The Order: 1886 Attracts “Uncanny Haterade” Says Director

[Fusioncode]

starcraft said:

Fusioncode said:

starcraft said:

Rol's joke thread was pertinent. 

At the end of the day, dismissing a game before its out is often counterproductive. But equally counterproductive is all this silly defense of poor practices in games. Like offering limited content, having appalling endings, using QTE's where better gameplay options exist.

If you want to say 'lets just wait and see if the Order really has all these things before we attack it,' that would be fine. But so many in this thread and others are actually defending these practices (on principle) and it is incredibly apparent in most cases that its because they fear they are present in The Order, and want to defend that title specifically.

That just encourages other developers to make those poor design decisions, irrespective of whether they actually wind up being abundant in The Order.

I wouldn't call those poor practices. Poor design choices sure, it's not like the game is short on purpose and has day one DLC. A bad ending is the creative decision of the design team. The Mass Effect 3 ending was also terrible but if it's the ending that Bioware wanted to go with then it's their decision. As for QTEs, I don't like them either but apparantly the design team wanted to use it. It's their game, it's their choice.

Now poor practices should be reserved for games with terrible DLC, lots of microtransactions, and of course all the broken releases we've been getting recently. Now as far as I'm aware The Order doesn't have any of those things. If it did then I could understand why this game attracts so much ridiculous hatred. I understood the Driveclub bashing just fine. The MCC released completely broken at launch and still has tons of issues. I can understand that game being bashed as well. What I find a bit hypocritical is that I've seen you defending MCC quite a bit even though the game did far more harm to the industry than The Order being slightly mediocre ever could. So why are you confused as to why people defend this game? It's the same reason why you and so many others defended the MCC. It's another avenue for the console wars.

The Order isn't screwing consumers over in any way. It's a short, 3rd person shooter with competent mechanics and not much replay value. At worst the game will be mediocre. Why are so many people so personally offended that they need to bash the game and the team every chance they get? 

And using a Rol thread to shut down an argument? Really?

It is absolutely their game, it is absolutely their choice. And its a poor choice. The debate over whether something should be called a choice or a practice seems largely superfluous.

I don't recall ever, ever defending MCC releasing with launch issues. It was completely unacceptable, and I will thank you to stop trying to strawman me (and others in this thread) to try and win an entirely unrelated argument.

I think you summed it up best: "It's a short, 3rd person shooter with competent mechanics and not much replay value. At worst the game will be mediocre." Given the game's length, this was a fantastic opportunity to look at things like varied launch priced, $50 or even $40 for example. As we've just discussed, competent mechanics does not mean good mechanics. QTE's are an outdated practice, certainly on the scale they appear to be present in this game. Others have raised their relevance in games like God of War, where they perform a function normal gameplay could not - and to an extent I agree. That does not appear to be the case here.

But ultimately I have not taken a side in the way you appear to believe I have. People are defending a game they have not played, in a way that is clearly premature, just the same as others are attacking a game they have not played, in a way that is premature. The reason I highlighted Rol's thread is because it successfully articulates that point. People are attacking this game because its an exclusive, for sure. But an enormous number of people are also defending this game because its an exclusive.

We'll know more in just under two hours - but it won't surprise me if its immediately obvious that had this game been a multiplatform game, no one would ever have felt the need to discuss it - or buy it.

After that, and especially after I (hopefully) rent and play the game on Saturday, I am happy to discuss our impressions further.

I wasn't trying to strawman you.

But yes I agree, a $40 price point would have been a lot smarter for his game. But that's more an industry problem with their obsession with $60 price tags. Anything less than that and people will yell "lol indie game".