someone that absolutely hates that game). the order is a very run of the mill corridor shooter with some interesting aesthetics.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;47151982]I'd be less concerned with how short the game can be and more concerned with how shitty the enemy AI is. I haven't seen baddies this dumb since GoldenEye. Just check this shit out. Jump to 9:50 if you're up for cringing.[/QUOTE] I'm not in a rush to defend order 1886, but do you remember that Wolf:TNO leaked video that showed nazis literally standing still and swinging their batons? The only way we'll find out if this game is good or not is to see its release
The intro of the game is like a grunting simulator, it's even worse than Tomb Raider. Jesus. If you literally skip to any part you'll guaranteeded to hear heavy breathing and grunting.
[QUOTE=dai;47152670]if what makol guessed about the difficulty is true, this post is a major reason some developers would be justified in putting up embargos (regardless of other problems they may have). One twit walks through the game on easy just to be the first to post it all up to youtube and suddenly everybody thinks the game is objectively short and the AI is N64 levels of dumb[/QUOTE] I don't think gameplay/review/etc embargos can be justified in anyway. In all honestly however, I do feel that people should be calling out the person who made the videos for not disclosing any information about the kind of run they did. I think it's important for people who make these gameplay videos, to tell the audience what kind of run it is (difficulty setting, rushing, 100%, etc). It's not fair that the developers get the heat because some idiot rushed through the entire game so they can upload it on youtube.
[QUOTE=Dracon;47151572]it took me about the same amount of time to beat Metal Gear Rising and it was well worth it.[/QUOTE] shitloads of replayability and a small amount of cutscenes and time wasting. The Order has a lot of cutscenes and a lot of just not doing shit and wasting time in set pieces. MGR length works because you generally do multiple playthroughs if you enjoyed the first and its just the right length for that. Its also a fucking amazing game thats the most important thing. Also the FUCKLOAD of VR missions, and the DLCs PC players got for free, which added even more amazing and different gameplay. The Order looks pretty, its a TPS, and very cutscene heavy which arent skippable and doesnt seem to have any real replayability.
[QUOTE=Datsun;47152765]I don't think gameplay/review/etc embargos can be justified in anyway. In all honestly however, I do feel that people should be calling out the person who made the videos for not disclosing any information about the kind of run they did. I think it's important for people who make these gameplay videos, to tell the audience what kind of run it is (difficulty setting, rushing, 100%, etc). It's not fair that the developers get the heat because some idiot rushed through the entire game so they can upload it on youtube.[/QUOTE] The embargos exist so that press outlets don't rush their reviews. On release date there's lots of people looking for reviews, so if you're the first one with a review out by a significant margin, you'll probably get the majority of the clicks unless you have a really big and patient established userbase.
spoilers [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxmXx2M1oVI[/url]
[QUOTE=Samiam22;47152723]I'm not in a rush to defend order 1886, but do you remember that Wolf:TNO leaked video that showed nazis literally standing still and swinging their batons? The only way we'll find out if this game is good or not is to see its release[/QUOTE] or watch the entire 5 hour playthrough on youtube right now and decide for yourself. We dont need its release when its something like this, we have everything in that playthrough, it wont magically change because you now get the hold the controller and see the same shit you already could see.
Its not about length, its how you use it.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;47152669]What changed your mind specifically?[/QUOTE] Mostly the set pieces and shooting being pretty enjoyable, some of the gun are really fun to use. I thought it was going to be pretty clunky and just eye candy. Only thing I didn't like was the amount of QTEs and the sometimes unresponsive cover system, for example I wanted to duck behind a bookcase but instead the character took cover on the wall next to it. But the issue with the cover system only came up twice. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;47152670]if what makol guessed about the difficulty is true, this post is a major reason some developers would be justified in putting up embargos (regardless of other problems they may have). One twit walks through the game on easy just to be the first to post it all up to youtube and suddenly everybody thinks the game is objectively short and the AI is N64 levels of dumb[/QUOTE] I'm assuming he's on easy because I don't remember the AI being that dumb, and I feel like the guy rushed through the game so he could have the first complete playthrough youtube for the views. The demo was locked to medium difficulty and when we played the final version we chose medium so we wouldn't breeze through the game during the limited time we had.
Black bars and 30 fps? Glad I didn't pre-order this one. I'm already playing on a wide screen TV, I don't need you to make it "more cinematic" by making it harder for me to see anything and removing my view. And as for 30fps? I thought we've been through this already. 30 FPS is unacceptable.
[QUOTE=Datsun;47152765]I don't think gameplay/review/etc embargos can be justified in anyway. In all honestly however, I do feel that people should be calling out the person who made the videos for not disclosing any information about the kind of run they did. I think it's important for people who make these gameplay videos, to tell the audience what kind of run it is (difficulty setting, rushing, 100%, etc). It's not fair that the developers get the heat because some idiot rushed through the entire game so they can upload it on youtube.[/QUOTE] They way I meant 'justified', is it's a legitimately concerning thing to happen that could fucking destroy sales for no actual "the devs did something wrong" reason, rather simply because someone wanted a quick buck from ad revenue and threw them under the bus with disingenuine reporting/some dipshitted attempt at a playthrough [editline]e[/editline] as opposed to "durr game devs are evil moneygrubbers and putting up the embargo because they know their game is bad" and all that review copies shouldn't be embargoed, no, but at the same time they should make sure they're getting to people who'd put out solid reviews, not play a minimum-completion speedrun on easy mode and upload the whole thing to youtube
but fuck if the setting isn't beautiful
[QUOTE=WebMD;47152966]but fuck if the setting isn't beautiful[/QUOTE] only positive part of the game is the graphics. the rest looks like a worst version of ryse with third person shooter mechanics
It's not the length of the game that's bothering me, a 2 hour game of gameplay perfection is well worth any money, it's the gameplay that's concerning.
I'm watching the YouTube gameplay footage. I swear its 2 minutes of shooting followed by 10 to 15 minutes of cinematics. What a waste of a video game. Should have just made it a movie.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.