Kind makes me wish a lot of the games released last gen, were reviewed by todays standards. 

I do feel that some of the hate is justified, but it is very clear that the smaller websites rated this lower for clickbait (Because they know they wouldn't get away with rating Bloodborne lowly), and the bigger websites wanted to make an example of a game that was built on old conventions.

Either way it seems like this game is really a 7.5-8/10 (Though I haven't played it).

I think the problem with the order isnt what it is, but rather what it could have been.

@eddie
id say, so far, id give it a 7.7

Yeah, I don't think it's a bad thing. The original Assassins Creed for instance would probably have only scored 6.5/10 if scored by today's standards.

@intrinsic
I get that, but how often do we review things that way.
would anyone give dragons lair a 2/10 for being nothing but a giant ate?

The problem with reviews and gamer opinions in general, is that we currently see ocarina of time as the greatest game ever released. So, the standards of that game have become what is expected in what is a good game. I know that sounds reasonable, but its actually very ridiculous.

Does candy crush there for have no merit as a game? What about gran turismo? What about Pac man?
No. We've found categories for these games to excel in. Puzzle game, racing, arcade. Because we know these games are good at what they set out to be, regardless of ocarinas score.

The problem is that game reviewers wanted order to be gears of war or last of us, instead of the order
they wanted gran turismo to be more like zelda.

Is it just me or does the game seem to have a stiffness about it , also there was this sense of  playing strictly by a set of rules set out by the developer , this was evident in the way most of the interesting weapons where doled out , I acccept that there is a certain need for that approach in regards to set peices but most good games disguise it better than the Order , I just couldn't escape the notion that I was being led through a game rather than playing through one .

Having said that I like a lot of gamers want a sequel , because for all it's flaws there is a great base to work with ,  if they learn by listening to justified critique .,or will that critique be over powered by all the controversy

Maybe it's just fatigue? Too many dark games where you run around killing things. That's how I feel anyway. I haven't played The Order, so I don't have an opinion on whether it's good or bad but I know that I've played SO many games that have that sort of feel and gameplay before. I really think I'm just over it. *shrugs*

Is it just me or does the game seem to have a stiffness about it , also there was this sense of  playing strictly by a set of rules set out by the developer , this was evident in the lack of choices, things like using interesting weapons was mostly down to when the game deemed them neccessary , I acccept that there is a certain need for that approach in regards to set peices, but most good games disguise the linearity better than the Order , I just couldn't escape the notion that I was being led through a game rather than playing through one .

Having said that I like a lot of gamers want a sequel , because for all it's flaws there is a great base to work with ,  if they learn by listening to justified critique .

OOT is held in high regard because it CHANGED THE INDUSTRY. When I first played that game, I had NEVER played anything like it. It was totally fresh and immersive and revolutionary. It took me on a journy that I had never been on before. 

The Order, and any other big AAA shooter, no matter how good, won't pull that off. It's going to take a game that either takes something old and makes it completely new or reinvents the wheel like OOT.