The Order 1886

[fat_moogle]

So I've just bought this game but I won't get to play it until later tonight.

Graphically the game looks extremely impressive, but the game is getting very mixed reviews due to its length, cinematic nature and abundance of QTE's.

I've only seen the odd clip here and there since it was revealed, as I didn't want to spoil the story.

Does anyone else plan on playing this? Maybe you've already got it? Discuss.

[Jinx]

Ahahaha, enjoy your five hours of game and retextured final boss.

[fat_moogle]

I realise it's going to be a short game, I'm expecting that. I traded in a couple games for it, so I didn't pay full price. I wouldn't have paid the full £55 the shop I bought it from was asking for. I'd say £27 was reasonable though so I thought I'd play it and judge for myself.

[Skyblade]

I was interested in the game at first, but the commercials for it really left me with a bitter taste concerning the game. It became very clear to me that it wants to be a movie or TV show, rather than a game.

[Fox]

I couldn't even stomach watching a Let's Play of this, so nope! Won't be rushing to pick it up when I get my PS4 soon. As a game designer, I feel if I ever write the words "Tap X repeatedly when the prompt appears" I will have officially reached the lowest point of my career.

[Bolivar]

I stayed up until 3am last night playing the first half or so. I cannot emphasize enough that the criticisms about lengthy cutscenes and abundant QTEs are at best vastly overblown and at worst outright false. The cutscenes aren't any more prevalent than you would expect from any AAA action game and the majority of QTEs are like in Uncharted, where you move an object to get to the next part of the area. I would say the game design and pacing is most comparable to The Last of Us, with the emphasis on gunplay instead of stealth.

I honestly can't praise it enough. The atmosphere is on an entirely different level, with the most immersive and visceral shootouts I've played in years. It's very much a third person shooter but with a stronger story and commendable acting all around.

Just note the prologue does reflect the criticisms and that's why there's so many videos passing it off as representative of the full game. It really isn't at all.

[DMKA]

I stayed up until 3am last night playing the first half or so. I cannot emphasize enough that the criticisms about lengthy cutscenes and abundant QTEs are at best vastly overblown and at worst outright false. The cutscenes aren't any more prevalent than you would expect from any AAA action game and the majority of QTEs are like in Uncharted, where you move an object to get to the next part of the area. I would say the game design and pacing is most comparable to The Last of Us, with the emphasis on gunplay instead of stealth.

I honestly can't praise it enough. The atmosphere is on an entirely different level, with the most immersive and visceral shootouts I've played in years. It's very much a third person shooter but with a stronger story and commendable acting all around.

Just note the prologue does reflect the criticisms and that's why there's so many videos passing it off as representative of the full game. It really isn't at all.

That's good to hear. Are the graphics still as good as when it was first revealed? I still can't believe what's been shown to me as gameplay is actually gameplay and not pre-rendered.

I rented it and am currently waiting for it to arrive in the mail. I've been looking forward to playing it since the first gameplay was shown off but I'm a lot less excited knowning how short it is (abundant cutscenes and QTEs don't bother me). Still, short game doesn't mean bad game.

Cautiously excited for it to get here even though the internet has been bashing it to hell and back for the last week.

[Bolivar]

That's good to hear. Are the graphics still as good as when it was first revealed? I still can't believe what's been shown to me as gameplay is actually gameplay and not pre-rendered.

I rented it and am currently waiting for it to arrive in the mail. I've been looking forward to playing it since the first gameplay was shown off but I'm a lot less excited knowning how short it is (abundant cutscenes and QTEs don't bother me). Still, short game doesn't mean bad game.

Cautiously excited for it to get here even though the internet has been bashing it to hell and back for the last week.

I would say it's up there. Definitely in the top 5 best looking games of today, if not the best.

[Vyk]

Ahahaha, enjoy your five hours of game and retextured final boss.
Is that what they're saying? Good grief. Critics gave Alien Isolation a lot of shit for being too long, and now this? Critics can't seem to make up their minds what they want

[Fox]

Ahahaha, enjoy your five hours of game and retextured final boss.
Is that what they're saying? Good grief. Critics gave Alien Isolation a lot of trout for being too long, and now this? Critics can't seem to make up their minds what they want

That's silly. 'Too short' is just as valid a criticism as 'too long'. A three hour movie will be criticised as 'dragging on,' a half hour movie would be 'laughably short and not worth the ticket price'. There's a nice big sweet spot in between those two extremes.

You can have a really, really good short, focussed game. Just look at something like Portal 2, that was only 4 or 5 hours long in terms of the campaign. But that wasn't $60 and included a co-op campaign and mod support. And it was a very unique kind of game. Whereas The Order follows in the footsteps of a million third person shooters that have come before it. If you're a 'cinematic third person action' game coming in noticeably shorter than, say, Gears of War or Uncharted (which were generally paced pretty well) then you're probably going to get some stick for that.

[Skyblade]

My biggest problem with it was that it felt tired and completely uninspired.

"Ooh, look, we have a quasi-historical conspiracy involving people you've heard of, but have no idea what they actually did. They've been involved in a secret society that's shaped the world, created magical inventions that have somehow been lost to time, and yet all their big secrets are suddenly about to be uncovered just because you started playing."

Maybe that is completely wrong, but that is how the advertisements presented the game. And, I'm sorry, but I've seen it before. Hell, it was an old concept long before Assassin's Creed beat it to death.

[Fox]

I don't actually mind that stuff too much. Even if something has a generic premise, good writing, presentation and solid mechanics can work wonders. Just look at Uncharted - handsome fella goes on adventure to find artefact but also the bad guys want it for its ancient mystical power.

Not exactly anything new. But it's all in the execution. From what I've seen of The Order it is at least confidently written and well acted if a little pretentious at times.

[Vyk]

http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20067

Looks like it falls around the 8 hour mark. Which became pretty standard in God of War days. And even the Uncharted series falls pretty well within that range. It's right around where that mythical sweet spot seems to be. And if anyone complained those games were too short, it was simply because they were enjoying them too much

Sure a $60 game being only a couple hours is ridiculous. But I know critics better than that. I knew that was probably bunk. So yeah. I feel like my statement still stands. The critics are being ridiculous if they think an 8 hour game is too short if they're not going to call out a million other more highly rated games for being the exact same length

It could be that it feels shorter or less intense because its gameplay is less memorable or more repetitive or not quite as deep. But those are more legitimate critiques than simply "it felt short so it sucked"

Though I haven't read any reviews, and haven't really followed the game. I've had little interest in it honestly. But I just find it amusing the way the game critic pendulum swings these days

But I guess I should just let the actual fans or hater argue it out instead

[Fox]

http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20067

Looks like it falls around the 8 hour mark. Which became pretty standard in God of War days. And even the Uncharted series falls pretty well within that range. It's right around where that mythical sweet spot seems to be. And if anyone complained those games were too short, it was simply because they were enjoying them too much

Sure a $60 game being only a couple hours is ridiculous. But I know critics better than that. I knew that was probably bunk. So yeah. I feel like my statement still stands. The critics are being ridiculous if they think an 8 hour game is too short if they're not going to call out a million other more highly rated games for being the exact same length


Well, going from that website even the original Uncharted - which many thought was a bit on the short side - clocks in a good two hours longer than that. Same for Gears of War. That doesn't sound like loads but another 2 hours is 25% more content. So The Order will be ending when other games of it's type would just be getting to the climax. I can see why that deserves criticism for being short.

For sure, the crazy hate from social media was completely overblown. That was based on a video of someone rushing through the game. Not a speedrun per se, but also not representative. So yeah, in the scheme of things it probably got slated way more than it should have for its length, but there's no question its a reasonable point of criticism.

[Del Murder]

Too bad. I was interested in this one. Looks like it goes the way of Watch Dogs for me.

[Bolivar]

Just finished it. It might be the most polished action game I've ever played. Outstanding story and I'm looking forward to playing it again on Hard with The Arsenal unlocked.

I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who was a fan of The Last of Us. Personally, I enjoyed The Order more.

[NeoCracker]

Only on chapter 3, and I am definately digging what little I've played. I loved reading that first newspaper you find, and pretty much pegged Jack The Ripper was going to be relevant in some way from that, so that was neat. A few lines of Dialogue can be a bit 'eh', but really good on a whole.

Really the fantastic art direction is the selling point thus far.

[fat_moogle]

I got to Chapter 4 today. It's definitely the best looking game that I've ever played, no doubt about that. I really like what it's trying to achieve with its cinematic style, the acting is top notch and there's a good atmosphere. Gunplay is also fast and fluid. Yes there are quite a few moments when you need to "tap x" or "press triangle" to auto-climb a ladder, but there's been nothing so far to diminish my enjoyment of the game.

[NeoCracker]

This game has been great. Easily the best looking game to launch this gen. Pretty good story, fantastic characters, and decent gameplay. Really other then the few fights agains the Half Breeds, which end up boiling down to 'shoot a lot, press X to dodge, keep shooting', there aren't really many problems with the game. Unless of course you don't want to pay 60$ for an 8-10 hour campaign and no Multiplayer. :p

[Del Murder]

What is an 'acceptable' amount of time for a non-open world action game I wonder? 8-10 hours seems pretty reasonable. Games should not be evaluated based on how much time you sink into it, they should be evaluated based on the overall experience.

Now the concerns about the game being too much QTE and cutscenes is concerning. $60 is a lot to pay for an interactive movie. But, the great thing about free markets is that if there's no demand, the price will drop. I'll probably give it a try once that happens.

[Mirage]

I realise it's going to be a short game, I'm expecting that. I traded in a couple games for it, so I didn't pay full price. I wouldn't have paid the full £55 the shop I bought it from was asking for. I'd say £27 was reasonable though so I thought I'd play it and judge for myself.

Those games you traded in could have been used to lower the price of a different game though :p.

I might get it when it goes sub-20 dollars.

[Psychotic]

A game's length shouldn't have any impact on its quality as a game and its artistic merit. Neither longer nor shorter makes a better game. Though certainly there are games that I wish had been shorter as the second half of them were less enjoyable than the first (hi FFXII) though the obvious solution to that is having good pacing and a consistent product throughout.

What it does impact on is its value as a product for us, the consumer. Assuming the Order is of equal levels of fun to Skyrim, why get 5 hours of the Order at $60 ($12 for each hour) when I can get 80 hours of Skyrim at $15 (A shade under 19 cents paid for each hour)? You might very well have created a great product that I would love to experience, but I don't find the value in what you're asking so I'm not going to put the money down.

A short campaign isn't necessary a death knell. Do you have multiplayer? Do you have co-op? Are there different endings? Different playable characters? Are there secrets to uncover? All of these elements add value to the product you're releasing.

I think releasing a 5 hour game for $60 is both arrogant and anti-consumer. But then if there are those willing to pay it and Sony make a profit then maybe they do have the right idea of it.

[Bolivar]

Now the concerns about the game being too much QTE and cutscenes is concerning. $60 is a lot to pay for an interactive movie. But, the great thing about free markets is that if there's no demand, the price will drop. I'll probably give it a try once that happens.

The prologue reflects your concern but once the game proper begins, it's an action game through and through. The QTEs and cut scenes are not that much more prevalent than your typical shooter. And The Order is a really good one at that - the weapon responsiveness and feedback is unreal and it's fun experimenting with the variety, even for the guns that appear more par for the course.


A short campaign isn't necessary a death knell. Do you have multiplayer? Do you have co-op? Are there different endings? Different playable characters? Are there secrets to uncover? All of these elements add value to the product you're releasing.

I think that's a superficial belief that very few people honestly follow through on. I never touch the multiplayer in series like this that shoehorn it in (like Dead Space, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, The Last of Us) and I suspect most do not either. Nor have I ever felt like alternate endings or characters make as big a difference as people pretend they do.

The whole length argument is pretty obviously facetious: it only makes sense in the context of someone who absolutely refuses under any circumstances to replay games or resell them in the alternative.

Let's be honest here - game length is invariably correlated to recycling art assets and enemy encounters. I'd much rather play a game where every sequence is unique and memorable, which is the concept that The Order succeeded in achieving. There are some parts of this game that are beyond anything we've seen in the medium thus far, moments I did not expect the limited hardware of current gen consoles could accomplish.

Great games are meant to be replayed and I feel sorry for anyone who needs arbitrary incentives to do so. Our free time is precious but the short length makes it less daunting and more likely for me to replay a game again.

[Psychotic]

I think that's a superficial belief that very few people honestly follow through on. I never touch the multiplayer in series like this that shoehorn it in (like Dead Space, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, The Last of Us) and I suspect most do not either. Nor have I ever felt like alternate endings or characters make as big a difference as people pretend they do.You're mistaking your personal preference for the preferences of the gaming public, especially in regards to multiplayer. This is fine when you're considering the value you personally place on these products, but not entirely relevant if we're looking at wider consumer behaviour as your post implies.

Is it mandatory for a game to have multiplayer to be a good game? No, of course not. Does it increase its lifespan and therefore value as a product? Assuming you even try it just the once, yes. If you don't have the slightest interest in multiplayer, no.

[Vyk]

I beat Enslaved: Odyssey to the West in like 7 hours, and stumbled across it as a budget. I would have gladly paid full price for that game. As long as the experience feels justified. A great story, great characters, great environment and atmosphere, great pacing. If what everyone is saying about The Order is even half true, it sounds like it more than merits a full price, despite the size of a campaign

Taking a peek at The Last of Us on "How Long To Beat", it seems to average about 15 hours. And I remember being extremely surprised at how long that game took. It was so amazing, so beautiful, so well done, its hard to imagine them putting so much time and effort into making an entire 15 hour run feel fresh and unique at every turn. I wouldn't have batted an eye if that game were closer to the 10 hour mark. That's a lot of magic to store in just under a dozen hours. Its extremely rare to get something that great that breaks the dozen hour mark and keeps pace until the end

Even my love of Alien Isolation, and scoffing at people who thought it was "too long", I can agree that some segments were unnecessary filler, and it could have easily been quite a bit shorter. I wouldn't dock points for it. They did more than a competent enough job for my liking. But when companies rise above that bar, it starts to stop being just an enjoyable game. To me Alien Isolation was an amazing game. And to me, The Last of Us was an amazing experience

Sounds like The Order went for the "experience" route

I think you can beat Ico in like 6 hours

And that was also an amazing experience with no multiplayer and I'm pretty sure there were no alternate endings. And it was completely worth full price at the time of release :]

So while I still haven't played The Order (though this conversation is seriously making me want to), I can totally get behind people willing to pay high prices for higher experiences in gaming

Though I agree that's kind of a risky endeavor for a developer. Lots of money, and lots of flack from people looking for more, who aren't charmed, and just want to play a standard game for extended time

[Fox]

Taking a peek at The Last of Us on "How Long To Beat", it seems to average about 15 hours. And I remember being extremely surprised at how long that game took. It was so amazing, so beautiful, so well done, its hard to imagine them putting so much time and effort into making an entire 15 hour run feel fresh and unique at every turn. I wouldn't have batted an eye if that game were closer to the 10 hour mark. That's a lot of magic to store in just under a dozen hours. Its extremely rare to get something that great that breaks the dozen hour mark and keeps pace until the end


Two important points about The Last of Us in particular.

Firstly, a lot of that length came from stuff that is actually quite low intensity in terms of development effort. It has quite big, open levels, stealth heavy gameplay, exploration, and so on and so forth. So a single room with 5 enemies in can take five or ten minutes as you plan, move about, craft stuff. Obviously care and attention has to go into the level designs, enemy placement, AI and the game systems. But these are nowhere near the draw on resource as a detailed cutscene is. All that gorgeous animation, sound design and set piece special effects take ages. And while there are a large number of detailed cutscenes in The Last of Us, the ratio of gameplay:cutscene is much more in favour of gameplay compared to something like The Order. So I'm not sure the two can really be categorised together on those grounds, or if they can I definitely think Naughty Dog were much smarter in how they went about the design.

Secondly, because of the game systems allowing for multiple play styles, I think TLoU has much more replayability. You can do a stealth run, a run-and-gun run, explore the routes you didn't take the first time through. Even though it's a linear game, you can get a fairly substantially different experience with multiple playthroughs. Again, I think this sets it apart from something like The Order (and not just The Order, the same stuff sets TLoU apart from Uncharted as well. And I really like two of the Uncharted games).

[Vyk]

Touché. Both very good points

Its hard for me to break down mechanics from a technical perspective as purely a consumer. Watching behind the scenes things (there's one on YouTube for The Last of Us which is an amazing documentary) always astounds me as to just how much goes into games of that caliber that you don't even think about when enjoying the game

And I agree there was something special about the team that did TLoU. I guess that's what made it transcend the medium a bit and venture into the "experience" area of video gaming. Probably what makes certain games more considered art as well

[Dr Unne]

Money vs. time isn't a good way to judge the value of a game at all. I can buy a deck of playing cards for $2 and play a thousand hours of it. I started speedrunning an old NES game last year and I put in hundreds of hours in a game that you can buy used at a flea market for < $5. You can go outside and play with sticks and dirt for the rest of your life for free if you want.

You can pay $60 for Guild Wars 2 and play it forever for free. Why play any other MMO, especially ones with subscription fees? Why do WOW or FFXIV exist? I put 750 hours into GW2 before I got sick of it. So why buy or play any other game at all, ever?

I can buy a Super Bowl ticket for $3000 and get a few hours of entertainment; is that worth it? Why does anyone play golf when it costs huge money for clubs and course time, when you can play frisbee for almost free?

It's because there's much more to a game than that. Gamers aren't really looking to maximize money vs. time, or else they wouldn't be playing video games at all. Video games are an expensive hobby compared to many, when you add up console/PC cost + accessories + game cost. I bet $30 vs $60 is barely a blip on the radar if you look at your lifetime spending on games.

Some kinds of video games cost a fortune to make. I watched a few hours of The Order 1886 and it looks really impressive graphically. All of that voice acting and motion capture and art design can't have been cheap. I imagine that has a lot to do with the price tag. Does that mean I want to spend $60 on it? Maybe not for me, I think it's a bit silly to spend that much money to produce this kind of game if it doesn't add a lot to the gameplay. But many people (myself included) are definitely impressed by graphics and physics and immersive games, or else why aren't we all still playing PS2 instead of PS4? Those things do have value to us. Everyone can decide where to draw the line of worth it / not worth it for themselves.

When I buy a game, I ask myself if it offers something that I enjoy that I can't get anywhere else. Sometimes that means $15 for a game that I beat in < 3 hours. Take The Swapper (http://facepalmgames.com/the-swapper/) for example; it's a very short puzzle game, but I really enjoyed it because the art style was so unique (hand-crafted clay models), the puzzle mechanic was very fun and interesting, and the plot offered a lot of things to think about. I'll never play it again, because puzzle games don't offer a lot of replayability, but I felt like I got my money worth. It won lots of awards. And this game has approximately the same money-to-time ratio as The Order 1886.

Does the Order 1886 offer you something unique that you can't get elsewhere? The graphics? The setting or the story? The gameplay? The total package? If so, buy it and be happy; if not, don't buy it and be happy. Playtime is waaaaaaay down on my list of priorities.

[NeoCracker]

I can agree Unne, though there are times where it can get a little extreme. Example being Mad World on the Wii. 50$ game you could beat in just under two hours. There is a point you are spending to much for how little content the game has, regardless of how unique it is.

Though in most cases it ranks pretty low on my Priorities as well. :p

[Bolivar]

And while there are a large number of detailed cutscenes in The Last of Us, the ratio of gameplay:cutscene is much more in favour of gameplay compared to something like The Order. So I'm not sure the two can really be categorised together on those grounds, or if they can I definitely think Naughty Dog were much smarter in how they went about the design.

Having beat The Last of Us Remastered a few months ago, I feel like the gameplay:cutscene ratio was about the same in The Order.

[fat_moogle]

I realise it's going to be a short game, I'm expecting that. I traded in a couple games for it, so I didn't pay full price. I wouldn't have paid the full £55 the shop I bought it from was asking for. I'd say £27 was reasonable though so I thought I'd play it and judge for myself.

Those games you traded in could have been used to lower the price of a different game though :p.

I might get it when it goes sub-20 dollars.
But there wasn't another game I wanted :p Type-0 is the next game I'm getting and I'm prepared to pay full price for that ^^


I got to Chapter 4 today. It's definitely the best looking game that I've ever played, no doubt about that. I really like what it's trying to achieve with its cinematic style, the acting is top notch and there's a good atmosphere. Gunplay is also fast and fluid. Yes there are quite a few moments when you need to "tap x" or "press triangle" to auto-climb a ladder, but there's been nothing so far to diminish my enjoyment of the game.
My opinion has kind of changed. I'm on Chapter 9 now and the more the game progresses the less actual gameplay there seems to be. When there is gameplay it's good, but it's like you're not given a chance to properly get in to it before you're whisked in to another scene. In regards to The Last of Us that game definitely had a better balance of gameplay vs cutscene.

[DMKA]

I've been playing for a couple hours now, and it's hands down the best in game graphics I've ever seen. When the opening ended at the gameplay started with no visual change whatsoever, my jaw dropped. It really has reached the point of looking like a pre-rendered FMV in game. I'm thoroughly impressed. I wasn't expecting it to look that good in action. The animations from the facial expressions to how your characters move are breathtaking. They look and feel like actual people. The voice acting and score are quite nice as well.

The cinematic nature of the gameplay is about what I expected. There's plenty of QTEs and cutscenes, but no more than say, the Uncharted games, or the God of War games. From what people online were saying, I was expecting an experience closer to Heavy Rain. Thankfully that's not even mildly the case.

The story is...yet to reveal itself? I mean it's there but it's all very cryptic with nothing explained yet. I suppose I'm too early on still.

I'm really enjoying it so far. Also I should note that so far, unlike most AAA releases as of late, everything is polished and perfect. No rampant bugs or glitches awaiting a patch that might never come. :p

[Rostum]

My girlfriend just bought me a PS4 with this game, we just finished it. I loved the presentation, setting and story. It looks incredible, and I love how they made the gap between a cutscene and getting back into controlling the character was seamless.

The gameplay I could give or take, it was okay but I found myself getting frustrated at certain parts because the shooting mechanics just didn't seem that intuitive or interesting to me. Furthermore, the QTEs kind of felt like they were put in at the last minute and unnecessary (sometimes I found myself missing a button because I thought we were still in a cutscene, and it wasn't even a sequence of QTEs, just one button that needed pressing).

Not much replay value, it was the story and characters that made us keep playing. I'd definitely be interested to see them expand the universe, it's really interesting and well presented!

[DMKA]

I just finished it. All in all, I really liked it. The ending wasn't a proper conclusion and left far too many loose ends and questions unanswered. It's screams for a sequel, which makes me sad because I'm not at all confident there will be one after the less than stellar reception the game has received.

It's a good game. Not great, but not nearly as bad as critics made it out to be. A solid 8/10 in my opinion. In fact, had it came out five or six years ago I have no doubt that it'd have received 9s and 10s all over the place.

I have a feeling that it'll be one of those games that retains a solid cult following but never actually gets any future attention from the people who made it.

But hell, even if you don't like cover shooters or heavily cinematic games, if you own a PS4 and can get a hold of this game for little to no money, you should. The visual spectacle and aw-inspiring technical achievements on display are worth a playthrough alone. It really is the best looking game I've seen so far.

[Vyk]

Yeah, everyone who has actually played it, and not simply gone off of what "the internet says" actually seems to like it, and it makes me want to give it a shot. One dude I watch on YouTube made a point that Metal Gear Solid for PS1 was very similar. Cinematic with a lot of QTE's and could be beaten in one sitting and still launched at full price. And nobody's gonna give that game any shit. I still don't think game length matters much on the overall worth of a game, but I guess some people do. Sadly for this game, I was never really interested to begin with. Even now it's just more of a curiosity. So I'll have to give it a rental, and if I fall in love, I'll get it on a price drop and be one of those cult followers or something lol

[Skyblade]

Yeah, everyone who has actually played it, and not simply gone off of what "the internet says" actually seems to like it, and it makes me want to give it a shot. One dude I watch on YouTube made a point that Metal Gear Solid for PS1 was very similar. Cinematic with a lot of QTE's and could be beaten in one sitting and still launched at full price. And nobody's gonna give that game any trout. I still don't think game length matters much on the overall worth of a game, but I guess some people do. Sadly for this game, I was never really interested to begin with. Even now it's just more of a curiosity. So I'll have to give it a rental, and if I fall in love, I'll get it on a price drop and be one of those cult followers or something lol

See, I was interested in it originally. Then I just kept seeing this one trailer on YouTube. I can't even find the trailer anymore, but it's apparently a few snippets from their big, four minute live-action trailer. Mostly focusing around the last thirty seconds or so.

This bit. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEGwy_bsTlw&t=4m0s)

It honestly looked so bland, uninspired, and completely unoriginal that I lost all interest in the game.

[Bolivar]

It should be obvious that this live action trailer has absolutely nothing to do with the game.

[Skyblade]

It should be obvious that this live action trailer has absolutely nothing to do with the game.

At this point, it is.

Doesn't really matter though. They used it to promote the game. Very heavily, in fact, as I saw it several hundred times on YouTube over the course of a month or two.

If you are attempting to promote your game, you should pick something that is representative of your game, or at least gets people interested/engaged with it.

Bad marketing kills. If you marketing turns someone off the product, it's your own fault, and you have to suffer the consequences of that. Being unrelated to your product isn't an excuse that gets you away from that.

If anything, it makes it worse. They didn't have enough faith in the game to market the game on its own merits, instead promoting it with an entirely unrelated trailer. Despite having an incredibly awesome looking engine that can make people look so realistic, they lacked enough faith in it to market the game with it, choosing live action instead. The quality of their writing and world building are made suspect due to the incredible lack of skill they demonstrated in the trailer.

[Bolivar]

They didn't have enough faith in the game to market the game on its own merits, instead promoting it with an entirely unrelated trailer. Despite having an incredibly awesome looking engine that can make people look so realistic, they lacked enough faith in it to market the game with it, choosing live action instead. The quality of their writing and world building are made suspect due to the incredible lack of skill they demonstrated in the trailer.

C'mon, Sky...

[Vyk]

Yeah, while I agree with the idea behind the argument, it's not like the marketing guy wrote the script for the game. Or even probably for the commercial

[Skyblade]

Yeah, while I agree with the idea behind the argument, it's not like the marketing guy wrote the script for the game. Or even probably for the commercial

Probably not.

But I'm just using the argument to validate my feelings. The truth is, I saw that, and I stopped caring about the game. It wasn't really a logical thought. I wasn't malicious and thinking "wow, this trailer sucked, I'm going to boycott the game" or anything. I just watched the trailer and was completely turned off of the product it was advertising. It felt like it was advertising a boring, cliche, low budget movie that I've seen a hundred times and didn't want to see again.

Was it? Nope. But that's what the trailer put in my mind, and it's hard to dissociate that from the game, especially after seeing it so many times. Every time I see the game in a store or website ad, that's what I'm reminded of. It makes it hard to get enthused.

I may eventually buy it if a sale massively drops the price. I'm glad you guys are enjoying it. But I have no interest in it right now.

[Fox]

One dude I watch on YouTube made a point that Metal Gear Solid for PS1 was very similar.

That's the biggest stretch since Stretch Armstrong stretched on a stretcher after over-stretching in the World's Stretchiest Man competition.


Cinematic with a lot of QTE's

MGS...cinematic? Sure. But by "a lot of QTEs" does he mean 'that one scene where Snake is being tortured and you have to mash triangle'? Because that's only one QTE and it's also one of the worst parts of the game.


and could be beaten in one sitting

And could be speedrun in one sitting. Morrowind can be speedrun in 15 minutes. When you're playing a stealth game like a stealth game it takes quite a bit longer, whereas numbers on The Order's length are relatively similar for everyone. MGS also has some replay value as there are lots of different mechanics to use and the levels are big and expansive and allow different ways to play.

The Order's sacrificing of everything else that makes a game in service of its graphical fidelity makes me so sad. Especially when it gets critical praise for that. Gametrailers for example gave it a higher rating than Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and what does The Order do that's remotely interesting? Some shiny graphical effects? It's so incredibly superficial.

[Bolivar]

It's King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table hunting down monsters and anarchists in Teslapunk Victorian London. If that's not "remotely interesting" then I really don't know what to say.

What are these things you keep saying the game is sacrificing? I'm not sure how many different ways those of us who played it can tell you - The Order really isn't any less gameplay-focused than the average AAA action game. At this point, I really gotta question why you keep posting in this thread.

The awesome thing about today's gaming industry is that there's all kinds of titles coming out for all sorts of tastes. There's no need to say you're sad because one of them doesn't pander to you or because people with different opinions are enjoying it.

[Fox]

It's King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table hunting down monsters and anarchists in Teslapunk Victorian London. If that's not "remotely interesting" then I really don't know what to say.

The setting is OK, sure, I was referring mainly to the game systems or the structure of the storytelling. There's nothing wrong with the way it structures its storytelling (perfectly fine with cutscenes-a-plenty) but if that's the main focus of the game than neither is it particularly interesting. Put it this way: as you say, the setting is pretty cool. I would have loved to explore more of it through less narrow corridors.


What are these things you keep saying the game is sacrificing?

Interesting systems. Stuff that allows you to think or experiment or customise or explore or influence the narrative. Stuff that allows the game to flow and change pace depending on your actions. The insta-fail stealth sections for example, the nature of instantly killing you when seen instead of letting it fall into a chaotic firefight turns stealth into a chore rather than a pleasant change of pace. Even stealth games don't instantly fail you when you fail at stealth. Remember that bit early on where they call for aerial bombardment? Let us use that like the Hammer of Dawn from Gears!

The thermite gun is an example of something I really like in this game. You use that in such a different way to other weapons and it poses a significant threat to you as well. A few more things like that might have made a world of difference, unfortunately it's pretty much unique in its interesting-ness. Everything else is just a normal old gun - even the Arc gun. Unfortunate that Tesla hadn't knocked out a few more prototypes.


I'm not sure how many different ways those of us who played it can tell you

Since my colleague brought his copy into work I can speak from first hand experience about all this now.


- The Order really isn't any less gameplay-focused than the average AAA action game.

Right, the average AAA action game. Except GTA and The Last of Us and MGS and Uncharted and Tomb Raider and Halo and Mass Effect and Shadow of Mordor and Evolve and Battlefield and Batman and Dark Souls and Titanfall and Borderlands and Dead Rising and Watch_Dogs and Far Cry and Infamous and Destiny and Dragon Age and Dying Light and Wolfenstein and Assassin's Creed. For example off the top of my head.

Now, maybe with some of those the cutscene/gameplay ratio is similar, but all of them have many more core game mechanics to them. Which is surprising considering that list includes Uncharted.


At this point, I really gotta question why you keep posting in this thread.

Well my last post I mainly did to respond to that MGS comparison which just stood out as particularly weird. But beyond that I guess there are a couple of reasons. 1) I am frustrated with the game for many reasons and this is a place to express that. I'm sure anyone who has posted on FFXIII threads will be familiar with the desire to do that. 2) I want to understand better why all this stuff that bugs me about it doesn't have the same effect on other people. And I'm really hoping the answer to that isn't just because it's really pretty.


The awesome thing about today's gaming industry is that there's all kinds of titles coming out for all sorts of tastes.

That is certainly awesome.


There's no need to say you're sad because one of them doesn't pander to you or because people with different opinions are enjoying it.

I'm not sad because you're enjoying it, I'm glad you're enjoying it and I don't begrudge you your fun. How should I put this... I'm sad because it lacks ambition. It puts the bare minimum of tried and tested mechanics in to still pass as a game and somehow gets away with it. I doubt you'd be having any less fun (and I'd be very surprised if you didn't have considerably more) if they had better stealth mechanics, more open levels, more enemy variety, more weapon variety, more places of that interesting world to explore either during or between missions.

[Skyblade]

It's King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table hunting down monsters and anarchists in Teslapunk Victorian London. If that's not "remotely interesting" then I really don't know what to say.

The setting is OK, sure, I was referring mainly to the game systems or the structure of the storytelling. There's nothing wrong with the way it structures its storytelling (perfectly fine with cutscenes-a-plenty) but if that's the main focus of the game than neither is it particularly interesting. Put it this way: as you say, the setting is pretty cool. I would have loved to explore more of it through less narrow corridors.

I think that bit was directed at me.

Sure, that setting sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of it. I've seen two trailers for the game, the original reveal trailer (which I felt was interesting, but not majorly hype-building or warranting a preorder or instant purchase), and the one that killed my interest.

If they'd had more trailers displayed online, or even through television, that highlighted more of the awesome setting, cool mechanics or whatever, I'd be hyped by it, and I'd overlook the bad trailer. But if they put out one bad trailer and nothing else, that's going to dominate my opinion. I've seen steampunk and Teslapunk before. Their other advertisement didn't show anything new, except a little bit better graphical realism, compared to most other media that covers the same topic. There were no plot hooks, no character focus, or anything else that would actually draw me to this game as opposed to any other depiction of a similar setting. There's nothing special to it, and nothing to counteract the poor opinion that the other trailer showed.


As a side note, after looking through their advertising in an attempt to hunt down that add, I have to say that any interest built up by the other ads is offset by this line:
"Crazy Ambitious and Highly Cinematic"
This is a quote from Entertainment Weekly, and I've seen it highlighted in several ads. It's another fantastic example of terrible marketing.

It is apparently one of the only positive lines they have about the game, as they've put it on at least six different ad videos.

Entertainment Weekly is not a particularly well-known source of solid game critique, as they're usually focused on movies and television shows.

Finally, the line itself is meaningless. "Crazy ambitious". Do you know what else is "crazy ambitious"? Trying to fly a jet plane through the sun. Does that make it a good idea? No. Does that mean that the team succeeded in reaching their ambition? Nope. It just means the devs had a lofty goal to which they pushed themselves. That goal could be anything, and they need not even have reached it for that line to be true.

Then, there's the other bit. "Highly Cinematic". That's great. If I were looking for a piece of cinema. I'm not. Entertainment Weekly may be (as I said, that's what they typically focus on), but I'm more concerned with other aspects than the cinematography. The characters, the story, the world-building, the gameplay. Heck, I'm more worried about the music than I am with how "cinematic" the game is. It's a game, not a piece of cinema.




It may not be fair to judge a game by its advertising. But then, that's what advertising is for. To get people to judge your game favorably, and be interested in buying it. Their advertising failed utterly in hitting that mark for me, and the incredibly polarized opinions I've heard since release have not convinced me that I need to buy it at this point.

[Bolivar]

I understand where you're coming from, Fox but I don't think many of those games have additional gameplay systems, especially Halo, Battlefield, Wolfenstein, and Uncharted. With many of the rest of them, they really only have menu-based systems adding superficial depth. That absolutely ruined Far Cry 3 for me, especially coming off of Far Cry 2, where everything took place within the game engine, even looking down at the map. The Order has the same ethos, where you examine the collectible objects and read the lore pieces in real time. As someone who plays a ton of these games, I actually think it was a smart design decision to eschew superficial distractions and keep everything within the actual game. The cutscenes are similar, with no limitation between what you see on screen and what you can actually do.

This is something I talk about a lot with Final Fantasy VII and I would like to see in more games. In this way, The Order is actually emphasizing gameplay and interactivity instead of sacrificing it.

[Skyblade]

I understand where you're coming from, Fox but I don't think many of those games have additional gameplay systems, especially Halo, Battlefield, Wolfenstein, and Uncharted. With many of the rest of them, they really only have menu-based systems adding superficial depth. That absolutely ruined Far Cry 3 for me, especially coming off of Far Cry 2, where everything took place within the game engine, even looking down at the map. The Order has the same ethos, where you examine the collectible objects and read the lore pieces in real time. As someone who plays a ton of these games, I actually think it was a smart design decision to eschew superficial distractions and keep everything within the actual game. The cutscenes are similar, with no limitation between what you see on screen and what you can actually do.

This is something I talk about a lot with Final Fantasy VII and I would like to see in more games. In this way, The Order is actually emphasizing gameplay and interactivity instead of sacrificing it.

Could you go into more detail there? Not quite sure what you're talking about, nor do I see how it applies to FFVII.

[Fox]

I understand where you're coming from, Fox but I don't think many of those games have additional gameplay systems, especially Halo, Battlefield, Wolfenstein, and Uncharted.

Well, let's just look at one of the games you highlighted there to demonstrate where I see these discrepancies. Halo, for example. It's a good candidate because it in itself is quite a shallow game in many ways without much variety in gameplay systems, but I still think it succeeds where The Order does not. The two primary mechanics in Halo are the same as the two primary mechanics in The Order: 1) shoot stuff with some kinda gun 2) Avoid enemy fire and take cover to recover energy. Halo (Combat Evolved, specifically. The sequels add more depth but to be fair but let's compare first go with first go) better expands on those systems in the following ways:



More weapon variety. Pistols, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Shotguns. Each game shares these, and The Order does have the thermite gun which changes the gameplay style and is super cool. But Halo also has Rocket Launchers, an additional grenade type (which behaves differently to standard grenades) and all the Covenant weapons. The Covenant function differently to the human weapon equivalents; for example the plasma pistol has infinite ammo but an overheating mechanic. The Needler does tiny amounts of damage per shot but the needles can home in.
More enemy variety. The Order's enemies come in 3 forms: Normal humans, Shotgunners and Lycans. Each of these functions differently, is armed differently, and can cause you to adjust tactics. Halo has 4 variants for the Covenant (Grunts, Elites, Jackals and Hunters), 3 variants for the Flood (Infection type, Standard type and Combat type) and Sentinels (the laser beam robots). As with the order, each enemy requires a different approach, so a larger enemy selection = more gameplay variety.
Integrated Stealth. Neither game has particularly good stealth mechanics IMO. But failing at Halo's stealth was not a failure state for the level, it just made enemies notice you and cause them to start attacking. So the game was broken up less by checkpoint resets due to failed stealth.
Vehicles. Halo allows you to drive four very different kinds of vehicles. A jeep (with a mounted gun on the back that you could use while letting AI drive), an alien hoverbike that fires energy bolts, a tank and the Banshee - which allowed to fly around the levels and have dogfights.
Much larger levels. Don't get me wrong, Halo had more than its fair share of single path corridor shooting. But it also had some big open fields where you could hijack enemy vehicles and fly them around. Or, if you had to take out an enemy tank, you could choose whether you wanted to try and find a rocket launcher to take it out or try and do it with grenades or perhaps even just ignore them completely if the odds were too stacked against you.


So games don't need to have huge numbers of incredibly deep mechanics, really. It is possible to have a game very focussed on a couple of core systems, but still have plenty of variation within those systems. Even if we ignore things like the vehicles and larger levels, just some more weapon and enemy variety could have made a world of difference in The Order.


With many of the rest of them, they really only have menu-based systems adding superficial depth. That absolutely ruined Far Cry 3 for me, especially coming off of Far Cry 2, where everything took place within the game engine, even looking down at the map.

I disagree about it being superficial - it is genuine depth. Football Manager is one of the deepest games on the planet and most of that is staring at a spreadsheet. Being able to present that depth in an immersive way is certainly nice if you can do it though. The inventory system in Dead Space is a good example, where it all just gets projected around you and doesn't pause the game (that's a really good one actually as it also adds the tension of being vulnerable as you tinker with your loadout).


The Order has the same ethos, where you examine the collectible objects and read the lore pieces in real time.

That's true and fine, and it's all good for immersing you in the lore, but it would have been nice if they could have added more gameplay systems to that style of presentation. Like, looking over a gun and adding/removing things like silencers or different ammo types.


This is something I talk about a lot with Final Fantasy VII and I would like to see in more games. In this way, The Order is actually emphasizing gameplay and interactivity instead of sacrificing it.

In terms of FFVII, are you referring to how story and gameplay are kinda seamless because it's all text based on the pre-rendered environments? So, the characters will stop talking and then you are straight back in direct control, there's no transition and disconnect between plot and game?

Because I can get on board with that. And even though I like my cutscenes, incorporating the story more with the interactive game is a good thing.

Apologies if I completely misunderstood what you were getting that with that point though!

[Bolivar]

Fox, first we were talking about gameplay itself, then you changed the argument to multiple systems, and now you're shifting again to variety, presumably because Halo doesn't have any systems on top of shooting. Even then, I think you're really exaggerating the discrepancy in weapon variety, when The Order also has rocket launchers, alternate grenade types, and a variety of secondary weapons which do mirror some of the things you're talking about with Covenant weapons. Having vehicles and open levels is a design choice, one that didn't particular work very well in terms of pacing. Likewise, Ready at Dawn focusing on the weapon feedback and physics engine, which is better than any I've seen, was an alternate choice which amplifies the tighter experience that I personally prefer. Like others who played the game before forming an opinion have said, the gameplay is there, and I think you're now starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try and take away from it. In any case, I really don't enjoy these debates once they start topic hopping in response to each counterpoint, so I'm just going to leave it at that.



Could you go into more detail there? Not quite sure what you're talking about, nor do I see how it applies to FFVII.

FFVII is widely considered the first game to implement seamless transitions between cutscene and gameplay. You would watch a cinematic and in the middle of it you would have control over the player character, without a camera break. The same thing would happen for a lot of the minigames. The Order is pretty much an entire game based around this concept.

[Fox]

Fox, first we were talking about gameplay itself, then you changed the argument to multiple systems, and now you're shifting again to variety, presumably because Halo doesn't have any systems on top of shooting.

Actually that was very much giving The Order as much 'benefit of the doubt' as possible, as of the games listed that have more important mechanics (and thanks to the vehicles and more open levels that allow for some verticality and platforming, Halo is still in that group), Halo had the fewest. So I then wanted to examine the depth within those mechanics to explain why I felt one worked where another did not.


Like others who played the game before forming an opinion have said

Such as me also. Although it wasn't my copy, I didn't buy it.


and I think you're now starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try and take away from it. In any case, I really don't enjoy these debates once they start topic hopping in response to each counterpoint, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

I think scraping the bottom of the barrel would be trying to say things like "but the shooting in Halo just felt so much better". But talking about the amount of different systems that exist and exploring the depth and variety within those systems seems pretty valid to me. Certainly much more so than saying The Order just focusses too much on graphics therefore it is bad. Which... I may have been guilty of earlier on, I can't remember.


ikewise, Ready at Dawn focusing on the weapon feedback and physics engine, which is better than any I've seen

The shooting does indeed feel pretty good. We can agree on that much at least. And I remembered another weapon I'd forgotten about that I quite liked: the detonator. So there's that.

[fat_moogle]

I completed The Order this afternoon and the ending left a lot to be desired. Overall I'd say that the game was "OK". It's nothing special. Yes it looks great, but the story was pretty predictable and the gameplay was quite shallow in some aspects. Together I feel this lead to a rather forgettable experience, and it's not something I'd play again.

[Mirage]

I realise it's going to be a short game, I'm expecting that. I traded in a couple games for it, so I didn't pay full price. I wouldn't have paid the full £55 the shop I bought it from was asking for. I'd say £27 was reasonable though so I thought I'd play it and judge for myself.

Those games you traded in could have been used to lower the price of a different game though :p.

I might get it when it goes sub-20 dollars.
But there wasn't another game I wanted :p Type-0 is the next game I'm getting and I'm prepared to pay full price for that ^^

Then you could have gotten something later :p.

Unless it was a special offer for the order only and no other games, this is basically like buying a gift card for 60 bucks, then use it on a game, and then say 0 dollars for a game is incredibly cheap :p

But again, it's not a problem to enjoy the order even if you paid full price for it. It's up to each player.

[Del Murder]

Such a polarizing game. I almost wan to get it to see where I land on it.

[Psychotic]

Yeah it's definitely something I'm going to pick up... once it's at a quarter of the price they're asking for it now!

[Rostum]

It's a real shame. The production value is there, it's an incredibly well crafted world that would have required a lot of effort, skill and talent to put together. However, it is a shame that the experience is so short lived, with not much variety in game play.

I would agree to wait until it's a cheaper price to get it, in fact if I had of bought it full price rather than have gotten it in a PS4 bundle (with some other games) I would have been a bit annoyed to pay so much. I feel bad for saying that, because it is a really good experience, it's just for that price I would have liked the experience to be much longer.

[Skyblade]

Watching through some of TotalBiscuit's videos, and I stumbled across this little gem, criticizing the game dev's claims about frame rate:
eXJh9ut2hrc

I wasn't aware it ran at 30fps. It does lower my opinion of the technical aspect quite a bit. Not to mention the dev's claims don't endear me to them or their work either.

[fat_moogle]

Watching through some of TotalBiscuit's videos, and I stumbled across this little gem, criticizing the game dev's claims about frame rate:
eXJh9ut2hrc

I wasn't aware it ran at 30fps. It does lower my opinion of the technical aspect quite a bit. Not to mention the dev's claims don't endear me to them or their work either.
I don't really get the framerate debate. Maybe I'm not as technically minded as some people, but if the game looks and runs smoothly (which The Order does) then does FPS really matter?

[Skyblade]

Watching through some of TotalBiscuit's videos, and I stumbled across this little gem, criticizing the game dev's claims about frame rate:
eXJh9ut2hrc

I wasn't aware it ran at 30fps. It does lower my opinion of the technical aspect quite a bit. Not to mention the dev's claims don't endear me to them or their work either.
I don't really get the framerate debate. Maybe I'm not as technically minded as some people, but if the game looks and runs smoothly (which The Order does) then does FPS really matter?

It does.

For one thing, there is the playability issues and how frame rate affects input lag.

Then, there's the other thing, that you are sacrificing frame rate for graphical fidelity. Bayonetta 2 runs at 1080p, and 60fps. The game looks stunning, and runs at a high frame rate. Now, increase the texture and model quality so that Bayonetta looks like Galahad (ignore systems limitations, we're just talking graphics for now), but knock the frame rate down to 30fps. The game will have higher graphical fidelity, sure. But it will not look nearly as good overall, because of the frame rate drop.

Dropping the frame rate is an easy way to squeeze higher quality graphics out of a system. Why, if you drop it to 15fps, you could render even higher quality models and textures! Sure, both the gameplay and visuals will suffer because of it, but who cares?


Finally, there's the developer's claims that they were rendering at 30fps as an artistic choice, because it looks better than 60fps, which is just flat-out lying.

[Bolivar]

Framerate is important to the extent that very low numbers lead to intolerably choppy animations. Generally, the higher frames per second the better, as it does indeed reduce input latency and is more comfortable for your eyes. 60fps has become the "gold standard" because many people mistakenly believe it's the point at which increases to framerate stop becoming appreciable. The real reason is because 60hz the maximum refresh rate of most High Definition displays, and since high end PC hardware is aimed at achieving maximum spec, resolution, and framerate, it's the standard to which gaming consoles are inappropriately held to.

Unlike PCs, consoles have limited power, while framerate and Image Quality exist on a sliding scale. Most game developers will tell you they would rather take a solid framerate at 30 and spend that extra horsepower on more robust graphics, physics, and game world - it's not just a graphical tradeoff. Hence why The Last of Us Remastered could achieve 60fps on PS4 but GTA V could not, despite TLoU being the more graphically sophisticated game. Moreover, developers can leverage motion blur techniques to make 30fps appear just as continuous and often more stylized than their 60fps counterparts. 60fps really is just a buzzword. Battlefield Bad Company 2 dispelled the myth last generation that it's necessary for online multiplayer games, much like Shadow of Mordor did so this generation for responsive action adventure games.

Personally, my R9 290 runs PC games up to 144fps on my high refresh rate monitor. The Order is still the most technologically impressive game I've ever seen.

[Skyblade]

Framerate is important to the extent that very low numbers lead to intolerably choppy animations. Generally, the higher frames per second the better, as it does indeed reduce input latency and is more comfortable for your eyes. 60fps has become the "gold standard" because many people mistakenly believe it's the point at which increases to framerate stop becoming appreciable. The real reason is because 60hz the maximum refresh rate of most High Definition displays, and since high end PC hardware is aimed at achieving maximum spec, resolution, and framerate, it's the standard to which gaming consoles are inappropriately held to.

Unlike PCs, consoles have limited power, while framerate and Image Quality exist on a sliding scale. Most game developers will tell you they would rather take a solid framerate at 30 and spend that extra horsepower on more robust graphics, physics, and game world - it's not just a graphical tradeoff. Hence why The Last of Us Remastered could achieve 60fps on PS4 but GTA V could not, despite TLoU being the more graphically sophisticated game. Moreover, developers can leverage motion blur techniques to make 30fps appear just as continuous and often more stylized than their 60fps counterparts. 60fps really is just a buzzword. Battlefield Bad Company 2 dispelled the myth last generation that it's necessary for online multiplayer games, much like Shadow of Mordor did so this generation for responsive action adventure games.

Personally, my R9 290 runs PC games up to 144fps on my high refresh rate monitor. The Order is still the most technologically impressive game I've ever seen.

While that's mostly well said, I call absolute bulltrout on the motion blur statement.

You can't motion blur to a frame or action that doesn't exist yet. When an action occurs between frames, one frame will have no indication of the action, and the next will have the action in progress. Even applying motion blur to that second frame, you cannot retroactively apply it to the first frame. Motion blur can help fix the flow somewhat, but it can't reverse time, and it will never look "more continuous" than the same systems and effects on a 60fps experience.

[Fox]

Yeah, 60fps is always better, but 30 is generally fine. I mean pretty much every racing game on the last gen consoles was at 30fps and they were perfectly playable (and if you need a high framerate anywhere, it's twitch based shooters and racing games). Personally I wish more developers would go for framerate over resolution and graphical fidelity (I believe Battlefield Hardline is doing this, hence why it's gonna run at 720p on X1 and 900p on PS4) but that's certainly personal preference.

The framerate discussion surrounding The Order was just stupid. It's fine at 30fps, and favouring fidelity over framerate is a perfectly legitimate choice. So I dunno why they tried to say it was to make it more 'cinematic'. No, if you wanted to make it cinematic you'd make it 24fps... which you won't do because it's borderline unplayable. I almost wonder if, because it's an exclusive title, Sony forbade them from using terms like "technological limitation" or anything that might make the PS4 hardware look bad.

[Skyblade]

Yeah, 60fps is always better, but 30 is generally fine. I mean pretty much every racing game on the last gen consoles was at 30fps and they were perfectly playable (and if you need a high framerate anywhere, it's twitch based shooters and racing games). Personally I wish more developers would go for framerate over resolution and graphical fidelity (I believe Battlefield Hardline is doing this, hence why it's gonna run at 720p on X1 and 900p on PS4) but that's certainly personal preference.

The framerate discussion surrounding The Order was just stupid. It's fine at 30fps, and favouring fidelity over framerate is a perfectly legitimate choice. So I dunno why they tried to say it was to make it more 'cinematic'. No, if you wanted to make it cinematic you'd make it 24fps... which you won't do because it's borderline unplayable. I almost wonder if, because it's an exclusive title, Sony forbade them from using terms like "technological limitation" or anything that might make the PS4 hardware look bad.

That's the real thing that bugged me. It was a technical limitation, not a feature, and to try to pass it off as one doesn't sit well with me.

But having run with PC games for so long, and having even my Wii U staying at 50+ FPS continually, seeing a drop to 30 on a game praised for its graphics is irritating.

[Bolivar]

This is where the debate gets controversial and I hate to say it but... I think The Order's director was right. You guys should google the framerate controversy when The Hobbit released for reference. There is an observable phenomenon where people's brains will tell them something doesn't look cinematic if its framerate far exceeds film and this absolutely carries over to games. When the No Russian sequence from Modern Warfare 2 was leaked over YouTube, before it supported 60fps, I thought it was one of the most disturbing things I had ever seen in a game. When I actually played it at 60fps on my PS3, it looked very cartoony and very fake.

I have a Samsung 3D/high refresh rate TV and although it does not change the native framerate of games, it generally makes them look more fluid, particularly colorful games, especially if they're cell shaded. However, when I played Killzone 2, a lot of the atmosphere was lost when running on a higher refresh display simulating more frames.

Now I'm not saying the "cinematic feelz lol" isn't bulltrout - certainly Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes and The Last of Us Remastered look very cinematic while running at 60fps on PS4. I actually think this is a very special area where only games are headed, and I look forward to seeing more of this on PS4. At the same time, I respect Ready at Dawn for implementing the letterbox film borders, achieving the advent of CG-quality gaming, and in the process allowing the lower framerate mind-trick to give it that aesthetic, which, like it or not, is backed up by the science.

Again, as someone who games at 144fps, I gotta call BS when people say 30 is jarring. I don't mean to push your buttons Sky but even you have to admit - you didn't know The Order was 30 until someone told you it was :tongue:

[Fox]

I don't think "people thought The Hobbit looked weird" is particularly scientific. :p They're used to 24fps, they're watching it on a giant cinema screen and they don't have interactivity to contend with. Ready at Dawn know full well that higher framerate = better gameplay experience.

OK, so they can't achieve that and make it look as pretty as they want, and that's totally fine. But I can't believe for a second that 30fps is some kind of 'cinematic artistic vision'. 30fps isn't a cinematic framerate, it's US soap opera frame rate. They succeeded in making the game look cinematic not because of the framerate, but because of the excellent job they did with the lighting, animations, post-processing effects etc. That's what gives it that distinct 'film look' and in a hypothetical world where the PS4 was twice as powerful I imagine that movie-like effect would have been quite happily perservered over to a smooth 60fps.

[Skyblade]

This is where the debate gets controversial and I hate to say it but... I think The Order's director was right. You guys should google the framerate controversy when The Hobbit released for reference. There is an observable phenomenon where people's brains will tell them something doesn't look cinematic if its framerate far exceeds film and this absolutely carries over to games. When the No Russian sequence from Modern Warfare 2 was leaked over YouTube, before it supported 60fps, I thought it was one of the most disturbing things I had ever seen in a game. When I actually played it at 60fps on my PS3, it looked very cartoony and very fake.

I have a Samsung 3D/high refresh rate TV and although it does not change the native framerate of games, it generally makes them look more fluid, particularly colorful games, especially if they're cell shaded. However, when I played Killzone 2, a lot of the atmosphere was lost when running on a higher refresh display simulating more frames.

Now I'm not saying the "cinematic feelz lol" isn't bulltrout - certainly Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes and The Last of Us Remastered look very cinematic while running at 60fps on PS4. I actually think this is a very special area where only games are headed, and I look forward to seeing more of this on PS4. At the same time, I respect Ready at Dawn for implementing the letterbox film borders, achieving the advent of CG-quality gaming, and in the process allowing the lower framerate mind-trick to give it that aesthetic, which, like it or not, is backed up by the science.

Again, as someone who games at 144fps, I gotta call BS when people say 30 is jarring. I don't mean to push your buttons Sky but even you have to admit - you didn't know The Order was 30 until someone told you it was :tongue:

That's because YouTube, the only place I had seen actual gameplay, is capped to 30fps itself. I figured the frame rate was a result of YouTube, not the game.

I do find it jarring, especially in realistic games, because of the increased disconnect between action and response. The jerky transition between movements (or, especially, from stationary to moving) that occurs with the lower frame rate can hurt immersion in that sort of game. Motion blur can actually make this worse, due to the split from a stationary frame to a motion blurred frame on the slower frame rate. This is why I will deactivate motion blur if I can increase the frame rate by doing so.



Also, I found a 4 hour YouTube video of all the cutscenes. So I can experience half the game's content without buying a PS4.

[Fox]

As much as I dislike The Order, I do think you're very limited in the amount of criticism you can really give without having played the game. I make racing games for a living, and there are so many people who look at videos and say "the physics look terrible". Well, they're physics. How it looks is inconsequential, it's all about how it feels. So yeah, you can look at half of The Order's content via Youtube, but you're missing out on the other half. Imagine somebody criticising a book who only read every other page.

[Skyblade]

As much as I dislike The Order, I do think you're very limited in the amount of criticism you can really give without having played the game. I make racing games for a living, and there are so many people who look at videos and say "the physics look terrible". Well, they're physics. How it looks is inconsequential, it's all about how it feels. So yeah, you can look at half of The Order's content via Youtube, but you're missing out on the other half. Imagine somebody criticising a book who only read every other page.

Honestly, at this point I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm finding it rather cathartic. I already expressed my real opinion several posts ago. It looks ok, I'll try it if I get a PS4 and it shows up on sale. The rest has just been for fun.

[Mirage]

Please don't mix frame interpolation up with actual higher framerate content. They aren't the same and never will be.

People thought the Hobbit was weird because it was unusual. If your eyes suddenly went digital and operated at 24 or 48 fps, you'd think the real world suddenly started looking extremely weird too.

High framerates without motion blur allow the eyes to function like they normally do, even when watching a recorded image. There are diminishing returns, but in certain circumstances, even 300 fps could be helpful over "just" 60.

[Rostum]

Honestly, at this point I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Isn't that you on this forum in a nutshell? :D