The Order: 1886, first reviews

[Lilani]

Two German reviews posted yesterday gave it 15/20 and 85%.

First English-language review of The Order: 1886. They gave it 95/100, put the campaign at 10 hours' length on Normal difficulty.

http://www.gamepur.com/review/18052-order-1886-review-ps4s-first-true-exclusive-killer-app-truly-amazing-story.html

Edit: New review by Falcon Kick Gaming, gave it 7/10, puts the campaign at 7-8 hours.

http://falconkickgaming.com/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review/

Edit 2: New review by Ksalue, gave it 4/5, puts campaign at around 7 hours.

http://www.ksalue.com/_/review/my-thoughts-on-the-order-1886-review-r711

Edit 3: New review by Heavy.com, gave it 8.8/10, puts the campaign at 10 hours.

http://heavy.com/games/2015/02/the-order-1886-review-ps4-exclusive-2015/

In other news, I hope it's only mere coincidence that you've failed to include these scores:

IGN: 6.5/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review]

Gamespot: 5/10 [http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-order-1886-review/1900-6416033/]

Destructoid: 6/10 [http://www.destructoid.com/review-the-order-1886-287624.phtml]

Electronic Gaming Monthly: 4.5/10 [http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/the-order-1886-review/]

Giant Bomb: 2/5 stars [http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/the-order-1886-review/1900-698/]

Game Informer: 7.75/10 [http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_order_1886/b/playstation4/archive/2015/02/19/game-informer-review-the-order-1886.aspx]

Metacritic: Cumulative score of 65% from 51 reviews. [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-order-1886]

Overall, critical reception has been lukewarm at best.

 

[Iwata]

Two German reviews posted yesterday gave it 15/20 and 85%.

First English-language review of The Order: 1886. They gave it 95/100, put the campaign at 10 hours' length on Normal difficulty.

http://www.gamepur.com/review/18052-order-1886-review-ps4s-first-true-exclusive-killer-app-truly-amazing-story.html

Edit: New review by Falcon Kick Gaming, gave it 7/10, puts the campaign at 7-8 hours.

http://falconkickgaming.com/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review/

Edit 2: New review by Ksalue, gave it 4/5, puts campaign at around 7 hours.

http://www.ksalue.com/_/review/my-thoughts-on-the-order-1886-review-r711

Edit 3: New review by Heavy.com, gave it 8.8/10, puts the campaign at 10 hours.

http://heavy.com/games/2015/02/the-order-1886-review-ps4-exclusive-2015/

In other news, I hope it's only mere coincidence that you've failed to include these scores:

IGN: 6.5/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review]

Gamespot: 5/10 [http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-order-1886-review/1900-6416033/]

Destructoid: 6/10 [http://www.destructoid.com/review-the-order-1886-287624.phtml]

Electronic Gaming Monthly: 4.5/10 [http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/the-order-1886-review/]

Giant Bomb: 2/5 stars [http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/the-order-1886-review/1900-698/]

Game Informer: 7.75/10 [http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_order_1886/b/playstation4/archive/2015/02/19/game-informer-review-the-order-1886.aspx]

Metacritic: Cumulative score of 65% from 51 reviews. [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-order-1886]

Overall, critical reception has been lukewarm at best.

Well, I DID go to bed and am now at work, so I haven't checked other reviews since last night. The reviews that I posted came online before the review embargo was lifted, and as you can see, were pointing at a really good reception, which apparently slid down to lukewarm from the bigger outlets.

But thanks for the links.

 

[Gladion]

Could devs just start downgrading graphics for a while so games could have more content instead of slightly more reflective water and "cinematic" cutscenes.

No, they absolutely cannot. One example: http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?t=3336

If you don't want to read all that (you shouldn't), this is a 47 page discussion about Alan Wake's resolution. People took screenshots and videos and COUNTED THE PIXELS to find out whether they were in HD or not. Tantrums were thrown, preorders cancelled and the game's development director had to give an official statement about that. Something similar has happened to the Witcher 3. So no, in the AAA world, you get absolutely no fucking leeway whatsoever.

 

[Randoman01]

Interesting, this might be a game that I would like to pick up. I might get it.

 

[Areloch]

No one is bashing this game exclusively for the length. And "that initial video" (supposing you are talking about the playthrough that appeared a few days ago) was perfectly fine, played without rush, basically a normal playthrough. I don't understand why people thought the guy was speedrunning or ignoring details or whatever.

Because the video was 5-hours long, while almost every single review since has placed the game at 7-10 hours, AND because immediately following the video, there were a serious of responses saying that the game was NOT, in fact, 5 hours long. And not just from the developer trying to save face or anything, but from gamers like you and me that had early access to the game. And that's the sort of bad publicity that can hurt a game's chances before it even reaches shelves.

I don't know. Scratch it to me working in news media, I suppose, and just being weirdly offended at a strange level by a rumour trumping the truth.

The problem is that the devs and random people online can say "Oh no, it's twice as long as that" until they're blue in the face, but without providing any particulars, it's astoundingly difficult to handwave a video of the game being played start-to-finish in 5-ish hours.

That's fairly hard evidence that the game is 5-ish hours, because one can sit down and observe it taking that long. If you have proof to back up your claim, it's not really a "rumor" anymore. Unless the original video poster cut out footage of parts of the game, then it's not truthful to dismiss it as "the game is longer than that".

Sure, some players may take longer to play. Some may enjoy just standing around staring at the environment. But to flatly dismiss a video showing proofs that it's got 5-ish hours of actual content is a weak counter-argument when one provides no information on how the video is wrong.

And yeah, 5-7 hours is indeed kind of short for what is looking to be a very mediocre, vastly cutscene-laden experience that still costs you a full $60.

If it was $30 or $40, I imagine there'd be many fewer complaints. Portal is an example I keep seeing people bring up, but the gameplay was incredibly fun, the writing was excellent, and it was considerably cheaper. You can bet there'd have been a lot of complaining if that had come out at a full $60 at the time too.

 

[tilmoph]

snip

snip

Well, I DID go to bed and am now at work, so I haven't checked other reviews since last night. The reviews that I posted came online before the review embargo was lifted, and as you can see, were pointing at a really good reception, which apparently slid down to lukewarm from the bigger outlets.

But thanks for the links.

As a general rule, if there is a review embargo in place, trust no reviews that go up before the embargo is lifted. There is a reason those reviews could dodge the embargo.

 

[marioandsonic]

Could devs just start downgrading graphics for a while so games could have more content instead of slightly more reflective water and "cinematic" cutscenes.

No, they absolutely cannot. One example: http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?t=3336

If you don't want to read all that (you shouldn't), this is a 47 page discussion about Alan Wake's resolution. People took screenshots and videos and COUNTED THE PIXELS to find out whether they were in HD or not. Tantrums were thrown, preorders cancelled and the game's development director had to give an official statement about that. Something similar has happened to the Witcher 3. So no, in the AAA world, you get absolutely no fucking leeway whatsoever.

The problem is, AAA devs in the past spent buttloads of cash just so they could have the best-looking graphics possible, driving the costs of developing AAA games to near unsustainable levels.

So, who's at fault there? Was it devs pushing and hyping graphical capabilities that caused the more hardcore gamers to grow more vigilant and nitpick the resolutions and framerates? Or was it gamers that demanded devs make prettier games and forcing them to push the graphics?

Sadly, at this point it seems like a chicken-egg scenario.

 

[sageoftruth]

Two German reviews posted yesterday gave it 15/20 and 85%.

First English-language review of The Order: 1886. They gave it 95/100, put the campaign at 10 hours' length on Normal difficulty.

http://www.gamepur.com/review/18052-order-1886-review-ps4s-first-true-exclusive-killer-app-truly-amazing-story.html

Edit: New review by Falcon Kick Gaming, gave it 7/10, puts the campaign at 7-8 hours.

http://falconkickgaming.com/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review/

Edit 2: New review by Ksalue, gave it 4/5, puts campaign at around 7 hours.

http://www.ksalue.com/_/review/my-thoughts-on-the-order-1886-review-r711

Edit 3: New review by Heavy.com, gave it 8.8/10, puts the campaign at 10 hours.

http://heavy.com/games/2015/02/the-order-1886-review-ps4-exclusive-2015/

In other news, I hope it's only mere coincidence that you've failed to include these scores:

IGN: 6.5/10 [http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/19/the-order-1886-review]

Gamespot: 5/10 [http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/the-order-1886-review/1900-6416033/]

Destructoid: 6/10 [http://www.destructoid.com/review-the-order-1886-287624.phtml]

Electronic Gaming Monthly: 4.5/10 [http://www.egmnow.com/articles/reviews/the-order-1886-review/]

Giant Bomb: 2/5 stars [http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/the-order-1886-review/1900-698/]

Game Informer: 7.75/10 [http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_order_1886/b/playstation4/archive/2015/02/19/game-informer-review-the-order-1886.aspx]

Metacritic: Cumulative score of 65% from 51 reviews. [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/the-order-1886]

Overall, critical reception has been lukewarm at best.

I liked Destructiod's response the best: "Not enough chaos".

 

[sageoftruth]

Could devs just start downgrading graphics for a while so games could have more content instead of slightly more reflective water and "cinematic" cutscenes.

No, they absolutely cannot. One example: http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?t=3336

If you don't want to read all that (you shouldn't), this is a 47 page discussion about Alan Wake's resolution. People took screenshots and videos and COUNTED THE PIXELS to find out whether they were in HD or not. Tantrums were thrown, preorders cancelled and the game's development director had to give an official statement about that. Something similar has happened to the Witcher 3. So no, in the AAA world, you get absolutely no fucking leeway whatsoever.

The problem is, AAA devs in the past spent buttloads of cash just so they could have the best-looking graphics possible, driving the costs of developing AAA games to near unsustainable levels.

So, who's at fault there? Was it devs pushing and hyping graphical capabilities that caused the more hardcore gamers to grow more vigilant and nitpick the resolutions and framerates? Or was it gamers that demanded devs make prettier games and forcing them to push the graphics?

Sadly, at this point it seems like a chicken-egg scenario.

Have gamers really been doing that? I've seen cases of them complaining about a game being far uglier than promised, but that's simply because of them being hyped as graphical masterpieces. I suppose it could be a case of them simply gravitating towards the prettier ones when deciding where to vote with their wallets.

 

[Gladion]

Could devs just start downgrading graphics for a while so games could have more content instead of slightly more reflective water and "cinematic" cutscenes.

No, they absolutely cannot. One example: http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?t=3336

If you don't want to read all that (you shouldn't), this is a 47 page discussion about Alan Wake's resolution. People took screenshots and videos and COUNTED THE PIXELS to find out whether they were in HD or not. Tantrums were thrown, preorders cancelled and the game's development director had to give an official statement about that. Something similar has happened to the Witcher 3. So no, in the AAA world, you get absolutely no fucking leeway whatsoever.

The problem is, AAA devs in the past spent buttloads of cash just so they could have the best-looking graphics possible, driving the costs of developing AAA games to near unsustainable levels.

So, who's at fault there? Was it devs pushing and hyping graphical capabilities that caused the more hardcore gamers to grow more vigilant and nitpick the resolutions and framerates? Or was it gamers that demanded devs make prettier games and forcing them to push the graphics?

Sadly, at this point it seems like a chicken-egg scenario.

You're absolutely right. Personally, I'd say it's a bit more the developers' and publishers' fault than the gamers', but really: if we actually didn't care about graphics, developers wouldn't push them so much. It wasn't my intention to determine liabilities, though, just to state facts.