I thought that was Ubisoft. Did RAD say this nonsense fist?

I have no real interest in Co-op for this game. I like Co-op in RPGs, but not TPS/adventure games.

Four seconds of gameplay between cutscenes does not a video game make...I personally, don't feel frightened or immersed if every 5 seconds in a tense scene I get to sit back and breathe while the game shows me what my character is doing instead of letting me do it myself. I think I gave a pretty detailed response to your question, I find it unreasonable that you brush it off as me being unreasonable. You can feel however you want about this type of gameplay, but don't pretend that I have no point. 

I have a hard time understanding what you are saying in this comment, but I would like to ask, why does there need to be cinematics at all? Games should try to give players control as often as possible, only taking it away when absolutely necessary. Many of the mini-cutscenes I see in The Order gameplay just don't need to exist. With some better design you could keep the players in the game and introduce some gameplay variety in one fell swoop, instead of leaning back on the cop out of cutscenes. 

What other gameplay shows something differerent? I just watched this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgW-_ZH2STI ) which showed another short section and it seemed to be the same thing. 

Where is the gameplay (not a trailer, gameplay) that shows anything different? To clarify, I don't think the Order is going to be bad (from what I've seen), just unremarkable. 

Also, I would like to say that I think it is entirely fair to judge a game based on what the developer/publisher has showed us. I can't rightly judge it on the things they haven't showed us, can I? My conclusion based on these facts is just as fair as anyone elses conclusion based on the same facts. You can't just write off all negative opinions because the game isn't out yet. There were plenty of people telling me that I couldn't judge Destiny based on the beta because it was "just a beta", but my criticisms rang true on release day...

Obviously, at some point in time, it has become unacceptable for a game to be linear. Unless you can make an open world sandbox game, you shouldn't even bother. I mean, fricking Driveclub (a damn racing game) got deducted points for not being open world.

Obviously, at some point in time, it has become unacceptable to have an emphasis on a story (narrative) in a game. Then people who decide to shit all over Destiny use lack of story (narrative) as a drawback.

Obviously, at some point in time, it has become unacceptable to use cover in your TPS games ("They spend minutes shooting from cover..."). That point in time has obviously happened since last Gears of War, as in that game all player does is shoot from cover ---- for an entire game --- yet it always reviewed great and is loved by players.

Obviously, at some point in time, it has become unacceptable for a game to run at 30fps. But only for a game you decided to dislike, while accepting an even lower framerate for games you decided to like.

Obviously, at some point in time, it has become unacceptable to say anything negative about Nintendo or Microsoft games (no matter how good, mediocre or bad they are) without being branded a troll or a hater, but it is an open season for Sony games.

I have problems with your post:

a. The complaint of "linearity" is a red herring. The problem is a lack of gameplay variety. The linearity complaint is a small piece of that, but it hardly shows the full picture. Yes, we haven't seen much of the game, but it is R@D/Sony's job to show us what this game has to offer and they haven't done a very good job.

b. Did DriveClub get deducted points for not being open world? All the reviews I could find which mentioned open worlds did it as a way of saying that the game is small and fairly bare bones, lacking frills like open worlds. I think that is a perfectly valid complaint. Which review are you referencing?

c. You act like DriveClub was absolutely panned by reviews. It has around a 70 on metacritic, what is wrong with that? Games have every right to be average, but if they are, they are going to get average reviews. Not every game needs to be revolutionary, but why should a game that merely reaches par get an 8 or a 9? I'd say 7 is pretty generous what with 5 being average on most non-video game review scales...

d. Emphasis on story is fine, if you remember that this is a video game. Video games have their own ways of getting the players into the story and portraying the story in new and interesting ways. the criticisms come in when, instead of utilizing all of the benefits of the medium, you just piggyback off of cinema.

e. Story is often used as a vehicle to advance the gameplay instead of being the core of the game, like Destiny, but when that vehicle is cliche shit carrying you between repetive "defend the point" missions, it deserves to be criticized.

f. You can use cover, but when the gameplay becomes a game of whack-a-mole for minutes on end, that just isn't fun. Introduce some variety, whether that is smarter enemies who force you to move around and utilize a battlefield tactically or having the shooting be a secondary objective next to some more interesting primary objective.

g. 30fps is acceptable, but don't pretend like it is the ideal. If R@D said "we cannot get our game running steadily at anything above 30fps", people would have accepted it. The bullshit that they were trying to push wish their "30fps is more cinematic" statement is what got people riled up. 

Your entire comment is just you misplacing criticisms...

I have a problem with your reply, especially with:

c). How could you possibly arrive to that co from nclusion? I mentioned Driveclub as one example of getting points deducted, nowhere have I even mentioned the score. How you could deduce that I said that 70 is wrong is beyond me...but it fits with your profile, I guess...making stretched and false assumptions out of small examples...

d.) What does that even mean...Video games are interactive entertainment media of sorts. Who are you, or anyone else, to judge exactly what the exact ratios of interaction and story are. I guess you hated Beyond 2 Souls and Heavy rain then. If your preference is just to be in control 100% of the time, you should be sticking to early 90s games. Stop being stuck in the past, limiting your experiences, and accept that video games can exist on both parts of the spectrum.

f.) Again, how is that you not describing Gears of War? We still haven't seen it, but perhaps this game also has a turret sequence and a "mech" riding sequence. You just decided to conclude that the game is "whack-a-mole" based on a few minutes of demo, and yet most of those minutes are cinematic, which is again complained about. And of course, your definition of "whack-a-mole" is using cover, while you disregard the ability to use varying weapons for varying outcomes, to even use melee, or to even have a (the dreaded acronym) QTE to defeat the enemy...

g.) As I said, up until a few months, people were enjoying games that were even sub-30fps, yet now being 30fps is solely due to developer's ineptitude, as they intentionaly mask their horrible game behind "buzz-words".

Your entire batch of comments on this game is placing criticism regardless of anything you've actually seen. Actually, choosing to see only negatives and crap all over them, and disregarding any positives, of which there certainly are more...

c. You lament that reviewers act like non-open world games shouldn't exist. I think its a pretty fair point to make that its not like these non open world games are getting bad reviews.

"Unless you can make an open world sandbox game, you shouldn't even bother. "

Sounds to me like you are complaining about how reviewers are treating non open world games.

d. "I guess you hated Beyond 2 Souls [...] then" Well yeah, Beyond Two Souls was garbage (I know less about Heavy Rain). Some of the things it did gameplay-wise were slightly interesting (albeit lacking), but to make a story based game with a story that is that woefully garbage is unforgivable. 

I think that it is a cop out to just resort to cutscenes whenever you have to tell the player something. Earlier in this thread I compared it to exposition dumps, which are just a cheap way of getting information across. Games have the unique ability to put the player in the game, while cutscenes are counter intuitive, because they just serve to take the player back out of the game. They do have a use (namely opening/closing scenes), but they should be used sparingly. I'm not asking for games to go back to the 90's, I'm asking them to move forward past cinema. There are better ways to do these things, especially the mini-cut scenes (pulling a lever? Heres a 10 second cutscene. Knocking down a ladder? Have a 10 second cutscene. Taking down an enemy? Heres a 10 second cutscene (with bonus QTEs!)).

Watch this demo again and tell me, do you honestly think that that section where he blows up that water heater thing wouldn't have been more interesting if you actually had to think instead of just pushing a button to watch a movie? I am asking the devs to be more creative with how they utilize the medium and move forward. You are the one who seems to be fine with stagnation. Too often games aspire to be movies and forget that they have a set of tools that no one else has, that they can do wonderful and unique things with...

f. I think its perfectly acceptable to hold modern games to a different standard than games that came out eight years ago (even still, I don't really like GeOW). My definition of "whack a mole" is not "using cover" btw, it is the skillless gameplay that can be seen in the first section of the demo. All he is doing is popping out of cover whenever enemies show up and popping back in if he gets to injured. It is simplistic and boring and repetitive. Like I said, force the player to use some strategy or intelligence or make shooting the secondary objective, because it isn't interesting enough to sustain the gameplay on its own. 

Yes, there are different weapons, but again, in that part of the demo, the guys were just running onto screen like lambs to the slaughter. No tactics were necessary, just use your different guns to make a different looking explosion...

Additionally, as I've said before, I can only judge the game based on what the dev/pub has shown me. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make all the statements I have made about the game based on what they have shown. It is their job to prove these statements wrong...

g. I didn't say any of that. I said that 30fps is acceptable, but not a goal that should be strived towards because it is more "cinematic" 

"and disregarding any positives, of which there certainly are more..." There are positives, but this thread was quite clearly about the game's linearity. As for positives, it looks gorgeous, with a great art design and character design. The lore and the world seem to be potentially interesting but I don't know enough about it yet. The weaponry seems to get pretty interesting (unfortunately that doesn't mean much if the gameplay isn't fun).

Honestly, there are a lot of interesting things about the game, but almost none of them are "gameplay" which is unfortunate. I am making complaints about the game I see, because I hope games in the future wont make the same mistakes. 

Well, we share one thing - we both hope that the end result will be a very good game. I guess we just have different approaches to the current process of presentation...

Although I am not bothered by the things that currently bother you, so it is very likely that in the end I will enjoy the full game more than you, but who knows...

this is where I differ from most on this game and why I don't give credence to many saying it's too cinematic, because I've heard the same insult used against some of my favorite games of all time like Uncharted, Heavy Rain, TLoU, Beyond 2 Souls, MGS, TWD season 1, and so many more.  I love more open games like Batman or Skyrim too but both are fun to me and it's not a notch against a game if it tries to be cinematic or linear which is what I don't get about most reviews.  They act like a big open world was promised or something.  I like my cinematic games they're some of the most replayable games I own.  Are my actions still effecting the outcome?  Can I still die?  Is the control of the player being used for something (including just getting me more immersed in the story)?  Then it's game enough for me.

I like pretty games as much as the next guy. But the issue I have with Order 1886 is that this unhealthy desire for making it "cinematic" is resulting in too many compromises to gameplay, such as cutting the framerate, and covering 26% of the screen in black bars.

Particularly worrying to me is the developers' excuse for making the game 30 fps, arguing that they choose 30fps instead of 60 fps because 30 was more cinematic. You know something is wrong when they're valuing "cinematic feel" over responsive controls.