What the Order 1886 gets right

Hello all!

So, i haven't got my copy yet, but even though i wasn't expecting anything revolutionary out of this, i wanted to pick this game up... after reading up on reviews and all the stuff that has been happening, although i'm a bit disappointed that the game wasn't anything ''super huge'' , i still came out feeling that people came down on this game a bit more harshly than i was expecting...

It felt like i ''got it'' what the developers where trying to do with this game... and i liked where they were going, even though they might not have reached their final goal... i can still appreciate a good first attempt. I still remamber the sheer amount of flak that Assassin's Creed took when it first came out for it's MANY faults and shortcommings... but out of that, came a improved and fantastic AC2 (what happened after that, sadly it's another story...) . So when a developer comes out with a ''This is a new thing we are trying to do'' im ok with being a bit more lenient as long as the first try is good enough that i can see that ''with a few improvements, this could be great." . I see the Order is like this... but i was kinda surprised on the colective dump people took on the game because of it...

Now, on the whole ''Lenght'' discussion... we all already talked about this... Lenght should not be the sole discretion of quality and price. It's a factor. But not ''THE'' factor. Sadly, this is not how the conversation has been framed. And how it is right now it feels that if the developers padded the shit out of this game with filler it would receive bigger scores... which i think it sucks as a mentality.

The idea of ''out game does not have huge numbers and kill streaks and XP bars and ''Sic Upgrades'' tossed at your face every 15 minutes'' was something i took a real shine to. ''The Preorder / Season pass / DLC'' Bullshit we see on every game now was super toned down for this, which i really liked. The idea of ''This is not the ultimate happy epic battle of destiny, your story is a piece of this living world'' is also something i enjoyed... there is lore before and after the game, so what i care is that the part i'm playing is consistent and interesting... i don't need to be the center of all events, i don't need the world to revolve around my crosshairs. I just want to feel like this is an enjoyable experience and that i'm a relevant part of this big world and it's events. This is what defines quality for me.

I recall games like Spec Ops The Line, where the gameplay wasn't anything espetacular... but the world and the story i found to be fantastic. It's a short game also, and one i got at a heavy discount, but would not be upset if i had payed full price for it... there are games like MGS5 Ground Zeroes where the main content can be beaten in a first try in 1 hour, and if you are not into MGS, if that is not your world, your game, then it's too expensive for the content it gives... but i took a good 35 hrs out of that game, because i enjoyed all the side missions and the replay value of that game...

As for the order... maybe it doesn't have Multiplayer, i personally don't care that much for it... The QTE bothers me, maybe it should be more like The Last of Us, and make it more freely interactive. The blackbars are unnecessary, they don't really add to the experience and i feel they were a mistake. But i like the character designs a LOT ( not miltiary ''Dude Bro's'' ) the game looks gorgeous, the world looks beautiful, and all the lore around it feels great and has such potential... i feel that if we got a sequel out of this where they just... give you more of this and expand on what they already have (and tone down the QTE's and get rid of the black bars) and just give us a bigger story to play in... maybe a branching path story where you play as different groups of Knights, so you can get different takes around the same tale and mystery, it could be a fantastic "game 2"...

I can see that this is not a ''phenomenal first entry'' in a franchise, but i also see a lot of potential out of it... sadly it seems people took a shine to shit on this game and it's now just ''Objectively bad'' and anybody that sees value on it is ''blind sheep''... guess that's internet mob mentality for ya...

So many fallacies, I don't even know where to begin.

I am at least excited to play the game for myself. I am a little more forgiving when it comes to QTEs and standard gameplay than others. It'll come down to how the story, characters, and world shape out for me.

Why would anyone read beyond that?

I'll make a list, just to simplify it for people.

Things that The Order: 1886 gets right:

86

@csl316 said:

1866 sounds way cooler, though.

Yeah, a typo unfortunately i can't edit it.

@bells: Full Edit

I think the problem here is that you are considering the potential of the game without having experienced the game and seeing that potential for yourself. You're judging this game on the hypothetical quality of a hypothetical sequel to a game you haven't even played, so even this first game's merits are hypothetical. From your perspective, the qualities and potential you are talking about are intangible to the point where you're not even really talking about the game itself.

@bells: I don't think your screed holds much merit when the very first thing you say is that you haven't played the game you're talking about. And worse, much of the reaction you're railing against is from people who have played it, play games for a living, and have no reason to specifically hate on this game for any reasons other than the actual experiences they had with it.

And to be clear, I agree with your general POV. In the past few days, when the game was being criticised for its short length, zero replay value, and wrote combat, I didn't care one bit, because The Order seemed like it could tell a great story very stylistically, and that was something I was totally down with. Now, most reviews and videos I've seen say that the story itself is pretty dull and goes nowhere with the setup, and that the visuals are high quality, but not particularly unique in a stylistic way. So... oh well. You need to accept when something you were excited about just might not be great.

And if you think people are making absurd claims about how bad something is, listing your own absurd claims based on nothing at all isn't very effective as a counter argument.

Maybe play the game first. Before, you know, writing anything about it.

Yeah, I won't sit here and tell you that you can't analyze the critical response to a game without having played it, but to also try to undermine the motivation behind that criticism (especially when they have much more real experience with the game) just makes your argument sound flimsy and under-considered.

It doesn't help that you went on to insult the character and mental capacity of three respondents right off the bat.

I believe the letterboxing was necessary from a technical perspective, the "cinematic feel" excuse is the go-to justification for it.

Just one thing first, I respect Jeff's reviews, and only balked with my cash over Syndicate. But I have that spoiled 60.00 No-way-Jose for a PC game. I bought on sale and will try it just because Jeff liked it so much.

I was a little surprised by the score today. It seemed to me to be a competent game, having at least a set minimum amount of gameplay and story. Nothing was bad really, the bar was simply set at a real conservative value. Disappointing I guess in knowing it really should have shown more. Graphics even looked excellent, probably orders above the other determinants of a video game. In short, it looked like a just barely 3 star to me. It wasn't bad, but rather competent in a severe take no chances sort of way. Well, perhaps that was still too much to swallow. I was thinking of the first Gears of War for my comparison, but Gears did much more I suspect, despite the threadbare story.

If I had a PS 4, I'd get this game on sale someday...maybe.

Because this dude has the details on the 1886 prequel, 1866. Tell us more Bells! Tell us all about how great this game that you've never played is!

"sadly it seems people took a shine to shit on this game and it's now just ''Objectively bad'' and anybody that sees value on it is ''blind sheep''... guess that's internet mob mentality for ya..."

The same could be said for blind fan boy-ism and defending a game you've never played.

It gets nothing right in terms of being a video game as far as I'm concerned. All it does is make it obviously clear how much they wish they could make a movie.

Not that he's correct, but you haven't disproved anything he said, so please begin.

Seriously.

@sergio: That dude pronounced .gif as "dot jife".

I hate everything now.

Him pronouncing it wrong disproves everything he was saying. That is the most wrong I've ever heard anyone pronounce that.

The amount of ellipsis in your post is frustrating me more than it probably should.

Otherwise, I agree with the general consensus, if you haven't played it, you really can't say what it gets right.

@sergio said:

If you found reading the OP to be valuable, great. I didn't. I already posted another response to the OP but apparently the mods deleted my post (or it got deleted because the OP deleted his other post lashing out at everyone) so... yeah. Not going to waste my time any further.

Nice video.

@robertorri: That sucks. It might have also been eaten by the commenting system. It's happened to me before.