Review roundup

[StrickenBiged]

Ok, so this game has garnered a lot of controversy already. A lot of people are waiting to read reviews before they make up their minds, while significant camps appear to know already whether they will or won't give The Order: 1886 a go.

 

Well, for those in the middle, post any reviews you find here.

 

Here's the first one I've found. 9.5/10 from Gamepur. The review is very, very light on detail, but overwhelmingly positive.

[StrickenBiged]

IGN gave it a 6.5/10. Which surprises me because they went as far as to say that the experience would have been a better movie than a game! You'd have thought the number should be lower...

 

 

 

THE VERDICT

The basic conflict at the heart of The Order: 1886 is that considerations for a cinematic approach are prioritized above the needs of basic gameplay. Its best aspects are its stunning looks, atmosphere, and style – which are truly fantastic – and entertaining fiction. But the shallow, slow, and generic quick-time event-riddled gameplay make it feel like an experience that would've been better served by a non-interactive movie than a game. With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it.

Forbes also gave it 6.5/10. Their conclusion echos and expands on IGN's. Why not just make a movie? they wondered.

 

 

In conclusion

A few weeks ago I predicted that this game would be a huge letdown. In a sense, I’m even more disappointed than I thought I’d be, largely because there are so many things I do like about this title, it’s a shame I can’t give it a sterling review.

But I can’t recommend The Order: 1886 to anyone at full retail price. However long it takes you to finish—5, 7, 10 hours—a great deal of that is spent simply watching, not playing at all. No matter how good the cinematics are, that’s not really a game. There aren’t choices to make. The occasional QTE doesn’t help immerse us in the story, quite the contrary.

If all the game’s good moments were really spectacularly good, and if the payout at the end wasn’t a QTE boss that’s essentially recycled from the first QTE boss, maybe I could forgive the game’s lack of content. If gameplay were as good and satisfying as the graphics, or the story, or the voice acting—well then, who cares if it’s five hours or twenty-five hours? If that final boss fight was as good as the dialogue surrounding it…well, “if” does us very little good.

Oddly enough, I’m in a position where, as an advocate for more single-player content, I find myself wishing there were a multiplayer option. I have no desire to play the campaign again, but I’d be happy to shoot at other players. Any scrap of replay value would be a huge boon to this game.

While I can’t recommend you spend full price, I do think it’s worth checking out at some point—either when the price drops, or as a rental, or borrowed from a friend. It’s a really gorgeous game, and I don’t at all regret my time spent playing it. I’m certainly rooting for a sequel—one that can maintain its vision of being story-driven and compelling, but that pushes even harder to be a good game. Ambition is all well and good so long as the core mechanics are sound. And they simply aren’t sound in The Order: 1886.

I give this game a Hold. It’s not a bad game, but the inexplicable game design decisions that bog it down, and the relatively short amount of time you actually spend playing, make it a tough sell at $60. It’s one of those games I find myself liking, but even more so wishing were something more—more the game it could have been, and less the game it is.

Platform: PS4

Developer: Ready at Dawn

Publisher: Sony

Released: February 20th, 2015

Price: $59.99

Score: 6.5/10

[Saltyie]

6.5/10 from IGN

6.5/10 from Forbes

8.8/10 from Heavy

8/10 from N4G 

5/10 from Gamespot

5.5/10 from Polygon

NO from Kotaku

No score but negative Eurogamer review

 

Gamesradar:

"Worthy in its (assumed) intent, and visually spellbinding, The Order’s archaic, player-detached approaches to interaction and narrative nonetheless make it a dated and instantly forgettable experience."

 

Agreed Pros:

Good looking game, arguably one of the best looking games ever, definitely the best looking console game.

 

Agreed Cons;

Underdeveloped and uninteresting story and characters

short running time

Lots of QTEs

 

Agreed thoughts - Alright for a play, as long as you sell it right after.

[RoD_HiGo]

This is not looking good at all,

 

I'll probably rent it though, just because how good it looks and because I love third person shooters.

Can't help but feel a little dissapointed

[StrickenBiged]

Looks like one to look for in the bargain bins.

 

I really feel for anyone who bought a deluxe edition or, even worse, might have gone digital so they can't even trade in!

 

Thanks for the list Saltyie. I got some of them linked below.

 

8.8/10 from Heavy

5/10 from Gamespot

5.5/10 from Polygon

NO from Kotaku

No score but negative Eurogamer review

6.5/10 from Jimquisition

Edited February 19, 2015 by StrickenBiged

[Dragon-Archon]

Wow, those review scores differ so much. That just shows how subjective reviews are, which makes them imo pretty much worthless. I'll just do what I always do: look for walkthrough vids on Youtube to see unbiased gameplay and decide for myself.

[le7Samurai]

Well that's disappointing, but im gonna buy it anyway.

[stitchesnscars]

That  verdict quote from IGN confirms all of my worst fears for this game. I know that not all development time is equal but it really makes you wonder what all the delays were for if there is that little to do in the game.

Edited February 19, 2015 by stitchesnscars

[TriggerTortoise]

Damn. Well, this'll have to be the worst reviewed Ready at Dawn game I guess, albeit their first proper console game. Was hoping for this to be a sure hit.

[edu_gamer]

Well, I guess that now all is up to Bloodborne, I think that I'll rent this anyway when I get a PS4, since even if the gameplay is as boring as it looks, at least every review agrees that the story its a good one, so I'll play 3€ and... .

[Rumpled_Romeo]

If Bloodbourne and Uncharted 4 fail like inFmaous, Driveclub, Killzone have then PS4 and gaming may have a serious problem on their hands. This generation is cram packed with over-hyped, under delivering, glitch, DLC ridden games. I'm worried. 

[Lokkijumala]

Now we see that graphics don't make a game. Going to buy this game later this year, as Bloodborne is my main priority.

[amebapiko]

I think it's what I thought, I didn't look too interesting or innovative at all and it get a score to show for it. 

 

Currently: 65 on metacritic

[StrickenBiged]

Wow, those review scores differ so much. That just shows how subjective reviews are, which makes them imo pretty much worthless. I'll just do what I always do: look for walkthrough vids on Youtube to see unbiased gameplay and decide for myself.

 

I don't agree that they're worthless. I think the way you want to read them is by reading a lot from the same authors over time and actually playing the games yourself. Eventually, you'll get to understand how those reviewers think, and you'l;l know which ones to trust in the future.

Well, I guess that now all is up to Bloodborne, I think that I'll rent this anyway when I get a PS4, since even if the gameplay is as boring as it looks, at least every review agrees that the story its a good one, so I'll play 3€ and... .

 

I don't think they all agree that the story is good. Have a read, a number of them criticise that too.

[Condemned09]

I think bloodborne wont be a disappointment since that game is very similar to dark soul but the order 1886 wow im surprise to see a low score i hope their be a demo for i could.try and see how.it is

[stitchesnscars]

Wait a minute:

Yesterday at IGN : "Why we love the length of the order"

IGN review of the order: "With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it.

 

 

Wow, those review scores differ so much. That just shows how subjective reviews are, which makes them imo pretty much worthless. I'll just do what I always do: look for walkthrough vids on Youtube to see unbiased gameplay and decide for myself.

 

The content of those reviews however is very telling. One of the most agreed upon points is that this game looks pretty but doesnt have much else going for it. You are correct everything is subjective and i think if anything it shows which reviewers wanted to play a game vs those that enjoyed watching a $60 movie.

[Goro]

They prioritized the story and cinematics/graphics over the gameplay and game length/replayability which is a recipe for disaster.

Gameplay should always be the #1 priority when making a video game, if you want to prioritize the story and cinematics then it would make more sense to make a damn movie!

From what i've heard, this game takes around 5-6 hours to beat and has no replayability or multiplayer so i think it's the type of game you should just rent, that's if you decide to get it at all.

[Tomato]

[xzero4812]

Gameinformer has graded it a 7.75

 

 

While The Order: 1886 is a fun adventure with lots of intriguing reveals about the nature of its world, it’s also clear that Ready At Dawn intends for this to be the first game of a grander story. Players should brace themselves for a lot of unresolved character arcs and unanswered questions. This is an origin story, but a fascinating one. 1886 goes against the current tide of open-world wandering and emergent sequences, and banks on the idea that players can enjoy a straightforward and relatively brief cinematic adventure – if it’s well told and original. I hope Ready At Dawn is right; I’d love to see what happens in 1887. 

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_order_1886/b/playstation4/archive/2015/02/19/game-informer-review-the-order-1886.aspx

[Nihiris-]

They prioritized the story and cinematics/graphics over the gameplay and game length/replayability which is a recipe for disaster.

Gameplay should always be the #1 priority when making a video game, if you want to prioritize the story and cinematics then it would make more sense to make a damn movie!

 

Couldn't agree more. Sadly this game was doomed from beginning, at the risk of sounding hypocritical for not playing the game, I thought one review put it well: "The Order: 1886 is a paper-thin PS4 launch title delivered 15 months behind schedule."

 

Basically this is a game saved until it hits below $30.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Death_Ninja

[damon8r351]

Always funny when I see someone react to a negative review of an anticipated game with "Eh, I'll probably play it anyway." Yes, of course you will, you know you will and I know that you know you will, because if any professional critic's opinion truly mattered to you, you'd have dropped the game like a hot potato after the meh reviews came in. Instead, "Meh, I'll probably play it when it goes on sale."

 

That's why I may glance at a professional review to get a sense of what I'm walking into, but if I'm interested in the game then in the end it's my opinion on the game that matters.

Edited February 19, 2015 by damon8r351

[StrickenBiged]

Based on these reviews, I think I'll Order it when it's £18.86...

 

*Grabs coat*

Wait a minute:

Yesterday at IGN : "Why we love the length of the order"

IGN review of the order: "With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it.

 

Maybe they loved the length of the order because they couldn't stand it any more and were grateful that it ended?

[InverseSquared]

.

Edited March 15, 2017 by SeanStrange

[Beyondthegrave07]

If Bloodbourne and Uncharted 4 fail like inFmaous, Driveclub, Killzone have then PS4 and gaming may have a serious problem on their hands. This generation is cram packed with over-hyped, under delivering, glitch, DLC ridden games. I'm worried. 

 

I understand how the glitches and server problems need to be fixed now, but I think overall we have a different problem completely.

 

I think the problem here is we (the gamers) may be expecting too much from the new gen. Look at the quality of games from the beginning of the PS3 life to the end of the generation. You can't tell me PS3 games haven't improved over time. I mean, just compare Uncharted with Uncharted 3... world of a difference IMO. It'll be the same with the new systems. As companies figure out how the new hardware works, games will get better. We should expect games to be flops at the beginning. It happens.

 

In some ways, it may even be our fault these games are flops in the first place. We demand and demand for games to come out and companies feel pressure to release them now. Therefore, potential high-quality games are rushed and become just... mediocre and underwhelming and then we complain that the game sucks, even though we wanted the game now. Then, we either return the game or don't buy it at all after reading the reviews and the company loses money and have to slash the prices to try and break even and don't have the funds to make a high quality game anymore.  Maybe we are the problem.

 

Now, if this trend continues for the next 3-4 years, then I think we have the serious problem you alluded to.

[StrickenBiged]

Another 3/5 stars from The Escapist.

 

 

Bottom Line: The Order: 1886 is bland gameplay wrapped in admittedly gorgeous next generation graphics. It's not bad through and through, it's just disappointing.

Recommendation: It's still pretty and serviceable enough for a playthrough, but you're better off renting it or borrowing it from a friend for the weekend.

I think the problem here is we (the gamers) may be expecting too much from the new gen. Look at the quality of games from the beginning of the PS3 life to the end of the generation. You can't tell me PS3 games haven't improved over time. I mean, just compare Uncharted with Uncharted 3... world of a difference IMO. It'll be the same with the new systems. As companies figure out how the new hardware works, games will get better. We should expect games to be flops at the beginning. It happens.

 

In some ways, it may even be our fault these games are flops in the first place. We demand and demand for games to come out and companies feel pressure to release them now. Therefore, potential high-quality games are rushed and become just... mediocre and underwhelming and then we complain that the game sucks, even though we wanted the game now. Then, we either return the game or don't buy it at all after reading the reviews and the company loses money and have to slash the prices to try and break even and don't have the funds to make a high quality game anymore.  Maybe we are the problem.

 

I agree that the quality of games on this gen should improve over time. 

 

But I don't think any of the blame should be levelled at our door. The outcry over "we need to push back release" is never as big as the outcry over "this game was not ready for release". Take Watch_Dogs and AC: Unity for example (cited because they're from the same publisher, and received roughly similar reception). Gamers generally said that it was a good thing that the Devs and Ubisoft were brave enough to delay Watch_Dogs and it only served to increase hype in the game, whereas they panned Unity and its team for being released in such a buggy state. For a further example, every time Witcher 3 is delayed, they seem to receive nothing but praise for prioritising the game.

 

The general mediocrity of a lot of games lately, I think, stems from developers not understanding what makes their game unique, and an attempt to apply a "one size fits all" formula to their games. I hate to single out Ubisoft again, but look at their 2014 output - every game has somewhere you need to go to unlock the map/side missions, pointless collectibles, and more side missions than you can shake a stick at. And they apply this formula to Far Cry 4, Watch_Dogs, Unity, The Crew... It doesn't fit every game and makes them all feel the same.

 

I am particularly disappointed that The Order: 1886 isn't reviewing very well, (despite my jokes in this thread), because at least the devs seemed to be trying to do something unique (if not "new" - it appears that a lot of their mechanics and design choices are out of date and ripped off from games that have already tried them).