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

Forums - Sony - The order's 1886 first review 7,5/10

dane007 on 17 February 2015
Zekkyou said:
true_fan said:
7.5 sounds too high based on the cons listed. The amount of time you spend watching the game is nearly as much time as you are playing the game, shameful.

It's shameful for a game with a strong focus on being cinematic to have a lot of cinematic? Huh.


but if you are paying 60 bucks for a game or 100 bucks in nz, you would hope to get a bit more gameplay then 4 hours right?  Being cinematic si cool, but you don't make nearly half the game cinematic. I wouldn't mind if its was 3 hour cinematic and 7 hour gameplay.



Around the Network
shogunknight on 17 February 2015

Pretty much the kind of score we will be seeing in a few days time



Areym on 17 February 2015
mornelithe said:
Areym said:

Sonic Boom is at a 32 on metacritic currently, now that is goddamn terrible. Knack is at a 54. That is mediocre, right at the middle. Playable and functional but unremarkable overall.

I'll leave it at that, ratings work differently for most people so I'll agree to disagree that a 7.5 is mediocre. A 7.5, in my eyes, is a good game. Not great, but good. Videogames are held to a much higher standard than most other things for whatever odds reason. The sooner we start utilizing the 0 to 10 scale more often OR no score at all (in my honest opinion) the sooner we can avoid these petty quarrels.

Heh, funny thing, I think it was Uncharted 2 that got a 50 from a site that Metacritic allows, hah, Knack was 4 pts better than Uncharted 2, confirmed!

Now that is unbelievable! I am a bit biased regarding Knack. As average as it was, I enjoyed it (most of it anyways, about 70% of it) but those clowns at AV club (i think it was then) wouldn't know a good game if it bit them in the ass.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

vivster on 17 February 2015
dane007 said:
Zekkyou said:
true_fan said:
7.5 sounds too high based on the cons listed. The amount of time you spend watching the game is nearly as much time as you are playing the game, shameful.

It's shameful for a game with a strong focus on being cinematic to have a lot of cinematic? Huh.


but if you are paying 60 bucks for a game or 100 bucks in nz, you would hope to get a bit more gameplay then 4 hours right?  Being cinematic si cool, but you don't make nearly half the game cinematic. I wouldn't mind if its was 3 hour cinematic and 7 hour gameplay.

If you're paying 60 bucks for a game and are concerned that you're getting enough bang for your buck you may want to do some research beforehand.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

mornelithe on 17 February 2015
sundin13 said:
mornelithe said:

No, they don't.  They can't just redefine already established words.  Sorry, that's just incorrect and stupid.  If the games below average, give it a fucking 40, why is that a problem?   We've let it go on for long enough, exemplified by how Metacritic has a different scale for Good/Bad between movies and games.  Other people can accept it, but I'll always point it out as idiotic.  Because it is.  We have numbers for below average on a 0-100 scale, and that's 49 and below.


Like I said, take it up with their system, but don't misrepresent their opinion by pretending that a 5 is average when that just isn't true for the vast majority of sites. I agree that the system should change, but until it does, you are just lying to yourself if you think that a 6 should be considered above average

I'll actually do whatever I please, sorry, you can justify it however you like, I'm not going to be silent when words are misused.  Like it or don't, won't stop me from voicing actual fact (Opinion, doesn't trump fact).



Around the Network
stpaulmagic on 17 February 2015

Interesting, can't wait to see some reviews in English so I can actually read the entire thing. Honestly I think 7.5 is a great score if the cons are accurate, it means that the game is not a piece of shit at least.



KLAMarine on 17 February 2015

The low replayability could really hurt this game.



mornelithe on 17 February 2015
Areym said:
mornelithe said:

Heh, funny thing, I think it was Uncharted 2 that got a 50 from a site that Metacritic allows, hah, Knack was 4 pts better than Uncharted 2, confirmed!

Now that is unbelievable! I am a bit biased regarding Knack. As average as it was, I enjoyed it (most of it anyways, about 70% of it) but those clowns at AV club (i think it was then) wouldn't know a good game if it bit them in the ass.

Yeah, it was pretty crazy, though clearly only done to as a click-bait review.



Areym on 17 February 2015
dane007 said:
Zekkyou said:
true_fan said:
7.5 sounds too high based on the cons listed. The amount of time you spend watching the game is nearly as much time as you are playing the game, shameful.

It's shameful for a game with a strong focus on being cinematic to have a lot of cinematic? Huh.


but if you are paying 60 bucks for a game or 100 bucks in nz, you would hope to get a bit more gameplay then 4 hours right?  Being cinematic si cool, but you don't make nearly half the game cinematic. I wouldn't mind if its was 3 hour cinematic and 7 hour gameplay.

I could argue that for 60 bucks, I wanted a well thoughout and detailed story that helps me relate to characters and their world, even at the expense of gameplay, so long as the story is told well and in full. Some people prefer gameplay, other cinematics/cutscenes. Value is subjective, I think. What I might think it valuable, you might see it as worthless and vice versa.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Zekkyou on 17 February 2015
dane007 said:
Zekkyou said:
true_fan said:
7.5 sounds too high based on the cons listed. The amount of time you spend watching the game is nearly as much time as you are playing the game, shameful.

It's shameful for a game with a strong focus on being cinematic to have a lot of cinematic? Huh.


but if you are paying 60 bucks for a game or 100 bucks in nz, you would hope to get a bit more gameplay then 4 hours right?  Being cinematic si cool, but you don't make nearly half the game cinematic. I wouldn't mind if its was 3 hour cinematic and 7 hour gameplay.

Depends on the quality of what's being offered. By the sounds of it, no, 1886 isn't worth a full $60 purchase, but that doesn't mean a game of similar length and design couldn't be. I'd happily pay $60 for 4 hours of Halo or Uncharted, even without the additional 3 hours of cut scenes. It's for that same reason i don't mind paying £20 ($30) to go see a 2 hour film at the IMAX.