Kind of agree with the article. There's something 'off' with the shooting mechanics. I can't quite put my finger on it. I'd still need to play the game for a better impression, but from what I've seen from the video's and teasers.. it still doesn't do much to impress (apart from having gorgeous visuals and production value).

Yeah he skipped the tutorial for the "machine gun that ALSO fires a flare" It is not a machine gun, its like a sulfer gun that you ignite. Or you could perhaps use it for cover if you wanted as it briefly

Reading his preview he notes how this felt "like a prop gun" because he (like many other journalists or videos I have seen) seem intent on using this gun as a machine gun when all it does is douse the enemy in powder that you are supposed to ignite. It feels weak because it in fact is not doing anything yet he spent a good 2 minutes popping out from coverage to do this.

Do yourselves a favor and watch the video of this joker playing. He fires the flare gun (ZOMG Rocket LAUNCHERZ!!) without the cloud and continues to use the cloud as a machine gun when it isnt. He wonders why randomly some flares do damage to buildings (because it does when it ignites, its just a flare not an explosive) and why his machin gun (which isnt a machine gun) doesnt do damage.

He must not have any friends at IGN if they let him upload this video of him slobbering all over himself trying to play and write a preview that is completely misinformed due to his own ignorance.

It is almost like when he got to the end of the demo he realized it was user error and had to throw in a blurb about how he just wanted it to be over. This is really one of those times, remember watch the video, where 95% of the negativity is user error.

EDIT: note when I saw watch the video etc im not talking to CGI i mean people in this thread that don't believe how bad this guy is thats actually playing

Really? because i did not.  I said that to Kupomogli after he made a joke and never once said it in that comment you quoted me on.  Hmm, RE did not make the cover system popular but yes I can easily see how you would think it plays similar to RE in terms of shooting mechanics because theyre both in the same camera angle.  Then again Gears is what made the the cover system.  IM going to put it this way, the OP compared it to the game that popularized this system in the first place and its easy to see why 

I know from what he described that you are right, but could you please link the video? I'm to lazzy to look it up. :p

Resident Evil 4 didnt have a cover system

Is that it? You think adding a cover system made it a game on a completly diferent scale with inovation? Thas the only thing gears had that was diferent not better. Everything else on RE4 is what third person shooters are striving to be. The order is more like RE4 because is more stratigic with guns that feel diferent than each other and enemis that change with the situation.

If we're all being honest with ourselves, what he described is exactly what we've been seeing since this games's first gameplay reveal.

Amazing graphics
Cool Characters, rich atmosphere
Simple and generic third person shooter mechanics
Highly scripted and linear gameplay events

No preview has said anything outside of the above things. Whether they turn out positive or negative seems based on the segments they played and whether they put more weight on the first two points, or the latter two.

My personal take is that people (myself included) are still caught up on the idea of this being more then just a 3rd person shooter. Ready at Dawn shot themselves in the foot when first selling the game as a dynamic action adventure title. I don't have the quote but before we saw actual gameplay I remember reading several time that the game couldn't be sqeezed into a box, and that gameplay changes on the regular. Based on what we've seen its clearly just a 3rd person shooter with occasional down time/low key gameplay fitted in here and there. If theres a lot more to the gameplay style that they haven't shown us then they are at blame for choosing the least inspiring gameplay segments to the sell the game on. In regards to looking at it from the perspective of a shooter, it still doesn't look amazing TBH.

I disagree.  Gears is praised for this exact reason.  Gears is very strategic btw.  Gears was/is a game that used cover, running, pop shooting, blind fire, etc.  RE4 you have to stand still when shooting.  WHile they share the same camera angle that is about all there is to being similar.  Even then i can see you comparing it to RE4 because of this reason where as Uncharted doesnt even share the same camera angle

Though this is my last comment in this thread you can believe what you want but it really is not hard to see why The Order is being compared to Gears

Huh? Gears and Uncharted (and The Order based on all the gameplay we've seen) all play absolutely nothing like Resident Evil 4.

That video Jay posted looks like it could be ripped right out of a Gears game in terms of mechanics.

Having played RE4, I have to agree with you. The Order: 1886 plays a lot more closely with RE4 even strategy-wise. Gears is a lot more fast-paced. Sans the cover system, RE4 is an exemplary TPS and came way before Gears 1. Don't get me wrong, Gears was great, but I wouldn't call it 100% revolutionary. On top of the cover system, Gears executed on other aspects and mechanics of the genre superbly which was why it got a lot of love it deserved back then.