Why Is This Game Considered Offensively Bad?

After just finishing the game for myself, I'm really curious what in the hell some of the reviews and overall consensus has been about. It's hardly the worlds most amazing game, it has faults all over the place, and it goes for something that is so one note it is bound to throw a lot of people off of it.

However, NOTHING in the game is outright bad. Nothing. The quick time events all work as intended, you either like them or you don't but they are not executed in an awful manner. The "boss" encounters at times play out like a QTE with a bit more control, and it is another case of a direction you either like or you don't.

I just don't get all the flack for the game. As in, I thought it was a enjoyable first attempt. However can someone explain to me how The Order is any different than the first Uncharted? Overly high production values, going for a cinematic story experience, no other modes to speak off other than the single player, main campaign isn't really that long. It's a cover shooter and the cover mechanics work/feel fine but they don't redefine the generation. It has stealth sequences and some melee stuff as well as some fixed/forced weapon stuff.

I mean they are pretty much identical in so many ways. Uncharted has the odd puzzle that The Order doesn't have, and a few more platforming sequences, while The Order has a few more QTE.

But I again ask the question, what is offensive or so awful it deserves to be panned as horrible as this was? Is it generic/doesn't do anything revolutionary in the gameplay department? Sure. I honestly feel like the only reason this is so panned is because it's 2015 and not 2007 when Uncharted came out. I don't really think that is fair. This is still a very highly made production that does everything it does pretty on spot, and some people are a fan of that type of things while others aren't.

Expectations have come along way since the first Uncharted. A lot of people aren't interested in inoffensive mediocrity for the sake of pretty graphics these days.

Here watch this as it pretty much answers all your questions

I imagine a fair number of reviewers are tired of that type of game. They've played them. A lot of them. They may be sick of them, and that influences reviews. They may be more critical of the games flaws, and they may not look as hard for its strengths.

I don't know if that game is any good or not; I don't own a PS4. Perhaps the game is alright, like you've said. Perhaps it is bad. Reviews are subjective. Some people may find something you consider to be a minor flaw to be game-breaking for them.

Don't worry about it. You liked it? That's good enough.

Think about the time Uncharted came out, and when this is coming out. Expectations and standards change over time. While The Order does, indeed, function as intended, what it actually has to work with isn't much. The first Uncharted also isn't really considered a "great" game, just a pretty solid start for something that would later become hugely impressive. The Order is a pretty shaky start to something that has big potential. If Ready At Dawn gets another shot at this, I'm sure they'll take all the criticisms to heart.

It could also be that it is very poorly paced and a much shallower, smaller experience than the games it takes its inspirations from, which is saying a lot. I didn't think the linear third-person cover-based shooter could've become anymore limited. This game proved me otherwise. The Order honestly felt like it was mostly cut scenes with fleeting moments of action peppered between them. Not good for a game that's already pretty short. The game completely squandered its unique premise, forgoing the interesting supernatural aspects in favor of bland "faction war" type shit. It somehow even managed to make fighting werewolves in Victorian-era London a dull experience.

Because people are kinda stupid.

If you think this game is so bad it's offensive, you haven't played any actual terrible games.

Nobody is saying they have to be interested in it.

Listen I get that reviews are subjective. I'm fine that people dislike it, because it's hardly great. Same could be said for first Uncharted, or countless other third person shooter experiences. Hell the original Gears of War falls into a similar category as this does. My issue is the fact that people overreact to how mediocre this is. At what point did we as a gaming community got so uptight that anything that doesn't reinvent the wheel or flow with the expectations of the industry get so critically panned that people consider them with ACTUALLY awful games. Ride to Hell Retribution is an awful game. At no point should people be comparing something that simply plays/acts as limited third person cover shooter that is done competently, if lacking for some as bad as games that are ACTUALLY bad. Like broken, poor game design, horrible mechanic ideas, bad.

Do we forget that a good percentage of the series so many of us hold so near and dear started with a solid/mediocre if lacking first attempt?

I think a big part of it is that the last year to year-and-a-half or so have seen some pretty disappointing AAA releases; Titanfall, Destiny, AC:Unity, Evolve, and now The Order.

If you look at those games, they all share a lot of factors in common - runaway marketing practices, lack of content and/or replay value, limited imagination, and what some would perceive as a condescending attitude on the part of publishers/developers towards their audience (e.g. the whole UbiSoft "women are too expensive to animate" flap).

The reaction against that stuff has been building for a while now, and The Order had the bad luck to be released when that reaction reached critical mass. While I agree that nothing in the game is "offensively bad," I would certainly call it "depressingly mediocre," and it comes at the tail end of a string of similarly depressingly mediocre major releases. Combine that with a reaction against AAA practices in general, and you end up with the vitriol surrounding The Order.

Was the consensus that the game was offensively bad? I remember everyone just saying it was just very sub-mediocre and boring.

From what I can tell, if looks like the game is 'offensively uninteresting', not 'offensively bad'. 2 different concepts, neither of which deserve your time.

Are people really that enraged? Far as I can tell most people just seem sort of indifferent to it. I know I'm pretty peeved because it isn't what I wanted it to be (Sony's answer to Gears with 4-player coop), but at this point I barely even care anymore and will likely never play it for myself anyway, least not for anything less than perhaps a tenner. Just one of those games that's come and gone.

@devise22: I think it's considered offensively mediocre, which is almost worse than being just plain bad.

I wouldn't call it bad or offensive, I haven't played it so I can't make any judgements on that. What I can say is I think it's an extremely bad deal as far as value for money goes, 60 Euro's for about 6 hours if I go by what the reviews are saying, with little to no re-play value. Compare that with something like Helldivers (I know an unfair comparison, small team, smaller budget, online co-op game, not cinematic, but hell the market place is an unfair place) I put about 20 hours into that game already with no signs of slowing down any time soon (even if the online grouping is broken as hell at the moment) and I payed about a fourth of the price of "the order" for that game.

For me personaly Value for money is a strong deciding factor in my game purchases. That's not to say that I wouldn't still pick it up if it ever went down to a price I deemed more reasonable. I can certainly see that some of the ideas behind the game have potential and it clearly looks verry pretty.

It's basically the end-result of the 'cinematic' wave going through the gaming industry. It features no real mechanics to dig into, outside of by-the-numbers third-person-shooting, boss fights that are QTEs, short length, and no real reason to play it again, as there is nothing to really master. If you're into the newest games, gaming can be expensive, and asking people to throw down $100 AUD on a game that might as well be a movie you could pay $12 a ticket to see is asking a bit much of the wallets of consumers. The criticism is by no means a length thing, shorter games have received higher praise than The Order. The only reason length is being mentioned is because there is almost nothing to the game outside of your first playthrough.

Edit: If anything, The Order can be best described as a PS4 launch game. Technical showcase, and that's about it.

@devise22: I feel that the majority of reviews out there knocked it for what it wasn't instead of what it was. It's not an open world FPS that lets you use any gun at any time, it has QTEs, is short, no multiplayer, no reason to replay, rabble rabble - 2 out of 5.

About everything that people have complained about can be applied to many games that were reviewed better. The only legitimate knock I had against the game was the cover mechanics. I'd personally give it a 4 out of 5, since it is better than other games I would give the same score to.

People just need to be aware that it is a short game, in case they want to spend their money elsewhere, but I don't feel that should factor into the score.

Except Uncharted, while not exactly the greatest game, was pretty fun? You still had 3D platforming and puzzle sequences in that game, which were enjoyable.

On a more basic level, I think most people played through Uncharted 1 and found it fun, while most people played through the Order and found it boring.

That seems like nonsense, considering Metro: Last Light, a game that is also a linear, graphical powerhouse shorter than a wide variety of other triple-A titles came out to pretty high review scores.

From what I've read, nothing about The Order is offensively bad, but nothing about The Order tries to be anything decent, apart from its graphical fidelity - which personally I can't give a shit about considering the artistic design choices they took. It is a stunningly Par game with a surprising lack of anything that makes it worth being five times the price of Van Hellsing on Blu-Ray.

It's not so bad it's offensive... it's just mediocre in every way. I've played through the game, never had fun or found the story/cutscenes engaging.

Who said it's offensively bad? Did you really hear someone say it's offensive?

Industry hype and current expectations of quality equal a sum total of the product's potential. The difference between its potential and the end-product's actual quality is the level of disappointment in the product. The higher the disappointment, the harsher the response.

More specifically, The Order is a first-party (by publisher, if not developer) console exclusive. First-party games are famously high-quality, and have historically set the standard of quality for their genre (Mario, Sonic, Halo, Uncharted, and so on). Therefore, industry hype is always high for such games, as are current expectations. The Order is unanimously considered a failure in setting any standard outside of beauty, and as such is considered a failure overall.

Offensively bad? I don't think anyone has said that. I think The Order is partially victim to the wave of backlash against the ultra-scripted, ultra-linear "cinematic" game experience, but I also get the impression that it's also just sort of mediocre on those merits.

Either way, people have been bummed out about a lot of big "AAA" games recently and The Order is just another one on the pile.

That is something that even as someone who enjoyed my experiences with it, and thought the narrative was a nice change of pace (you don't save the world by games end for example) will agree on the value proposition. But that isn't just on The Order. With the constant evolution of the industry, games that offer a very rich cinematic narrative experience but short on game play need to be developed with the mindset of what they should cost going forward. But in a world where last gen and early on this gen tons of other games have released with either similar narrative focused content (although less and less each year it seems) and even broken games at full AAA price. I mean I can't really fault Sony or the developers for pricing this the way they did.

That is a standard that industry wide hopefully changes. To answer a few more people, yes some of the reviews and conversations I've had with people deem it "offensively bad" and they ridicule anyone who purchases the game, or supports it in any way. They outright deny the game has strengths, and wish to never see games like this made. I know people who quite literally look at a metacritic score of a movie, a game or a tv show and see it under 80, and look at 4 red reviews and use that as a basis for their argument. Half the people making these comments haven't even played the game. They see a "consensus" and assume.

I mean in terms of having fun, the shooting was more frantic in this then it was fun. Overall the gameplay experiences I felt were either very frantic, or very tense. It certainly was cinematic throughout the majority of the game. Uncharted was easily a more "fun" experience, but it was a light hearted game. I found the brooding up and down pacing of the gameplay in The Order to fit with the narrative the game was going for. Really though my point is none of the mechanics are executed badly. The cover system frustrated me a couple of times, as in stealth sequences it auto puts you into cover when you walk into cover, and in shooting sequences you have to press a button to enter cover. However it was all very competent. There was variety in your gameplay sequences, and probably the best use of quick time events I've seen. It isn't like the game had no strengths.

I also think there is this weird expectation nowadays that everything has to have other systems in it. If something doesn't have RPG progression style systems, or some sense of open world mechanics, or side missions, or other stuff to do it is considered a fault. Imagine if this game was priced at like $30-40 at launch, and regarding faults was a bit longer. Or potentially let you play as another character for another act? Some more reasons to use the unique weapons and some more interesting encounters for them as well. Those are really the main faults. Anyway I digress, to me there is no way a competently made first party game with stunning visuals and a narrative that was worth seeing is in any way worse than a game that is actually bad. Reacting so negatively as to put both in the same category I feel is not only unfair, it isn't at all objective. And while opinions on games are subjective there is some things that are objective. While the end result may be an experience that some like and others dislike, I don't really feel it is fair to say that the Order is not a competent game. Certainly complacent in it's ideas and designs however.

I wouldn't call it bad but I think it's really disappointing, even though my expectations weren't high to begin with. I really want some good PS4 exclusives and this team was clearly given a budget to make one. Unfortunately the game they came out with was incredibly forgettable and they were completely tone deaf about what people want and don't want from their cover shooters. It's a shame because they could've made something so much more interesting.

Because hyperbole on the internet.

Some people are intensely interested in the games that they aren't going to play.

Honestly, the only people I've seen calling it offensively bad are the usual "best game ever or worst game ever" crowds that don't understand that there can be things in between the extremes. And of course fanboys and purchase-regretters, but that goes without saying.

Outside of that, most people seem to have been pretty level-headed about The Order. Some outright disliked it, some really enjoyed it, but I think it's pretty well accepted by both sides as a disappointment with cool ideas and moments of real promise.

Maybe not that it is terrible, but that it just does not do anything well and is so mediocre, it is not worth anyone's time anyway when there is so much out there to play.

Do people even read reviews and absorb the content?

I guess I know the answer huh? Never mind.

I can't speak to the quality of The Order: 1886 because I haven't played or seem a whole lot of the game, but surely you would want the standard for video games to have gone up since 2007? The fact that a pretty, by the books video game doesn't impress as much as it once did is a good sign in my eyes, because hopefully it will eventually raise the bar for games in general. If someone were to make a 3rd Person Shooter today that controlled like 3rd Person Shooters from 2007, it would be a little disappointing compared to current standards. Instead developers are (or should be) forced to think about how they can make their games more interesting or competent than the contemporary games in their respective genres.

They copy and pasted a boss "fight" from earlier in the game for the ending. That shows you just how little Ready At Dawn cared about the gameplay of their Underworld fanfic.

Because it barely has any gameplay in it. You walk through 3 corridors then a cut-scene starts and 5 minutes later you are in the 'next chapter'. The only parts that feel like an actual game is when you shoot people and even those are pretty 'static' compared to Gears of War where you ran around the battlefield and melee'd enemies. The only valid strategy to the gun shooting parts of The Order is stay behind your cover and shoot everyone until the spawning stops.

I don't count QTE's as gameplay.

The Werewolf fights are one of the worst designed gameplay segments I've seen in the last 10 years.

That's all my opinion ofcourse and I think some other games are also guilty of 'simply bad gameplay stuff'. It's like Tomb Raider (reboot version), but without the 'open worldy gameplay'. Just QTE's and bad shooting segments.

It blows my mind that graphics and sound seem to be so damn polished, while the gameplay feels like it's the first thing they implemented and never ever had a revision.

I heard this and then watched a twitch streamer play it from start to finish and how true that statement is, nearly copy and paste, talk about a cringe seeing it played out.

And the latter part of the story is just kinda ruined by Isa. You really hope she's gonna be more than she really is considering the first half. But stupid is as stupid does.

The story overall, I thought Lafeyette was a great supporting character.

@cid798: I honestly thought after you caught up to the opening of the game you would switch from playing as Gallahad to Isa conducting her own investigation whilst hunting for Grayson. Although I do agree Lafayette was a fantastic supporting character. His scene with Grayson near the end was pretty fantastic. It only serves to highlight how lacking the Isa stuff is though.

Was there a consensus that Evolve was disappointing? I wasn't paying a ton of attention to it but thought it looked very competent at everything it claimed to do.

This is what we call a ludocentric critique. It focuses entirely on the ludology. It ignores all the other factors. It's like saying Halo and Duke Nuk'em are the same because you're running around in a first person perspective shooting alien creatures. It's like saying Mario and Sonic are the same because they are both games where you run from left to right jumping over enemies and collecting gold tokens.

Is the story any good? Is the dialogue any good? Are the characters interesting? Is it paced well? That's the difference between Uncharted and The Order. That's the kind of questions you ignore when you break games down to "you take cover and shoot guns and do some platforming and QTEs occasionally".

I think it was just overhyped, and the short length didn't do it any favors. Based on what I've seen of it, it's not a "bad" game. It just wasn't a great game like people were hoping it would be, so the disappointment leads to it being generally considered worse than it probably is. Basically, Watch_Dogs.

Nikola Tesla is your weapons expert. The first thing he hands you? A scope for your rifle. I think that sums it up. It just looks hella bland, and hella boring for what was promised. I mean, it looks fabulous in terms of graphics, but it's just boringly uninspired when you get down to the enemies. Also, the fact that there is a QTEs that you can't fail is pretty funny. But, whatever. If you got some satisfaction out of it, great. Just doesn't look like anything I'll ever touch. (That Previously Recorded review breaks it down nicely, I think)

Edit: Actually I just want to add one thing in. There's this piece by Yahtzee about incomplete/unfinished plots in relation to The Order that's pretty good as well. I quite agree with this piece... I dislike this trend of leaving things open to a sequel without even bothering to clue up your current plot. It's lazy. And it's exploitative.

@devise22: Anyone who genuinely thinks the game is "offensively bad" is just being hyperbolic. Compared to it's contemporaries, The Order is deeply mediocre in every way except for it's visuals, and I think the press pretty adequately portrayed that.

True, in fact, I don't recall ANYONE in the games media saying that. There are without a doubt pockets of people who like it a lot and pockets who dislike it a lot.

People just love to pile on.

Over the years I've noticed that occasionally the culture at large picks certain games out of the lineup at certain times to serve as the platform for a larger criticism about innovation or the like. What it means is that a game that is ultimately no more of an offender than some next to it are disproportionately criticized or given attention in this sense. Often times though it's brought on by being sold under the banner of the next big game and that's what I think fuels the scale of it.

Happened with Watch Dogs last year and while I'm sure it can be a bit harrowing to be on the other end of that, I think it's probably healthy in the long term to have these moments for as arbitrary as it may seem to have that discussion on a larger scale.

Don't you think the PS4 deserves a Ryse?

This game is bad. You may like the game, this is all fine and good, but it is bad.

@cirdain: it's not like it has anything else. HI-YO!!!

Ha ha haa...

HEARS LOW RUMBLING OUTSIDE, LOOKS OUT WINDOW

Oh... right... Bloodborne.

Or maybe an inoffensively blend game is in some ways worst than a terrible game. Especially when so much money has gone into its production.