The Order: 1886 - PS4 Exclusive

myp · **Posted:** Tue Jun 25, 2013 15:11

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/06/ ... exclusive/

Could be good.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Tue Jun 25, 2013 16:39

Yeah.

myp · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:26

Maybe this thread will get going once there's some gameplay...

Dimrill · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:32

Looked like shit on the E3 feeds. Zombie/aleon blasting with a different world skin. Even the developer's line makes it sound shit: "a linear third-person action adventure with shooting mechanics"

myp · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:36

Dimrill wrote:

"a linear third-person action adventure with shooting mechanics"

Sounds like the Last of Us.

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 14:56

SilentElk wrote:

Dimrill wrote:

"a linear third-person action adventure with shooting mechanics"

Sounds like the Last of Us.

I've heard that was really shit.

Should have got Quantum Ninja 2 as their big exclusive.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14415

SilentElk wrote:

Dimrill wrote:

"a linear third-person action adventure with shooting mechanics"

Sounds like the Last of Us.

Sounds like Resi 4 & 5.

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 17:29

Sounds like Doom...but on the Amiga!

kalmar · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 17:41

Sounds like "Hired Guns".

Zardoz · **Posted:** Wed Jun 26, 2013 19:10

Sounds like a computer game or whatevers

throughsilver · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6197

SilentElk wrote:

Dimrill wrote:

"a linear third-person action adventure with shooting mechanics"

Sounds like the Last of Us.

Why can't they just bloody well fix some cars instead of shooting?

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 14:10

I saw a trailer for this in Tesco and it looked pretty whizz!

Runcle · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 14:12

Apparently someone put up a video of the whole game, and with cut scenes the game only lasts for 5 and a half hours. Isn't it meant to be single player only too?

myp · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 14:14

Runcle wrote:

Apparently someone put up a video of the whole game, and with cut scenes the game only lasts for 5 and a half hours. Isn't it meant to be single player only too?

From reports it seems that it's a complete rush-through. Didn't see cut-scenes mentioned.

5 hours of awesome is better than 100 hours of snoredom anyway. I have no opinion on the quality of this game, though.

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

I'm not paying £60 for a game. Its no Virtual Racin' that's for sure.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 15:15

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

I'm not paying £60 for a game that isn't cricket

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Future Warrior wrote:

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

I'm not paying £60 for a game that isn't cricket

I'm beginning to think I may have paid a little bit too much. Especially when Bopara gets both his 50 and 100 off my bowling in the same pro40 game. Two day rage quit and counting.

Grim... · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:42

Future Warrior wrote:

5 hours of awesome is better than 100 hours of snoredom anyway. I have no opinion on the quality of this game, though.

My "annual thing to agree with Myp about" has come early this year.

Short games are actually better for me.

myp · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:47

Grim... wrote:

Short games are actually better for me.

Yes, with the caveat of factoring in the price too. I am more than happy with a short-but-sweet experience, but I wouldn't pay £40-50 for that privilege.

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:05

Future Warrior wrote:

Grim... wrote:

Short games are actually better for me.

Yes, with the caveat of factoring in the price too. I am more than happy with a short-but-sweet experience, but I wouldn't pay £40-50 for that privilege.

I agree. Something big like far cry 4 is worth £40, cod for the campaign maybe £20.

Bamba · **Joined:** 25th Jul, 2010 **Posts:** 11128

Future Warrior wrote:

Grim... wrote:

Short games are actually better for me.

Yes, with the caveat of factoring in the price too. I am more than happy with a short-but-sweet experience, but I wouldn't pay £40-50 for that privilege.

Pretty much this; it's rare for me that a 'full' game doesn't feel like it's overstayed it's welcome by the end which sometimes, unfortunately, sours my memory of a game that I might've really enjoyed for the most part.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14415

Bamba wrote:

Future Warrior wrote:

Grim... wrote:

Short games are actually better for me.

Yes, with the caveat of factoring in the price too. I am more than happy with a short-but-sweet experience, but I wouldn't pay £40-50 for that privilege.

Pretty much this; it's rare for me that a 'full' game doesn't feel like it's overstayed it's welcome by the end which sometimes, unfortunately, sours my memory of a game that I might've really enjoyed for the most part.

Exactly this for Alien: Isolation.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

I don't have a problem with short games at all, even short games that have minimal scope for replayabilty, but this looks utterly dull. It's a Gears of War 'Em up where you are constantly interrupted with cutscenes and QTEs.

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

I don't mind short games. Brothers was just 3 hours and it was one of the best ever.

But this was the game where the producer said that frame rate is not important at all, and that they were aiming for a low FPS to get a "cinematic" feel. This game can just crash and burn for all i care.

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14513

Seems to be mainly mid / poor review scores

IGN 6.5/10 - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/t ... 886-review

Giant Bomb 2/5 - http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/the-or ... /1900-698/

Eurogamer - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015- ... 886-review

Gamespot 5/10 - http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-ord ... 0-6416033/

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2015 15:38

That seems to be a disappointment. Oh well.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

LewieP wrote:

I don't have a problem with short games at all, even short games that have minimal scope for replayabilty, but this looks utterly dull. It's a Gears of War 'Em up where you are constantly interrupted with cutscenes and QTEs.

Yes, this. This game looks dull as fuck, and if it was any more formulaic it would be an actual re-release of something we already played.

I mean -- look at this. A boss fight from chapter four is simply repeated wholesale as the game's final boss fight. Game design doesn't get any more lazy than this.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Shamelessly stolen from comments on Eurogamer:

Quote:

I'll wait until it's The Order: £18.86

Quote:

More like The Rental: 1886

myp · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2015 15:54

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Shamelessly stolen from comments on Eurogamer:

Quote:

I'll wait until it's The Order: £18.86

Quote:

More like The Rental: 1886

It's hilarious in that comment section that people who preordered are annoyed with a poor review, despite being advised not to preorder in a previous Eurogamer article.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22387

zaphod79 wrote:

Seems to be mainly mid / poor review scores

IGN 6.5/10 - http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/t ... 886-review

Giant Bomb 2/5 - http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/the-or ... /1900-698/

Eurogamer - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015- ... 886-review

Gamespot 5/10 - http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-ord ... 0-6416033/

Scores are meaningless!

It does look pretty poo though, I'll get it when it's free on PS+ in 6 months.

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14513

Jim Sterling on it http://www.thejimquisition.com/2015/02/ ... 86-review/

Quote:

I expected to be an outlier on this one and was not looking forward to it (contrary to popular belief, the attention I get when I score a game lower than others is NOT much fun!). Apparently this game should be renamed The Order: Eighteen Eighty Six Out Of Ten though, because now everyone's doing it. I've seen some folks accuse reviewers of "bullying" this corporate product, as if that's what criticism is now. That's weird and kind of creepy. At any rate, I certainly don't think I was mean to the game - quite generous, in fact, despite the final score. The Order is a game with a beautiful premise and a world I want more of. It's just a shame they didn't *do* anything with it, and seem so intensely focused on a sequel that they're merely using this one as a prologue, a primer for something more complete later on

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2015 16:43

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

LewieP wrote:

I don't have a problem with short games at all, even short games that have minimal scope for replayabilty, but this looks utterly dull. It's a Gears of War 'Em up where you are constantly interrupted with cutscenes and QTEs.

Yes, this. This game looks dull as fuck, and if it was any more formulaic it would be an actual re-release of something we already played.

I mean -- look at this. A boss fight from chapter four is simply repeated wholesale as the game's final boss fight. Game design doesn't get any more lazy than this.

Ugh QTEs. Does anyone actually like QTEs?

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

They have a time and a place

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY9NO4GQJRk

They are not a good central mechanic though.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2015 16:44

Lazy developers?

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16624

Sometimes they don't bother me at all. If they're used sparingly enough, like maybe once or twice in a whole game, I think they can make what is essentially a cutscene a little more engaging. I don't remember being pissed off with them in The Last Of Us.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

This is deceptively good.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49244

Hijacking vehicles in Mercenaries 2 worked quite well.

I fucking loved Mercs 2.

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

This is good news i guess. I was fearing that low frame rate could be this medium "loudness wars". And in consoleland, with the expectation of Nintendo, it kind of is.

Bamba · **Joined:** 25th Jul, 2010 **Posts:** 11128

RuySan wrote:

This is good news i guess. I was fearing that low frame rate could be this medium "loudness wars". And in consoleland, with the expectation of Nintendo, it kind of is.

I'm sure it's just me being dim but I don't understand your post here in itself or how it relates to this game being short and crap?

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

See my previous post. The Devs wanted a low framerate for the game to give it a "cinematic" feel.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

But it runs at a solid 30 fps, like millions of other games.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

The developers said "We went for 30fps rather than 60fps because 30fps is more cinematic" which is a load of nonsense.

What they should have said was "We decided to prioritise other aspects of the game's visual fidelity over framerate".

It's their explanation that is silly, not the decision to go for 30fps.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14415

What they should have said is: absolutely fucking nothing and not pandered to the frames per second knob jockeys.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

Framerate obviously matters, or do you just want us all looking at static images?

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14415

To who?

I couldn't give two shits if I'm playing a PS4 game and it's pretty smooth. I'm thinking "Ooh this is pretty fun/shit" not "I wonder what the frame rate is".

This recent fad with the declaration of the number of frames per second to the gaming media prior to a games release only panders to the braying knob jockeys.

No gamers are going to be put off buying a game if it's frame rate is >60. Not a single gamer. A good game is a good game is a good game.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

It is a factor in whether I get a game on console or on PC.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14415

That's interesting cause I've never done that weighing up the pros and cons; console or PC. I always default to my favourite console. My only understanding is that some games are graphically better on PC, right? So you want to know whether a console game is better on PC with the specs up and stuff, right?

Much like when I had a 360 and PS3 I presume. Which is better looking and smoother? That's probably as much thought as I'd give to my decision. Maybe which is cheaper too; that might enter my mind momentarily.

But if that one game was a one console exclusive I wouldn't give frames a second thought. And neither would anyone else.

Bamba · **Joined:** 25th Jul, 2010 **Posts:** 11128

Saturnalian wrote:

No gamers are going to be put off buying a game if it's frame rate is >60.

Why would anyone be put off by something being better?

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2015 20:51

Saturnalian wrote:

To who?

I couldn't give two shits if I'm playing a PS4 game and it's pretty smooth. I'm thinking "Ooh this is pretty fun/shit" not "I wonder what the frame rate is".

This recent fad with the declaration of the number of frames per second to the gaming media prior to a games release only panders to the braying knob jockeys.

No gamers are going to be put off buying a game if it's frame rate is >60. Not a single gamer. A good game is a good game is a good game.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14415

Damn you new glasses.

No, hang on...

Damn you autocorrect.

No, hang on...

Damn you fat fingers.

No, hang on...

Be Excellent To Each Other

The Order: 1886 - PS4 Exclusive
Set in London!

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

The Order: 1886 - PS4 Exclusive Set in London!

Who is online

The Order: 1886 - PS4 Exclusive
Set in London!