The zeppelin's cabin is the only scene with QTEs. There are no other QTEs.

Like i said, 18 seconds.

Semantics-shmantics. If you don't want to call them QTEs, thats fine but that doesn't make them any more interesting

C. Errr...every game has limitations. A good game hides those limitations and makes the player feel like their decisions matter. I described a game that puts the decisions on the players head and makes them feel like their decisions matter. That is the strength of games, putting the power in the players hands. Like I said, a good game, hides its limitations...once again, watch the Extra Credits videos I posted for a more in depth desription of why both agency and the illusion of choice matter, even in linear games.

E. Why would the player move into a less advantageous position? If the optimal strategy is boring, it is not the players fault for applying that strategy. As stated, in another video, the player attempted to move around, but the section was obviously designed around the player staying in their cubby-hole and they almost died.

Once again, you are misunderstanding everything I am saying about choice. CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN OPEN WORLD and it doesn't even mean just narrative choice.

Uncharted is a good example of gameplay choice in a linear game. Often it presents numerous paths that the player can take with its interesting terrain traversal and gives the player the option of playing with stealth or going guns blazing. Often the player actually has to think about where they can move and when they can move and which order to take enemies out. I rarely felt like I was playing whack a mole in Uncharted... I am not criticizing linear games, I am not criticizing cover based shooters, I am criticizing the order

@Der: it says "often", not "always"

C. What you're saying is subjective, not objective, and I disagree entirely. I think the exact opposite, and that goes for that video as well.

E. Who said it's less advantegous? It's just riskier, that's all. And like in most games, the riskier path can be more fun. What does almost dying have to do with anything? Maybe he should have tried something else. Did he even use blacksight? Did he try switching weapons around instead of constantly using the thermite rifle? He does have a pistol which is easier to use specially while moving (hence, out of cover). He could go into cover, spray the explosive section in the middle and light it up with the flare, than move up and use blacksight to dispatch the most immediate threats, then use the pistol (maybe even while running in hip fire) to kill the few that might remain. Not really all that problematic, considering you only become more vulnerable in the very last part of what i just described.

And I don't think Uncharted is a good example of what you're saying. Uncharted is whack a mole. A lot more than The Order. The game doesn't offer you any ways to shake it up, there's nothing similar to the blacksight mechanic, there's no real destructible cover, and the weapons are boring and very traditional. Did you play Uncharted 1-3? (I didn't play #3 so excuse me If i'm wrong here) You sound like you're talking about U4 instead...

As for U4 itself, it seems fine.. There's a certain dynamic to what we saw that seems cool. But I don't want all games to be like that. Specially considering that the more they try to do the less good they are at any specific thing. U4 and The Order both have some semblance of stealth but neither are going to be as good at it as MGS or other true stealth games. And U4's gunplay/fights aren't as good as The Order either. So let The Order be the way it is. I don't want it to be like U4. Having both is better than having two U4s. Both will do some things better than the other. Blowing up and vaporizing things and people will be better in The Order, toying around with enemies will be better in U4. That's just the way games work.

the thing is, im not going against the author, i agree that most (not all) but most games do new stuff, but NOT most of them do revolutionary stuff, and  thats because they dont need to revolutionize the game genre in order to be great games, and TLOU as well as many new games and sequels did do some new stuff making them "Innovative" in a sense, just like Ther Order according to the article is being innovative in the way it gives the player control over segments that would normally be cutscenes, plus having the same assets in such a high quality for cutscenes and gameplay.

so in summary i was missusing the word Innovative in my last comment just like people are missusing the word innovative when they judge games like The Order, so in order to make my last post more clear what i meant to say is:

"most games are not Revolutionary and thats because they dont need to be revolutionary to be great games, or to have any sort of quality"

@wilco

I had forgotten about the 3:50 scene..it was one of the very first shown back in February 2014. It's still just a few more seconds and changes nothing of what I said. On top of that, the recent previews complaining about QTEs were of the PSX demo, which still only has 18 seconds of QTEs in 30 minutes.

There are no QTEs on the werewolf scene.

You are focused on the weapons, and thats fine...the weapons are really damn cool, but the gameplay is not designed well. Some people may be able to get past that and have a great time playing with the weapons, but there is a distinction between good weapon design and good gameplay design. I wish The Order had better gameplay design in the sections we have been shown. The game could be amazing, but I am clearly not alone when I express disappointment for what the game is looking like it is shaping up to be. I am just asking for games to reach their full potential because I know that there is so much that games can do...unfortunately The Order doesn't impress me.

The upcoming story-driven shooter by Ready at Dawn Studios The Order: 1886 is going to finally hit the shelves next month, and it’s proving quite polarizing. Having spent a lot of time on the show floor at various events, I can’t say I met many gamers that didn’t love what they played when they tried the demo.

On the other hand there has been quite a lot of very vocal negativity from many, and especially from part of the press. That negativity is probably going to reflect in quite a few reviews, and it’s often focused on a simple point: “it’s not innovative.”

Of course those that have been around for a while will recognize it as the token excuse that is normally used (and often abused) to criticize a game, which normally tends to be a hyped one, when a negative opinion would otherwise sound weak without that bit.

Let us, first and foremost, define what “innovation” is, and what isn’t. The Merriam-Webster dictionary comes to our help:

“Innovation” is the simple act of doing something new. Most importantly, “innovation” and “revolution” are completely different concepts.

Why do I bring up “revolution?” Because many of those that utilize the “innovation” criticism when related to games most of the times actually confuse it with “revolution.” When they say something is not “innovative.” They actually mean it’s not “revolutionary.”

Finding a game that does absolutely nothing new is actually rather difficult, due to the simple fact that game development is a very creative process. Innovation doesn’t just lay on single elements, but also in the combination of them, and there are nearly infinite ways to combine gameplay elements.

A game may not bring to the table any single element that is new by itself, but combine them in a new way, and that is indeed still innovation.

On the other hand, if you (improperly) consider only single gameplay elements, it’s very hard to find any game that is innovative, because we’re at a stage in which almost everything has been done one way or another (making the point basically meaningless).

One further rather basic mistake made when using the token “not innovative” criticism is that innovation isn’t limited to gameplay. A game may not bring specific innovations in the way it plays (and that’s quite difficult to achieve already), but it can innovate in the field of technology, or even in storytelling. That’s still fully valid innovation, even if many critics simply don’t notice, understand or simply consider it (because it’s often not convenient for their purpose).

Now that we got out of the way what “innovation” is and what it isn’t, let us look at what we’ve seen so far of The Order: 1886. Of course final judgement on most elements will have to come at release, but  there are quite a few things that we can already point out.

First of all, the setting an story itself is an innovation. How many AAA games can you find out there set in an alternate Victorian age, with an order of fanatical knights fighting a two front-war against their own people and a semi-alien race using steampunk-ish technology and weapons?

Let me think about it…. None. Innovation #1. Check.

The game is also rather innovative in the way it tells the story. Cutscenes and gameplay are nearly seamless, with  the player not only retaining a limited degree of control during narrative sections, but there’s no difference in 3D models and assets between cutscenes and gameplay. This is something definitely new at this level of visual fidelity, where normal gameplay normally utilizes downscaled models because there’s more hardware headroom.

The combination of that with the way the camera is utilized to tell the story, with smooth transitions between cutscenes and gameplay and cutscenes and semi-interactive moments is also highly innovative.

You may or may not like it, but even the cinematic 2.40:1 aspect ratio used in The Order: 1886 is also an innovation.

The Order: 1886 also innovates in terms of technology. Graphics Programmer Matt Pettineo’s talks at Siggraph 2013 and GDC 2014 show quite a few new solutions in how the graphics pipeline is handled, especially in how materials are rendered and shaded.

The combination of those advanced technical solutions is what give The Order: 1886’s graphics their very unique feel. Ready at Dawn didn’t simply pile on more polygons or bigger textures to make the game look that good, but researched new solutions in rendering and combined them with others that weren’t previously used in gaming, and the effect is very visible.

Finally, the game innovates in the field of music as well. This kind of genre and setting normally relies heavily on brass instruments to give that “heroic” and “epic” feel to the score. Composer Jason Graves removed the brass from the picture, on the other hand adding a choir of twenty-four men exclusively belonging to the low end of the scale, even to the exclusion of tenors, that normally are considered nearly indispensable.

We basically took the low 25% of the choir and extended it even lower.

Those elements combined create a very fresh and unique score, and that is, indeed, a form of innovation.

Of course, while The Order: 1886 can be considered innovative in its own particular way,  the “it’s not innovative!” criticism remains a pointless excuse. Innovation is not in any shape or form determining in gauging a game’s quality. As a matter of fact, many games that innovated for innovation’s sake ended up being lesser experiences, because the tried and true way is “tried and true” for a reason.

That doesn’t mean that innovation doesn’t have any value, but a game can definitely be fun and interesting even if it’s not particularly innovative, and the last time I checked fun was the whole point of gaming.

Ultimately, The Order: 1886 may not be Revolutionary (depending on what you consider a revolution, which is rather subjective), but it definitely is innovative in its own unique ways. It might not radically innovate where some want, but that’s irrelevant to whether it’s innovative or not.

Source: http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/01/18/the-order-1886-is-actually-quite-innovative-its-time-to-shelve-that-boring-generic-excuse-to-bash-it/

I didn't read any of what you wrote, sorry. From what I have seen, 1886 is a TPS version of Ryse. I actually had very high hopes for the game, but the more I see, the less interested I am. 

It's nothing like Ryse.. Ryse's equivalent of a TPS would be a game where you only use a pistol from start to finish.

@wilco, whether you think it's dumb or not is irrelevant, it's not a QTE, and even if it was there's still hardly any QTEs, therefore anyone calling it a QTE fest is straight up lying, as I already said.