Is that it? I thought it was obvious.

This.

Hm. This thread has claimed a lot lives. Haha

Games gonna be good, not Persona 5 good, but good.

They've communicated their vision just fine, said vision just doesn't appeal to me.

I don't see how this can be the case when just days ago you were jumping dow the throat of anyone who dared say the game was heavy on QTE's. Either you were blindly defending it, or they did not communicate to you well enough that yes, there are loads and loads of QTE's in the game.

I agree with the guy. We all knew it was going to be cinematic, linear, and try to tell a good narrative. I don't think anyone saw the whole 6 hours of gameplay, half of that being cut scenes and QTE's coming.

These devs are going to be on suicide watch soon the way things are going. Maybe we'll get a Vita game from then in the future :^)

Fair enough. To me, what is wrong with The Order is not what it is aiming for, but rather the execution. This applies to everything in real life. You can come up with some super duper plan, but if you can't pull it off, you're just going look stupid. Now I'm not saying The Order was executed poorly. As you said, it had the potential to be something amazing, but RAD fell short of that level of awesomeness.

I'll get The Order eventually and I bet it will be enjoyable even if it's short. What I'm curious to see is how RAD responds and adjusts to the criticisms.

I think SCE gives their devs too much freedom.

But these 2 things are linked. If communications are poor then expectations are likely to be different to developer intent. The problem is, and it's not all that unreasonable given the expectations that have been created over the last few years, that when a shooter has no MP people expect there to be a long SP campaign (15+ hrs), or high replayability (2 or 3 playable characters, branching story line where differnt choices take you in different directions...). If a shooter has MP then people are fine with a short campaign that can only stand a single play through, if that (<10 hrs). If consumer expectation is generally along those lines, and you intend to make a SP only game that is ~10 hours long then you have to work very hard on your communications to achieve market acceptance. That means being out in front on those aspects of the game that are likely to court the most controversy: total play through length (playing at a normal expected pace, not trying for a speed run); amount of time spent in cutscenes; also QTEs in this instance. RaD's biggest failing was not communicating expected game length well in advance of anyone getting their hands on the game and trying a speed run and coming in at ~5hrs. Failing to communicate this up front and having to damage control once the 5 hr play through was up on Youtube put RaD in a difficult spot, and gave the game a lot of bad press just before launch. In January, if they'd put out press releases saying their intention was to make a game where the first playthrough of the campaign would take X hours on normal difficulty. Our play testing of first timers who played the game as intended took on average X+/- hours, but people who did speed runs took Y hours and so the game length is as intended. People can then judge RaD on it's own intentions and whether they met their own intentions.  And they can judge whether RaDs own intentions justify a AAA price tag.

While I don't condone senseless hate, I do think that some of this is on them. I remember their first and second E3 showings being radically different. And they don't seem to have done the best job presenting their strong side at their pre-release preview events. And that is to a degree their fault. Personally, I just wish their embargo wasn't all the way up to the eleventh hour; that's something people in general are starting to get really picky about.