By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - The Order: 1886... Is its backlash good or bad?

 

Are the poor reviews for Order: 1886 justified?

Absolutely! Let the game burn to the ground! 53 17.85%
 
Yes. I don't want develo... 71 23.91%
 
Meh. I don't really mind either way. 45 15.15%
 
No. I think it has been reviewed unfairly. 92 30.98%
 
Not at all! This game is amazing! 36 12.12%
 
Total:297

So the reviews for The Order: 1886 have been coming in. Perhaps, somewhat unsurprisingly, its reception is rather lackluster.

But something was bothering me about this... Overall, I feel glad that it's getting poor reviews. It might discourage them and other developers from trying the same concept of the "cinematic experience" or whatever that's supposed to mean. I want games to play like games, and I don't like "cinematic" experiences in my games.

And that's part of the problem: I'm selfish. Just because I don't like "cinematic" games, (And I'm not alone in the opinion) that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who do enjoy these kinds of games. We have movies, and we have games. Maybe The Order: 1886 is something in between? Is Ready at Dawn trying to bridge a gap between the two?

And the brings me to the next thing: Ready at Dawn made what they said they were going to make. Vivster pointed this out in his thread recently, and I think he's right. Ready at Dawn said they would create a single-player, story-driven, cinematic video game. Meanwhile, what did they deliver? A single-player, story-driven, cinematic video game. Should we be accusing them for making what they said they would make? And going back to the first point, there's likely people out there who wanted something like this to come out; something in between a movie and a game. Maybe reviewers were looking at this at the wrong angle?

With that said, I'm still not interested in Order: 1886. It doesn't look like a game I would enjoy. However, I think this highlights an issue with the current review system journalists use, particularly review scores. Many sites gave this game a low score, its short length and minimal/uninteresting gameplay as common critisisms. But maybe someone doesn't mind the short length (Most movies are only about 2 hours long) and maybe they don't care about gameplay as much as they care about a good story, beautiful graphics, and that "cinematic" feeling (A feeling I still fail to understand...). Yet unfortuntely, those factors result in a lower arbitrary score, even if those factors are insignificant to someone.



"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Samuel Clemens

Around the Network

if the bad press and bad reviews keep developers from doing the ''cinematic experience'' then I will be very pleased



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

See, I'm on the other side. I enjoy cinematic games very much. Sure, I prefer an action game like GTA, Tomb Raider or Resident Evil, but I think there is also a place on the market for Beyond 2 Souls, Heavy Rain and The Order.
Have not started TO yet, but if it isn't good then it deserves bad scores.
I just hope that this doesn't discourage developers from making GOOD cinematic games, though. I'm looking forward to Until Dawn very much, as well.

But in one thing I am the same as OP. All the genres I dislike I always wish to fail, as I hope that it would discourage more of those (fighting, racing games, multiplayer only games etc.)

 

EDIT: Also, as far as reviews for this game go, they simply prove the need for more summary oriented results, except just a number at the end. Because, as OP says, I really don't mind any of the negatives that brought TO tumbling down --- I don't mind that it's short, I don't hate QTE, I like lots of story exposition. The only negative I am worried about here is that reviews say the story is lacking... That can ruin it for me more than the other cons. 



PwerlvlAmy said:
if the bad press and bad reviews keep developers from doing the ''cinematic experience'' then I will be very pleased

As much as I agree with you (as stated in the OP), I'm not sure if it's fair to say something like that.

Just because you, me, and many others don't like "cinematic" games, does that mean they shouldn't exist at all? Maybe "cinematic" is kind of its own sub-genre in games, with its own fans. (As silly as that might sound).

I'm not defending The Order: 1886. I'm criticizing the review system, really.



"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Samuel Clemens

All I know is that the developer's comment about "Internet bullies" is even more dumb now because of the fact that the game got a lot of bad scores. It's like they just wanted to say "Anyone that is hating on our game is just doing it to jump on a bandwagon" despite the fact that people had legitimate complaints, including reviewers considering the fact that a lot of the reviewers said the game was bad.



Around the Network

The issue is this idea that the developers accomplishing their vision=justified $60 price tag. But that runs into a logical problem in that, if taken to its extreme, you could justify a $60 price tag on nearly any piece of software. Also, this removes the possibility for critique. I don't like all the drama, but the criticism is necessary for the medium to mature and for developers to continue to improve. Without it, without critics and, yes, fan responses, the genre stagnates. Are there people who will enjoy The Order? Yes. Does that mean all critique is invalid and they're perfectly fine how they are? Absolutely not. I can think of games that have been this way for me. I really enjoy Mount&Blade, as well as Warband. However, no way would I give them higher than a 7/10 if they even got that out of me. Why? Because despite accomplishing their original goals and despite my enjoyment, they still have many, many areas in which to improve. The same applies here, "original vision" be darned.

Also, comparing movies and games ignores the fact that the two mediums are different, providing different forms of gratification through different means. What is good for a movie is not necessarily good for a video game. Same could be said of movies and books.  The video game genre has unique, specific strengths that, if a developer fails to use, does represent missed opportunities worthy of exploration.  This by no means implies all games should be the same, but rather that there are underlying principles that give games their uniqueness, similar to how there are underlying general principles that guide nearly all writers despite the enormous range of genres.



I'm really glad you made this post, as you hit the nail on the head. My copy of The Order is coming today, and despite the reviews I'm ridiculously excited to get my hands on it. Why? Because I'm really keen for a game that focuses on story, with goodbcharacters, lush visuals and environments, and solid gameplay. I don't NEED every game to have endless online multiplayer, or be 60 hours long with multiple endings, or create entirely new gameplay mechanics. I don't have all the time in the world like I used to, now that I have a job and a girlfriend as well as other responsibilities. I mean, I got Dragon Age Inquisition for Christmas and I'm STILL on my first playthrough, and I'm expected to play it twice?! The Order isn't for everyone, with its average length, lack of replay value and cinematic approach, but it's definitely for me, it's exactly what I need at this point.

And you also raise a good point about people being selfish and slating a type of game that others will want. My main concern here is that the backlash against this game will pressure more developers to abandon story-driven single player games in favour of online multiplayer shit like Destiny, which is pretty much the worst outcome possible. Ten years from now only 10% of our games will still be playable, as most will become coasters once their servers are turned off, whilst The Order 1886 will still be every bit as enjoyable, so a developer shouldn't be punished for making a game like that.



I don't mind cinematic games in general but the order just overdid it.
Of course there are many other valid complaints about the game, I really want to actually play a game and I want it to give me the feeling that I am actually in control and not only part of a movie where I am sometimes allowed to shoot enemies or inspect stuff.



I can't really give a good answer until I play It. So tagged for later



Sentient_Nebula said:
PwerlvlAmy said:
if the bad press and bad reviews keep developers from doing the ''cinematic experience'' then I will be very pleased

As much as I agree with you (as stated in the OP), I'm not sure if it's fair to say something like that.

Just because you, me, and many others don't like "cinematic" games, does that mean they shouldn't exist at all? Maybe "cinematic" is kind of its own sub-genre in games, with its own fans. (As silly as that might sound).

I'm not defending The Order: 1886. I'm criticizing the review system, really.


Nah its fair to say that as its my opinion on the matter. I personally would rather play a game than watch it. People are free to enjoy cinematic experiences and that's fine with me, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm saying that if by some freak accident(not likely) that this is the game that puts a damper on other developers doing cinematic experiences,then I wouldn't mind one bit. Thats all,nothing more and nothing less



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick