It's a real waste, the graphics in The Order 1886 are beautiful but it has way too many cut scenes many of which are really long. The game play is very linear, no exploration at all, the story isn't that great either and for me zero replay value, I found it so boring because of all the cut scenes and lack of exploration.
Sounds like a David Cage game.
My sympathies, hope you get a better game with much replay value.
Sounds like a David Cage game.
My sympathies, hope you get a better game with much replay value.
We gamers need more games like Order 1886, Rambo: The Video Game and The Sims 4.
I expected more from the creators of God of war.
Um... they didn't make God of War
the people behind this game only made PSP port games and possibly a Wii game
This is their first full console game
Um... they didn't make God of War
the people behind this game only made PSP port games and possibly a Wii game
This is their first full console game
They did make the PSP God of War games ( Chains of Olympus and Ghost of Sparda ), I know it's not the same but they have done more than ports of pre existing games.
And an Uncharted game, IIRC.
The Uncharted Vita game was by Sony's Bend Studio.
Sounds like a David Cage game.
My sympathies, hope you get a better game with much replay value.
Heavy Rain at least had choices that mattered though. This game is just a bad movie broken up by genre standard linear TPS gameplay.
This game produced more quality lulz from Polygon and ol' Benny "flip flop" Kuchera.
He’s exploring both viewpoints.
Its almost like he is fleshing out both arguments for the readers and trying to understand peoples points of views better.
I know its hard to accept that someone does not exist in a binary state of "I believe this and its true and thats it". I am really impressed with his ability to rise beyond the standard internet opinion.
It’s one of the reasons I’ve been a fan of Mr. Kuchera for a while now. Being able to change an opinion or even have a different opinion on the same subject based on other factors is not a bad thing at all. And some would say is also a sign of wisdom. In this case, long and short games are both good, and there is nothing wrong with favoring one over the other based on different factors.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
I like how the positive commercial advertisement for this game I caught on TV said nothing about the gameplay and everything about the cinematics and graphics (as it pertains to being cinematic). That doesn't bode well for your product as a game when you can only remark on how cinematically driven it is. I just peeped the 15 minute Uncharted 4 trailer a few days ago and while it is gorgeous, even other positive things not pertaining to that came to mind. Uncharted 4 looks just as cinematic as The Order 1886 as far as I can tell but it also seems like it'll hold up as a fun gaming experience as well.
I don’t have a PS4 (there are no compelling exclusives yet, alas…) but I was interested in this game because I’m a historian who also runs a Cthulhu / Steampunk pen & paper RPG campaign (together with an equally histo-nerdy friend).
I was really curious what Ready at Dawn had made of 1886’s London so I watched a complete playthrough and a lot of other videos.
Now, I won’t comment on the gameplay – apart from the fact that it does look like an (occasionally…) interactive movie and the graphics sure looked pretty. The action sequences seemed okay but nothing to shout about.
The story, however, is pretty bad – cliché and uninteresting. The pacing is weird. The characters are flat and often behave like idiots – the voice acting is good though and is fairly ‘natural’ feeling, which makes for an odd contrast with the characters’ effective idiocy and very stereotypical personalities.
The world itself, as a ‘what if’ alternate universe setting, is pretty bad as well. The average gamer probably won’t notice and to be honest, for typical pulp fare it usually doesn’t matter. Nobody in his right mind will criticise movies by Stephen Sommers on the basis of its lack of historical accuracy. I’m referring here to the accuracy of the historical bits, not the fantastical stuff – it’s not that hard to cleverly interweave more or less accurate history with the fantastic.
Pure pulp like the Indiana Jones movies didn’t do that too badly.
The Order 1886 is, unfortunately, rather schizophrenic in this respect. On the one hand, its visuals and the way the characters are presented strongly suggest they are going for something that, while fantastic, looks and feels ‘grounded’ in reality, albeit an ‘alternative history reality’. That means we are supposed to look at the game and think ‘Wow, it could have been like this’. Indeed, they have claimed as much, calling the game’s setting alternate history.
Unfortunately, TO 1886’s setting is not based on a few ‘points of departure’ from ‘our’ timeline and then more or less logically extrapolating from it to create a world that is familiar yet different from our own in understandable ways. It combines many things that are mutually exclusive if you assume a more or less plausible historical ‘cause and effect’ chain leading to this alternate universe. For instance, you can’t have a ‘real’ King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table persisting until the game’s present AND still have a recognisable, English-speaking British Empire with Queen Victoria, Parliament, House of Lords, Cadbury chocolate and all that. Look a bit deeper, and you discover that TO 1886’s London isn’t based on 1886 London at all, but is a mish-mash of things taken at random from a century of history. That’s okay for mindless cheerful pulp, but not a good basis for a truly ‘grounded’ setting.
Having said that, this is not the biggest problem the game seems to have. Gameplay trumps story, story and characters trump setting. Ideally all three are good, but if you have to make a choice I can very well see that the consistency of the setting comes last. However, I do think the rather cavalier approach to the setting betrays a fundamental problem with the attitude of the game’s creators in general. They obviously had a lot of money to create great graphics and hire good voice actors, but were unwilling (or simply not able) to create a compelling game and story as well as a consistent setting.
Now if only Naughty Dog had made this game…’The Illuminati: 1888’ anyone?
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
I don’t have a PS4 (there are no compelling exclusives yet, alas…) but I was interested in this game because I’m a historian who also runs a Cthulhu / Steampunk pen & paper RPG campaign (together with an equally histo-nerdy friend).
I was really curious what Ready at Dawn had made of 1886’s London so I watched a complete playthrough and a lot of other videos.
Now, I won’t comment on the gameplay – apart from the fact that it does look like an (occasionally…) interactive movie and the graphics sure looked pretty. The action sequences seemed okay but nothing to shout about.
The story, however, is pretty bad – cliché and uninteresting. The pacing is weird. The characters are flat and often behave like idiots – the voice acting is good though and is fairly ‘natural’ feeling, which makes for an odd contrast with the characters’ effective idiocy and very stereotypical personalities.
The world itself, as a ‘what if’ alternate universe setting, is pretty bad as well. The average gamer probably won’t notice and to be honest, for typical pulp fare it usually doesn’t matter. Nobody in his right mind will criticise movies by Stephen Sommers on the basis of its lack of historical accuracy. I’m referring here to the accuracy of the historical bits, not the fantastical stuff – it’s not that hard to cleverly interweave more or less accurate history with the fantastic.
Pure pulp like the Indiana Jones movies didn’t do that too badly.
The Order 1886 is, unfortunately, rather schizophrenic in this respect. On the one hand, its visuals and the way the characters are presented strongly suggest they are going for something that, while fantastic, looks and feels ‘grounded’ in reality, albeit an ‘alternative history reality’. That means we are supposed to look at the game and think ‘Wow, it could have been like this’. Indeed, they have claimed as much, calling the game’s setting alternate history.
Unfortunately, TO 1886’s setting is not based on a few ‘points of departure’ from ‘our’ timeline and then more or less logically extrapolating from it to create a world that is familiar yet different from our own in understandable ways. It combines many things that are mutually exclusive if you assume a more or less plausible historical ‘cause and effect’ chain leading to this alternate universe. For instance, you can’t have a ‘real’ King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table persisting until the game’s present AND still have a recognisable, English-speaking British Empire with Queen Victoria, Parliament, House of Lords, Cadbury chocolate and all that. Look a bit deeper, and you discover that TO 1886’s London isn’t based on 1886 London at all, but is a mish-mash of things taken at random from a century of history. That’s okay for mindless cheerful pulp, but not a good basis for a truly ‘grounded’ setting.
Having said that, this is not the biggest problem the game seems to have. Gameplay trumps story, story and characters trump setting. Ideally all three are good, but if you have to make a choice I can very well see that the consistency of the setting comes last. However, I do think the rather cavalier approach to the setting betrays a fundamental problem with the attitude of the game’s creators in general. They obviously had a lot of money to create great graphics and hire good voice actors, but were unwilling (or simply not able) to create a compelling game and story as well as a consistent setting.
Now if only Naughty Dog had made this game…’The Illuminati: 1888’ anyone?
Great points but I wanted to highlight this to say it's probably not far off to assume the director was probably unwilling to make a great gaming experience. That could be wrong but judging by quotes from the director posted in this thread he seems to think the GAMEPLAY aspect of video GAMES is such a chore to deal with. I think he said something along the lines of "we make games, there's no way to get around that" in regards to gameplay.
Great points but I wanted to highlight this to say it's probably not far off to assume the director was probably unwilling to make a great gaming experience. That could be wrong but judging by quotes from the director posted in this thread he seems to think the GAMEPLAY aspect of video GAMES is such a chore to deal with. I think he said something along the lines of "we make games, there's no way to get around that" in regards to gameplay.
I’ve seen the interview in which he (Ru Weerasuriya) says that. I think it’s quite possible he - and I really mean Weerasuriya himself – wanted to tell a particular story.
Weerasuriya himself is originally from Sri Lanka, a former British colony. Though never formally part of British India, it was and is closely linked with India and there’s a strong ‘Indian connection’ in the game’s story. I was actually wondering why, but if you look at the story in a certain way you can read it as a sly comment on, and condemnation of, the old British Empire.
Great points but I wanted to highlight this to say it's probably not far off to assume the director was probably unwilling to make a great gaming experience. That could be wrong but judging by quotes from the director posted in this thread he seems to think the GAMEPLAY aspect of video GAMES is such a chore to deal with. I think he said something along the lines of "we make games, there's no way to get around that" in regards to gameplay.
If gameplay is a chore to get around find a way to not make it a chore. I can understand people from departments such as writing, art, animation etc saying they find combat a chore but when a higher up says it and doesn't deliver good gameplay he is essentially a hypocrite.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
I’ve seen the interview in which he (Ru Weerasuriya) says that. I think it’s quite possible he - and I really mean Weerasuriya himself – wanted to tell a particular story.
Weerasuriya himself is originally from Sri Lanka, a former British colony. Though never formally part of British India, it was and is closely linked with India and there’s a strong ‘Indian connection’ in the game’s story. I was actually wondering why, but if you look at the story in a certain way you can read it as a sly comment on, and condemnation of, the old British Empire.
Spoiler.
It’s this what makes me suspect TO 1886’s story is, to a large degree, Weerasuriya’s creation, rather than that of one or more good professional writers, or at the very least heavily influenced by him personally. If true that’s rather unfortunate: With a better story and characters TO 1886 would be a lot more enjoyable, even if the complaints about the gameplay would remain valid.
Yeah I don't think approval of story concepts through a single channel is such a good idea. If I recall correctly that plagued Mass Effect 3's ending. The decision for how that played out was only up to Casey Hudson and Mac Walters instead of the writing team as whole, for whatever reason.
Great points but I wanted to highlight this to say it's probably not far off to assume the director was probably unwilling to make a great gaming experience. That could be wrong but judging by quotes from the director posted in this thread he seems to think the GAMEPLAY aspect of video GAMES is such a chore to deal with. I think he said something along the lines of "we make games, there's no way to get around that" in regards to gameplay.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
If gameplay is a chore to get around find a way to not make it a chore. I can understand people from departments such as writing, art, animation etc saying they find combat a chore but when a higher up says it and doesn't deliver good gameplay he is essentially a hypocrite.
I'm not sure if hypocritical is the write word. His mindset lent itself to the result and he got what he wanted. An overly cinematic video game. It's just weird. Even offensive depending on who you are. Like, why is he working at a video game developer studio if his heart is not into the essence of why video games are what they are in the first place? You take out the moment to moment interactivity from a game that allows a player to do whatever they want to a reasonable extent within the game world and you're left with a movie. If the director wants to make movies he should go someplace his talents are needed for movies. Game developers need to calm down on trying to vicariously live out their big screen dreams through video games over making a compelling video game in the first place.
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
My guess is that the games director was trying to do something similar to what Naughty Dog did with 'The Last of Us' with the story telling in the Order. The problem is that The Last of Us' story is a much more personal story than The Order's ( not to mention better paced ). Also, despite all the heavy cinematic's, The Last of Us is a much more interactive experience than the Order.
Yeah I don't understand why some developers have it in their head that to make a cinematic experience you have to take control away from the player in one way or another. It's stupid to me when you've got games that provide a cinematic experience without taking control away to such a degree.
My guess is that the games director was trying to do something similar to what Naughty Dog did with 'The Last of Us' with the story telling in the Order. The problem is that The Last of Us' story is a much more personal story than The Order's ( not to mention better paced ). Also, despite all the heavy cinematic's, The Last of Us is a much more interactive experience than the Order.
Ready At Dawn's PlayStation 4 exclusive The Order: 1886 is being co-written with Kirk Ellis, the Emmy award-winning writer and producer of HBO mini-series John Adams. Studio co-founder Ru Weerasuriya tells Game Informer that the decision to bring Ellis on to co-write the game's script came from a desire to bring "something completely fresh" to the game.
"He's not a game guy," Weerasuriya said in a video interview, "and I think everybody would've expected us to go with a game scriptwriter. My only request was 'I cannot have a game person be there.' We can bring the game side of it; I want him to bring something completely fresh, something we might miss."
Detailing the background of The Order: 1886's development (and its much lengthier conception), Weerasuriya said the game's early story was rooted in historical events, including portions set in Jerusalem during the Crusades. When Ready At Dawn saw Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed, with which The Order shared certain ideas and settings, the team decided to move in a different direction.
Weerasuriya also explains that the team shifted from the game's original name, Requiem, to The Order: 1886 after failing to settle on something better. The eponymous Order, which was regularly referenced in the script, was ultimately chosen.
"The great thing about the name is it signifies a lot of things, beyond the order of knights," he said. "It's the order of nature, the order of basically everything we're looking at. it encompasses the bigger idea of the IP."
I don’t have a PS4 (there are no compelling exclusives yet, alas…) but I was interested in this game because I’m a historian who also runs a Cthulhu / Steampunk pen & paper RPG campaign (together with an equally histo-nerdy friend).
I was really curious what Ready at Dawn had made of 1886’s London so I watched a complete playthrough and a lot of other videos.
Now, I won’t comment on the gameplay – apart from the fact that it does look like an (occasionally…) interactive movie and the graphics sure looked pretty. The action sequences seemed okay but nothing to shout about.
The story, however, is pretty bad – cliché and uninteresting. The pacing is weird. The characters are flat and often behave like idiots – the voice acting is good though and is fairly ‘natural’ feeling, which makes for an odd contrast with the characters’ effective idiocy and very stereotypical personalities.
The world itself, as a ‘what if’ alternate universe setting, is pretty bad as well. The average gamer probably won’t notice and to be honest, for typical pulp fare it usually doesn’t matter. Nobody in his right mind will criticise movies by Stephen Sommers on the basis of its lack of historical accuracy. I’m referring here to the accuracy of the historical bits, not the fantastical stuff – it’s not that hard to cleverly interweave more or less accurate history with the fantastic.
Pure pulp like the Indiana Jones movies didn’t do that too badly.
The Order 1886 is, unfortunately, rather schizophrenic in this respect. On the one hand, its visuals and the way the characters are presented strongly suggest they are going for something that, while fantastic, looks and feels ‘grounded’ in reality, albeit an ‘alternative history reality’. That means we are supposed to look at the game and think ‘Wow, it could have been like this’. Indeed, they have claimed as much, calling the game’s setting alternate history.
Unfortunately, TO 1886’s setting is not based on a few ‘points of departure’ from ‘our’ timeline and then more or less logically extrapolating from it to create a world that is familiar yet different from our own in understandable ways. It combines many things that are mutually exclusive if you assume a more or less plausible historical ‘cause and effect’ chain leading to this alternate universe. For instance, you can’t have a ‘real’ King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table persisting until the game’s present AND still have a recognisable, English-speaking British Empire with Queen Victoria, Parliament, House of Lords, Cadbury chocolate and all that. Look a bit deeper, and you discover that TO 1886’s London isn’t based on 1886 London at all, but is a mish-mash of things taken at random from a century of history. That’s okay for mindless cheerful pulp, but not a good basis for a truly ‘grounded’ setting.
Having said that, this is not the biggest problem the game seems to have. Gameplay trumps story, story and characters trump setting. Ideally all three are good, but if you have to make a choice I can very well see that the consistency of the setting comes last. However, I do think the rather cavalier approach to the setting betrays a fundamental problem with the attitude of the game’s creators in general. They obviously had a lot of money to create great graphics and hire good voice actors, but were unwilling (or simply not able) to create a compelling game and story as well as a consistent setting.
Now if only Naughty Dog had made this game…’The Illuminati: 1888’ anyone?
Good run down. Appreciated reading it.
This game seem more like a demo tech for the PS4. Just like RYSE was for the XBOX. Just cutscene and QTE. Because you know. You gotta show da graphic .. OHHHH DÂ GRÂPHIIIIIC. SO NICE.. Sô SWEEET. You can watch ,. but you can't touch hehehehe
Just a shame, really. Looked like it had potential.
Just a shame, really. Looked like it had potential.
Retour en haut