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

Forums - Sony - The Order 1886 Review Thread - Meta: 66

Ruler said:

 

Anyways who cares lets move on, Bloodborne will handle it for Sony


willing to bet the media now start picking holes in bloodborne too, or kotaku have at least one gender focused article about it.



Around the Network
binary solo said:
KLAMarine said:
This is what happens when you go into the video game industry hoping to make a movie. Add in console warriors and you have yourself a storm.

In my opinion, TO deserves the middle-of-the-road reviews considering the design philosophy RaD adopted in making TO. Graphics will look nice to many people and RaD should be commended for TO's visuals but graphics are not the only thing that go into a video game just like lighting is not all there is to a movie. Video games can also feature game play, sound design, replayability, frame rate, a good story, multiplayer, etc.

Let this be a learning experience for RaD going forward.

It's got general praise for the sound, frame rate has been solid at 30fps, but not 100%, story has received mixed reactions. So other than straight visuals it does have other good points, just not the most important aspect of a game (underlined). Replayability and multiplayer are not essential features of a game. If a game is long enough it doesn't need replayability or multiplayer.

I'm sorry, didn't mean to imply that TO only had graphics to its credit. I do recall it getting praise on the sound front. My mistake.



JWeinCom said:
There was never anything that looked vaguely good about this game beyond its visuals, and its setting if you're into Victorian stuff. Pretty much everything that looked wrong with it in the first place (bland looking shooting, limited interactivity) actually were wrong with it. Interesting though to see how firmly people hold to an opinion once it's formed.

But that doesn't seem to be a significant criticism. The complaint is that there's not enough of it and firefights are over before you really feel like you've been in one. But that what gunplay there is is good, albeit not groundbreaking. There is praise for how the guns sound and feel and satisfaction on how they work.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

If there's one thing I learned from CGI-QUALITY, is buy what you want, not what's reviewed. When I get my PS4, I'm buying the order.



binary solo said:
JWeinCom said:
There was never anything that looked vaguely good about this game beyond its visuals, and its setting if you're into Victorian stuff. Pretty much everything that looked wrong with it in the first place (bland looking shooting, limited interactivity) actually were wrong with it. Interesting though to see how firmly people hold to an opinion once it's formed.

But that doesn't seem to be a significant criticism. The complaint is that there's not enough of it and firefights are over before you really feel like you've been in one. But that what gunplay there is is good, albeit not groundbreaking. There is praise for how the guns sound and feel and satisfaction on how they work.

The reviews I've read were at best lukewarm about the gun.  Bland seems to be a fair description based on what I'm reading. 



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
binary solo said:
JWeinCom said:
There was never anything that looked vaguely good about this game beyond its visuals, and its setting if you're into Victorian stuff. Pretty much everything that looked wrong with it in the first place (bland looking shooting, limited interactivity) actually were wrong with it. Interesting though to see how firmly people hold to an opinion once it's formed.

But that doesn't seem to be a significant criticism. The complaint is that there's not enough of it and firefights are over before you really feel like you've been in one. But that what gunplay there is is good, albeit not groundbreaking. There is praise for how the guns sound and feel and satisfaction on how they work.

The reviews I've read were at best lukewarm about the gun.  Bland seems to be a fair description based on what I'm reading. 

I take it you're reading the 5 and below reviews mostly? The game seems to be lacking in many areas that any reviewer scoring it 6.5 and above (which is a considerable majority of reviews) has very little to praise to give other than sound, visuals +/- story and gunplay. It's got to be a poor reviewer who gives a game >5 purely on the basis of visuals, story  and sound and reserves their main critique for actual gameplay.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo said:
JWeinCom said:
binary solo said:
JWeinCom said:
There was never anything that looked vaguely good about this game beyond its visuals, and its setting if you're into Victorian stuff. Pretty much everything that looked wrong with it in the first place (bland looking shooting, limited interactivity) actually were wrong with it. Interesting though to see how firmly people hold to an opinion once it's formed.

But that doesn't seem to be a significant criticism. The complaint is that there's not enough of it and firefights are over before you really feel like you've been in one. But that what gunplay there is is good, albeit not groundbreaking. There is praise for how the guns sound and feel and satisfaction on how they work.

The reviews I've read were at best lukewarm about the gun.  Bland seems to be a fair description based on what I'm reading. 

I take it you're reading the 5 and below reviews mostly? The game seems to be lacking in many areas that any reviewer scoring it 6.5 and above (which is a considerable majority of reviews) has very little to praise to give other than sound, visuals +/- story and gunplay. It's got to be a poor reviewer who gives a game >5 purely on the basis of visuals, story  and sound and reserves their main critique for actual gameplay.


I've read a few, a mix of positive and negative.  More of the negative (under 7) because frankly, more of them are negative.  For better or woser, most reviewers will give a 5 to a game for looking good and being generally not broken. 



While i generally agree with the meta average the games getting, anywhere from 63-70 would be where I place it.
the 2/10 from digitaltrends is pure and obvious clickbait.



Star Wars foresaw it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNjWpZmxDgg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n29CicBxZuw

01001011 01101001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01101101 01100101 01110100 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 00100001

RolStoppable said:
Tachikoma said:
While i generally agree with the meta average the games getting, anywhere from 63-70 would be where I place it.
the 2/10 from digitaltrends is pure and obvious clickbait.

No, it's not. It's a perfectly fair judgment of the game because it doesn't deserve any better. It's a game on a console I will never own.


You will never own? even if its 10 or 20€? one day. AAAtitles drop in price very fast