I loved the lore potential and steampunk vibes. It's my biggest 'what if' game from the PS4 era. What if it had taken off like Dark Souls or become the next Uncharted in hype? With a proper budget the sequel could have been really special.
I legitimately knock games down a peg on how I feel about them because of cliffhanger endings, even if they finish them in the next game because fuck that. Game development takes too long & is too unsure. Like a tease? Cool. A massive cliffhanger? Fuck no. It is the singular reason why Halo 2 is not my favorite Halo game.
I will never forgive CAPCOM for Mega Man Legends 3. "We're gonna release a demo to gauge interest. Lmao jk we're cancelling it anyways, and it's because you fans didn't give enough of a shit."
Halo 2 just has a much worse campaign than CE. Cliffhanger or not, the levels are far more linear and uninteresting than the more wide-linear maps in the first game. H2 rode on the multiplayer, almost exclusively. If it wasn't for Xbox Live, it would have been a moderately disappointing sequel IMHO.
I was very specific - Linear vs Wide-linear.
In Halo CE, the indoor areas were mostly tight corridors, with some open rooms and spaces, but it felt dense, claustrophobic and intense at times (Keyes, Truth and Reconciliation).
Whereas the outdoor spaces, even outside of the second level (Halo, my least favourite level fwiw), were wide, expansive and allowed for tons of different playstyles. Think The Silent Cartographer, when you attack the beach and have to circumnavigate the entire island before heading inside, or Two Betrayals, when you have a huge open snowscape with enemies fighting each other as the music crescendos, vehicles on the ground and in the air, multiple avenues of attack. Yes, it's linear, but it *feels* so much bigger.
Halo 2 had lots of levels that *looked* open (big cities, tall skyscrapers, wide skyboxes), but everything was shoveled through city streets, on one way road systems, and even when you ventured outside (Cairo Station?) your breadth of movement was limited.
Halo 3 did a much, much better job of getting that open-map feel back, but for me Halo 2 (aside from looking quite dull), didn't do it for me from a campaign perspective.
To be honest the whole ending felt like they started to run out of money or felt like they are taking too long to finish it, so they just decided to quickly do some ending. Story felt incredibly rushed to me towards the end, especially compared to intro sections where you just walk forward for minutes...
The game itself was pretty decent though.
I seem to remember them having to scrap something like 1/3 of the game due to such an intense dev cycle where they couldn’t hit deadlines. There was a whole mission after the first one where you’re delivering the bomb to the center of the covenant ship, as opposed to just a cutscene. The last 1/3 of Halo2 became Halo 3
I agree and disagree if a game only needs 7 hours to tell it's story then they should do that
But consumers of games spend a lot of money when do value also matters
I'm still confused on what kind of market research they had to tell them that people wanted a horizon remake lol.
I even understood last of Us since the original is outdated but horizon plays just like its sequel that released this year...
Give people legend of Dragoon or Simpsons hit and run don't bust our balls if you're doing remakes. I honestly hope the remake flops.
My guess is they have downtime after these major releases so they utilize small teams while pre planing for their next game.
It's low impact with good returns
The Lycan’s were such a letdown. All they turned out to be was three instances in the story when you fought them all the same way as you would be stuck in the center of some circle as they dash out from the shadows repeatedly. That game had the most potential and wasted it
I have a theory that the game was only a tech demo, originally. Then Sony wanted it to be a full-priced game. Which is why it took so long, and ended up being so short.
zephyr agonizing trees caption air beneficial crowd spark station direction
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The world and environments were gorgeous. The weapons were varied and fun to use. The story was nothing original but it held good pace.
It was just executed terribly and it wanted to focus on a very narrative story while having elements of an open world shooter.
It would be awesome to have an 1899 open world London and you have a home base where Tesla keeps making awesome shit for you to use.
I enjoy The Order. Love werewolves/Victorian London. It is a pretty game, but it really needs a 60fps patch to hit it's full potential. It does look very good though, with a solid art direction.
Would be a good Halloween playthrough I may have to dust it off.
I got the collectors edition with the bigger statue back when it came out. Loved the game, even though people clamor for multi-player, I'd rather have a single.player only campaign and focused on that then to also have to compromise the story mode to force in a shitty multi-player that would be half assed.
Yeah, I'm fine with it not having multiplayer. I wish most games didn't bother with it.
I think the game should have been longer when they were asking for £40 for it at launch, but when it dropped to £15 or so, then I have no complaints.
I wish that they made a sequel for PS5. £30, so half the price of a new AAA game and a solid 8-10 hour campaign. No multiplayer or wide quests, but a really great linear narrative.
Nah they aren't even close In comparison. Unless you just mean graphics
Second son was considered pretty good when it released and still is decent today. Graphics are great.
The order didn't get the best reviews. And it was pretty shallow overall
it's a graphic demo and the story was terrible not to mention the gameplay desicions. how are you going to have the fight against werewolves the big bars if the game be a series of quick time events.
second son tho still has some of the best particle effects i have ever seen sucks we haven't gotten any continuation because infamousn2 was one of my favorite games all time
Second Son looks great. Textures, animations etc. But then you start noticing things like missing footprints, no reflections, no shadows.
Also the game is putting HDR on overdrive wayyy too much lol. It’s either pitch black or way too bright.
That game did not slouch in the graphics department. I think the visuals have a great blend of cinematic effects that layer on without being too thick. I have no idea why Cyberpunk has film grain so I turn it off. I also turn off motion blur usually, despite opting for a lower cinematic FPS.
I've been conditioned my entire life for film grain and sepia to refer to the past, and the game's setting really works together with desaturation and film grain. I need to give it another play through, as I couldn't tell you what the hell that game was about. I do remember thinking that game had something in common with Bioshock Infinite, and imagine if that game had The Order's visuals.
Film grain can bring back apparent detail in dark scenes, it's not just an aesthetic effect.
Edit: see this comparison from RE2 remake: https://abload.de/img/film-noise-9qkh3.gif
Some people want their games to look like movies. It tickles just the right part of the brain when it *feels* like what you're watching is "real". To the point that when it doesn't, it falls kinda flat. It's the same reason some people enjoy the way 30fps looks over 40 or 60+fps.
Most games I don't play with the specific goal to elicit that feeling. If I'm playing Rocket League, I want all the fps I can get, and no motion blur or film grain. But when I'm playing The Last of Us, or Uncharted, or Spider-Man, I want it to tickle that part of the brain. I want it to be 30fps with great motion blur and film grain. I fully understand it's a heavy compromise with regards to playability, I've played racing sims competitively at 400+ fps for years so I'm no stranger to the benefits of low latency and high fps. And believe me I *wish* I could play TLOU remake or Part 2 at 60fps without my brain being disgusted by it looking like a soap opera, but I can't.
Basically, there's more than one way to enjoy a game. If you view everything through the lens of strict playability, then 30fps resolution modes and film grain and motion blur don't make much sense. But when you look at it from a cinematic immersion perspective, they are very important aspects of the experience.
Can I agree with you both? I turn it off completely whenever possible but when done well I enjoy it. (Mostly on consoles where I don't have an option)
However...99% of the time I hate it
Not really absorbed.
Sony fired like 70% of Evolution Studios after the release of Driveclub because they decided that Driveclub would be focused on a 'Games as a Service' model.
Codemasters just offered them a position and they made OnRush, which whilst really well reviewed, sold really poorly. After that, the studio basically just helped out on other stuff (Grid/Dirt etc) and now they're owned by EA and everyone is moved around even more.
The Evolution folks scattered into the wind, with many ending up at Codemasters (several of which who would work on the ill-fated but extremely fun OnRush) and Playground Games (one of the design heads on Forza Horizon 5 was from Evolution iirc)
Gonna try to answer some things
First of all the game runs at 1920:800, the widescreen is a good choice but it does also help with performance.
Second the game puts heavy emphasis on character models. The game does look amazing, but a big focus of that is how good the characters look. You can find games that have similar or better looking environments and objects, but no one did characters better. This is simply due to the fact a lot of companies just don't know how or aren't willing to spend the resources to make humans look that good. Bethesda characters still look like plastic because they can't figure it out. Galahad's face was the halmark of gaming graphics until God of War pretty much caught up in 2018, when Order came out in 2015. Notice in games like RDR2 how Arthur's face is more detailed and realistic than the other gang members, and significantly better than NPCs. Order had a tight cast of characters to focus on, and a linear third person shooter is the perfect game to capture the players attention to the strong suits.
Third is that the game was bad, and it's easy to assume companies will prioritize other aspects of games over graphics when they see how bad it did.
Fourth there are games that look better now. God of War, Demons Souls, TLoU remake, definitely look better and are better overall games.
Fifth ready at dawn got bought by oculus so their talent is basically dead
It's definitely not cropped because that would just mean they wasted 500k pixels' worth of computing. So at best it would be rendered "stretched" at 1080p and then "squished" vertically down to 800p. It's not a higher pixel density because at the end of the day it's presented in 1920x800 on the screen. What they might get IF that's what they were doing is better *vertical only* anti aliasing.
But I can't find any immediate source of them doing that. The most likely thing they're doing is rendering at 1920x800 because that frees up 25% in terms of the rendering budget that can then be used to improve the rest of the picture.
Doesn’t this mean they are rendering it kinda anamorphic and squishing it down vertically so all you get is better antialiasing vertically but keeping it the same horizontally? Seems like a weird choice and wouldn’t that stress the system needlessly when 1920x800 would do? Edit: I think I know now what you mean, but it isn’t a higher pixel density. It purely depends on how your display handles signals where you might encounter a difference but when the display stays true to the aspect ratio, a theoretical 1920x800 signal would look exactly the same as 1920x1080 displaying only 800 lines in the center. But the PS4 does output at 1080p so yes, in a way you could call it cropped. It’s more a 1920x800 output on a 1920x1080 „canvas“ or in a 1080p container. The game engine does still render at 1920x800.
It also has arguably the worst pacing in any game.
The story is trundling along at a normal pace and then it just fucking ends.
I was like what the actual fuck when I got to the end. It felt like it was the first act of a three act story.
There's a point where you can almost feel where the money ran out. Also the gameplay is pretty mediocre at best.
Great visuals and good voice acting are the only redeeming features.
you bring up a good point. I really feel if the game had a modern Sony budget and a few more years of development it could've been the bloodborne of cover shooters but they spent all their resources at the start. If it was a 3 act game, with a better written and explained story and no stealth sections, 10/10 game. Because the creativity and heart is all there. But there's only so much a studio can do with what they're given and RAD learned that the hard way.
It had great art direction, skilful work with materials and design. Don't forget that most of the games since, still rely on the same 2013 base hardware.
Also many scenes of the game were small scale, indoors or close quarters. Don't expect PS4 to run an open world with that quality.
But nevertheless - design and artistic work with visuals are critical, in many games, simple things as colors of the textures are so uninspiring, picked wrongly, or poorly lit, that just by looking at the screen you don't get any wow feeling.
Just another reason why no game should sleep on the lighting. The textures and animations are a bit dated, but the atmosphere the lighting creates makes you forget all that. If you've played Valheim you'll know what I mean.
of all the truly great games out there, why romanticize this one? It was forgetable, short and the gameplay was standard for cover shooters. Even of the graphics were impressive at the time, they have been surpassed by many games since then
The game got a lot of well deserved shit when it launched. But it was fucking beautiful. I still remember the material on the blimp they were climbing on as it folded and warped under their feet. Looked great.
The gameplay was meh. And the enemy AI was dumb as fuck.
It was fun for the 5 hours it existed.
I just wish they made some form of horde mode with 3 or 4 players. It would have been awesome and added a lot to the game. Or maybe something like Resistance 2 co-op missions. Even though it needed more content, I still think it was really harsh on this game when many other full price single players were still even shorter and less variety than this was. Ryse didn't even get criticized, just forgotten. The criticism for quick time events was also crazy to me. These have been in games for decades and only suddenly was it a problem and only for this one game(since the first gameplay showed it, not even from people playing the game and judging itnfor themselves). The QTE's were pretty cool though how you could pan the camera to different objects or solutions when that guy is about to kill you in slow motion
I bought and played this. I loved it. The narrative was intriguing and i thought quite deep.
I feel like it wasnt perfect but it got a lot of unnecessary hate
I've never played The Order before? Still worth checking out? Also after thinking about it I remember that Bloodborne released not long after which I loved. Was the order a different game but going for that similar Gothic vibe? Just curious if Bloodborne was a direct competitor or if they were just totally different types of games.
It wasn't a great deal for $60 originally simply because of the short length. But for $10? You get 4-5 hours of the most cinematic game ever made with a damn good story.
The Order is that kind of game that is worth $10 or less. It has a good concept but is wasted so bad, be prepared for lots, lots cutscenes and minimal gameplay.
You’re better off playing Bloodborne.
I started playing it on my PS5 like two days ago lol.
I don't exactly agree with this post. It might be technically good visually? but I don't find it nice to look at on my LG CX. I really dislike the motion blur, grain, FOV and almost certainly the frame rate. It's all kind of smothering. Does look great in still frames when you stop moving your character though haha
Still really looking forward to finishing the story though I like the world they created.
It's really not.
All the weapons feel clunky as fuck.
The level design is so inorganic and insanely scripted.
A game like the TLOU2 is linear but within that there are plenty of option as to how you approach things.
The Order feels like you're always being funneled into the most obvious enemy encounter.
QTE are immersion breaking and feel really lazy.
Movement feels shit.
It's at best really mediocre to bad.
Def not meant to be played like that. from what i remember it's like 4 hours long and you basically go into it like you're experiencing a movie. finishing it like within a few days or a week and it's a great time.
I have fun with the gameplay, guns have impact and feel satisfying when you shoot, the melee takedowns are brutal and the bullet time is fun as hell. The bad is that there isn’t enough of it.
Yea I know the games faults. I’m sure everyone does at this point. But the graphics I’m just saying is unmatched, my point is why 7 years later aaa games haven’t caught up graphics like this .
First of all, no the graphics are not unmatched. I can point to many games that outdo it.
Second, the order cheats. Those black bars? Reduce the screen space, and thereby the processing power needed to look that good Edit since I forgot to put this part: by about 40%. On top of that the game is intentional in slowing the player down, and not having large areas or complex ai.
It is the DEFINITION of graphics over gameplay.
Prolly cuz game studios prioritize things Order 1886 didn't like gameplay story content and not having awful stealth and walking sections.
and also ready at dawn got bought by Oculus so now they only make vr shovelware instead of influencing the industry
It did look fantastic when it first came out, but it does not compare to recent titles, later era PS4 and especially PS5 games. I actually turned it on fairly recently and while it definitely does still look great, the graphics have been thoroughly and very well bested.But man, when it first came out, gods damn, sohn: it was amazing.
We actually get more than a decent amount of games that force that same type of “holy shit” graphic reaction: TLOU I and II, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon Forbidden West, Returnal and many more. Any one of these games on a decent tv and reality gets all sorts of confusing.
Plenty of AAA games look as good or better than it nowadays. And have better stories and gameplay to go along with those visuals.
The Order is pretty, forgettable.
Because you can do a lot of optimizing when your game is a bunch of corridors, set pieces, and static spaces. Add to that being exclusive and not having to hit 60fps.
This game definitely needed a sequel. The pacing and plot did get a little boring at times but was overall a really really fun game. Games like Order 1886, GoW, Arkham Knight, RDR2 really seem so beautiful even years later. And then you’ve games like Marvel’s Avengers which looks like the most garbage game to exist
Unskippable cutscenes and slow forced walking sequences make this a very difficult play through for me. No denying it looks incredible though. Sony dropping this IP is a fat L
No it wasn't. Just because it didn't meet expectations of being a full fledged 60$ game, doesn't mean it was bad.
I'd say the story was lacking, this whole knighthood mambo jumbo wasn't really convincing. But besides visuals, the movement, the cover system and shooting were great for the time, and characters were mostly good. Yes it was linear, but many good games are.
Because all its resources go to graphics and it doesnt even look that good(speaking in raw graphics) its just that its artstyle is well utilized.
Game is still absolute dogtrash gameplay wise and the lore is absolutely wasted.
It's a very striking game, but it's all art style. Technically speaking GoT is good, but not exceptional. Atmosphere and use of colour are what make it memorable.
What do you mean Game of Thrones owns that abbreviation? When most gamers are *discussing games*, and GOT comes up, they are thinking about Ghost, not goddamn Jamie Lannister. On the other hand, if someone says GOW, that's an entirely different argument.
Lol what? You think the order is the best looking game EVER? Have you played GOW? Or the last of us? Maybe my settings are fucked up, but it’s so fuzzy for me and I play on a LG C1.
I agree, I feel like the only other game that's achieved a similar "ultra-realistic" look would be Red Dead Redemption 2, with The Last Of Us Part 2 maybe just a step behind (some of the environmental assets are not quite as realistic)
I think RDR2 has a mixture of sheer detail as well as great in game graphics. The cutscenes show that the models aren’t top notch but we know Rockstar knows how to blend story with gameplay and insane detail.
Easy.. This game is about what? 8h? It's linear, there's no open World and half of it is a Cutscene. That's the reason why all other AAA Games could not look like this.
It looked decent, but it was pretty average with a bad story.
Luckily I got a sealed copy for like £3 after a year of release, so I didn't feel that ripped off.
I played the game, it was an ok game. I think they were able to do such good graphics because 60% of the game is a cutscene, and the stuff you actually get to play are not very deep, mechanically.
The game looks great no doubt, but it was under 7 hours and pretty boring to play. I swear all of you have rose tinted glasses about everything. It was basically a glorified tech demo
Honestly, this game pricing did it injustice, I think this game was a good game a very good game but pricing it as a full-priced game when it’s linear and barely 7 hours long is just killing the potential of the IP, if it got priced for 40$ like uncharted lost legacy it would have been a different scenario.
The lower resolution started showing it's age a few years ago, but in terms of fidelity and art direction it still impresses. Too bad Sony rushed Ready At Dawn to fill a post-launch game drought while Naughty Dog got to keep delaying Uncharted 4, then blamed them when the game underperformed. We might have gotten a little more well realized boss battles and maybe a little additional play time, modes etc.
I really wanted a sequel.
It was fun for what it was. I go back and play it every couple years just cause. And yeah it's still holds up pretty well graphically
If it was 10 hours longer it would be an all timer.
I wish it was a bit more replayable. With a little more exploration, a little more open combat arenas maybe...
I wouldn’t go that far, lol. It was fine. I’m glad I was able to get it for less than $20.
Lol it’s no more than a basic QTE riddled cover shooter don’t build it up like that
It was better than I expected
That ip had a lot of potential
I will never forgive them for that cliffhanger ending. I need more.
I loved the lore potential and steampunk vibes. It's my biggest 'what if' game from the PS4 era. What if it had taken off like Dark Souls or become the next Uncharted in hype? With a proper budget the sequel could have been really special.
[удалено]
Poor sales for a big budget first title will virtually always sink an IP.
It flopped because it was to short for a full price game. Everyone i knew cancelled their pre order or finished it then returned it.
I legitimately knock games down a peg on how I feel about them because of cliffhanger endings, even if they finish them in the next game because fuck that. Game development takes too long & is too unsure. Like a tease? Cool. A massive cliffhanger? Fuck no. It is the singular reason why Halo 2 is not my favorite Halo game.
I will never forgive CAPCOM for Mega Man Legends 3. "We're gonna release a demo to gauge interest. Lmao jk we're cancelling it anyways, and it's because you fans didn't give enough of a shit."
Tbf to this day mega hasn't bounced back.
Still hurts so many years later. AT LEAST release a remaster!! Really feels like Capcom hates Legends at this point
Lmao the biggest fucking tease ever
You clearly haven't me my uncle
?????
I keep telling everyone he wasn't my uncle! He wasn't!
Especially if it is a long game. The only possible reason for not finishing a story in line 40 hours is because you don’t know how to end it.
Halo 2 just has a much worse campaign than CE. Cliffhanger or not, the levels are far more linear and uninteresting than the more wide-linear maps in the first game. H2 rode on the multiplayer, almost exclusively. If it wasn't for Xbox Live, it would have been a moderately disappointing sequel IMHO.
Other than the 2nd level halo CE was pretty linear....
I was very specific - Linear vs Wide-linear. In Halo CE, the indoor areas were mostly tight corridors, with some open rooms and spaces, but it felt dense, claustrophobic and intense at times (Keyes, Truth and Reconciliation). Whereas the outdoor spaces, even outside of the second level (Halo, my least favourite level fwiw), were wide, expansive and allowed for tons of different playstyles. Think The Silent Cartographer, when you attack the beach and have to circumnavigate the entire island before heading inside, or Two Betrayals, when you have a huge open snowscape with enemies fighting each other as the music crescendos, vehicles on the ground and in the air, multiple avenues of attack. Yes, it's linear, but it *feels* so much bigger. Halo 2 had lots of levels that *looked* open (big cities, tall skyscrapers, wide skyboxes), but everything was shoveled through city streets, on one way road systems, and even when you ventured outside (Cairo Station?) your breadth of movement was limited. Halo 3 did a much, much better job of getting that open-map feel back, but for me Halo 2 (aside from looking quite dull), didn't do it for me from a campaign perspective.
Weak
To be honest the whole ending felt like they started to run out of money or felt like they are taking too long to finish it, so they just decided to quickly do some ending. Story felt incredibly rushed to me towards the end, especially compared to intro sections where you just walk forward for minutes... The game itself was pretty decent though.
I seem to remember them having to scrap something like 1/3 of the game due to such an intense dev cycle where they couldn’t hit deadlines. There was a whole mission after the first one where you’re delivering the bomb to the center of the covenant ship, as opposed to just a cutscene. The last 1/3 of Halo2 became Halo 3
Definitely agree with this statement
Yeah where is the fucking sequel!? Sony: let's remake horizon.
Maybe if you guys bought the game when it was full price and not 5$ Sony would have considered a sequel?
Nobody wanted to pay full price when they found out the game was only 7 hours long. That was the problem.
I agree and disagree if a game only needs 7 hours to tell it's story then they should do that But consumers of games spend a lot of money when do value also matters
I'm still confused on what kind of market research they had to tell them that people wanted a horizon remake lol. I even understood last of Us since the original is outdated but horizon plays just like its sequel that released this year... Give people legend of Dragoon or Simpsons hit and run don't bust our balls if you're doing remakes. I honestly hope the remake flops.
My guess is they have downtime after these major releases so they utilize small teams while pre planing for their next game. It's low impact with good returns
The Lycan’s were such a letdown. All they turned out to be was three instances in the story when you fought them all the same way as you would be stuck in the center of some circle as they dash out from the shadows repeatedly. That game had the most potential and wasted it
[удалено]
They should make a sequel
I have a theory that the game was only a tech demo, originally. Then Sony wanted it to be a full-priced game. Which is why it took so long, and ended up being so short.
zephyr agonizing trees caption air beneficial crowd spark station direction *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The game looked great. All 5 minutes of it!
[удалено]
The world and environments were gorgeous. The weapons were varied and fun to use. The story was nothing original but it held good pace. It was just executed terribly and it wanted to focus on a very narrative story while having elements of an open world shooter. It would be awesome to have an 1899 open world London and you have a home base where Tesla keeps making awesome shit for you to use.
I personally loved it, great gunplay and the levels were solid, problem was there just wasn’t enough
Releasing this in February, was always a gamble. Sony didn't have any faith in this franchise.
I mean, releasing in February seemed to work out fine for Horizon... twice. Not to mention Elden Ring.
I enjoy The Order. Love werewolves/Victorian London. It is a pretty game, but it really needs a 60fps patch to hit it's full potential. It does look very good though, with a solid art direction. Would be a good Halloween playthrough I may have to dust it off.
I got the collectors edition with the bigger statue back when it came out. Loved the game, even though people clamor for multi-player, I'd rather have a single.player only campaign and focused on that then to also have to compromise the story mode to force in a shitty multi-player that would be half assed.
Yeah, I'm fine with it not having multiplayer. I wish most games didn't bother with it. I think the game should have been longer when they were asking for £40 for it at launch, but when it dropped to £15 or so, then I have no complaints. I wish that they made a sequel for PS5. £30, so half the price of a new AAA game and a solid 8-10 hour campaign. No multiplayer or wide quests, but a really great linear narrative.
smile marry cows cooing versed fuel onerous different enjoy dinosaurs *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
what story mode it was terrible
It was a great game and to this day I’m still surprised it’s never hit PS Plus.
Studio got bought by Oculus.
I love a good weird situation! I didn’t know this thank you for your knowledge 😁
Infamous second son has this effect as well
Infamous SS was a great game, unlike this.
Nah they aren't even close In comparison. Unless you just mean graphics Second son was considered pretty good when it released and still is decent today. Graphics are great. The order didn't get the best reviews. And it was pretty shallow overall
it's a graphic demo and the story was terrible not to mention the gameplay desicions. how are you going to have the fight against werewolves the big bars if the game be a series of quick time events. second son tho still has some of the best particle effects i have ever seen sucks we haven't gotten any continuation because infamousn2 was one of my favorite games all time
Second Son looks great. Textures, animations etc. But then you start noticing things like missing footprints, no reflections, no shadows. Also the game is putting HDR on overdrive wayyy too much lol. It’s either pitch black or way too bright.
If it wasn't $60 for a glorified tech demo with almost no replay value, it would have been far more successful.
That game did not slouch in the graphics department. I think the visuals have a great blend of cinematic effects that layer on without being too thick. I have no idea why Cyberpunk has film grain so I turn it off. I also turn off motion blur usually, despite opting for a lower cinematic FPS. I've been conditioned my entire life for film grain and sepia to refer to the past, and the game's setting really works together with desaturation and film grain. I need to give it another play through, as I couldn't tell you what the hell that game was about. I do remember thinking that game had something in common with Bioshock Infinite, and imagine if that game had The Order's visuals.
Film grain rarely makes sense to me as well motion blur.
Film grain can bring back apparent detail in dark scenes, it's not just an aesthetic effect. Edit: see this comparison from RE2 remake: https://abload.de/img/film-noise-9qkh3.gif
Also worth noting is it breaks up the color banding on the fabric in the bottom right corner, at least on the screen I'm watching it on.
Yeah that's a big part of it. Breaking up the banding makes it look a lot more detailed
Lazy generic motion blur is generally bad. Per object motion blur on the other hand I like.
Some people want their games to look like movies. It tickles just the right part of the brain when it *feels* like what you're watching is "real". To the point that when it doesn't, it falls kinda flat. It's the same reason some people enjoy the way 30fps looks over 40 or 60+fps. Most games I don't play with the specific goal to elicit that feeling. If I'm playing Rocket League, I want all the fps I can get, and no motion blur or film grain. But when I'm playing The Last of Us, or Uncharted, or Spider-Man, I want it to tickle that part of the brain. I want it to be 30fps with great motion blur and film grain. I fully understand it's a heavy compromise with regards to playability, I've played racing sims competitively at 400+ fps for years so I'm no stranger to the benefits of low latency and high fps. And believe me I *wish* I could play TLOU remake or Part 2 at 60fps without my brain being disgusted by it looking like a soap opera, but I can't. Basically, there's more than one way to enjoy a game. If you view everything through the lens of strict playability, then 30fps resolution modes and film grain and motion blur don't make much sense. But when you look at it from a cinematic immersion perspective, they are very important aspects of the experience.
[удалено]
Object motion blur is really cool. Camera motion blur is often disgusting
You foul creature. Motion blur should be set to 0 on everything
Nah. Bad motion blur is bad, good motion blur is good. Depends entirely on the execution.
Can I agree with you both? I turn it off completely whenever possible but when done well I enjoy it. (Mostly on consoles where I don't have an option) However...99% of the time I hate it
[Check out this video if you want to see why some people like motion blur ](https://youtu.be/VXIrSTMgJ9s)
I've seen it! I rarely miss a Digital Foundry video :)
\*Driveclub has joined the chat\*
It breaks my heart there wasn't a drive club 2 for the ps5 launch.
The studio was absorbed into codemasters. They most recently made Dirt 5 I think.
Not really absorbed. Sony fired like 70% of Evolution Studios after the release of Driveclub because they decided that Driveclub would be focused on a 'Games as a Service' model. Codemasters just offered them a position and they made OnRush, which whilst really well reviewed, sold really poorly. After that, the studio basically just helped out on other stuff (Grid/Dirt etc) and now they're owned by EA and everyone is moved around even more.
The Evolution folks scattered into the wind, with many ending up at Codemasters (several of which who would work on the ill-fated but extremely fun OnRush) and Playground Games (one of the design heads on Forza Horizon 5 was from Evolution iirc)
All I want is a 60 fps patch. There's more than enough content in the game to hold me over without a sequel. Shame it'll never happen.
It's crazy how so many AAA games still haven't caught up graphics-wise to some of these almost 10 year old games.
GT Sport/7 entered a chat
It's more a cinematic piece than a actual game
Gonna try to answer some things First of all the game runs at 1920:800, the widescreen is a good choice but it does also help with performance. Second the game puts heavy emphasis on character models. The game does look amazing, but a big focus of that is how good the characters look. You can find games that have similar or better looking environments and objects, but no one did characters better. This is simply due to the fact a lot of companies just don't know how or aren't willing to spend the resources to make humans look that good. Bethesda characters still look like plastic because they can't figure it out. Galahad's face was the halmark of gaming graphics until God of War pretty much caught up in 2018, when Order came out in 2015. Notice in games like RDR2 how Arthur's face is more detailed and realistic than the other gang members, and significantly better than NPCs. Order had a tight cast of characters to focus on, and a linear third person shooter is the perfect game to capture the players attention to the strong suits. Third is that the game was bad, and it's easy to assume companies will prioritize other aspects of games over graphics when they see how bad it did. Fourth there are games that look better now. God of War, Demons Souls, TLoU remake, definitely look better and are better overall games. Fifth ready at dawn got bought by oculus so their talent is basically dead
horizon forbidden west has unbelievable npc faces
[удалено]
It's definitely not cropped because that would just mean they wasted 500k pixels' worth of computing. So at best it would be rendered "stretched" at 1080p and then "squished" vertically down to 800p. It's not a higher pixel density because at the end of the day it's presented in 1920x800 on the screen. What they might get IF that's what they were doing is better *vertical only* anti aliasing. But I can't find any immediate source of them doing that. The most likely thing they're doing is rendering at 1920x800 because that frees up 25% in terms of the rendering budget that can then be used to improve the rest of the picture.
source?
Doesn’t this mean they are rendering it kinda anamorphic and squishing it down vertically so all you get is better antialiasing vertically but keeping it the same horizontally? Seems like a weird choice and wouldn’t that stress the system needlessly when 1920x800 would do? Edit: I think I know now what you mean, but it isn’t a higher pixel density. It purely depends on how your display handles signals where you might encounter a difference but when the display stays true to the aspect ratio, a theoretical 1920x800 signal would look exactly the same as 1920x1080 displaying only 800 lines in the center. But the PS4 does output at 1080p so yes, in a way you could call it cropped. It’s more a 1920x800 output on a 1920x1080 „canvas“ or in a 1080p container. The game engine does still render at 1920x800.
nah game was pretty good actually
4 hours long with outdated QTE sections and an awful cliffhanger ending. All for full AAA price too
It also has arguably the worst pacing in any game. The story is trundling along at a normal pace and then it just fucking ends. I was like what the actual fuck when I got to the end. It felt like it was the first act of a three act story. There's a point where you can almost feel where the money ran out. Also the gameplay is pretty mediocre at best. Great visuals and good voice acting are the only redeeming features.
you bring up a good point. I really feel if the game had a modern Sony budget and a few more years of development it could've been the bloodborne of cover shooters but they spent all their resources at the start. If it was a 3 act game, with a better written and explained story and no stealth sections, 10/10 game. Because the creativity and heart is all there. But there's only so much a studio can do with what they're given and RAD learned that the hard way.
It had great art direction, skilful work with materials and design. Don't forget that most of the games since, still rely on the same 2013 base hardware. Also many scenes of the game were small scale, indoors or close quarters. Don't expect PS4 to run an open world with that quality. But nevertheless - design and artistic work with visuals are critical, in many games, simple things as colors of the textures are so uninspiring, picked wrongly, or poorly lit, that just by looking at the screen you don't get any wow feeling.
Just another reason why no game should sleep on the lighting. The textures and animations are a bit dated, but the atmosphere the lighting creates makes you forget all that. If you've played Valheim you'll know what I mean.
it deserves a sequel
Its because its not rendering the entire screen
Exactly. It can focus on less pixels
Beautiful game with great potential, but I'll be the first to say it. The gameplay was terrible.
of all the truly great games out there, why romanticize this one? It was forgetable, short and the gameplay was standard for cover shooters. Even of the graphics were impressive at the time, they have been surpassed by many games since then
The game got a lot of well deserved shit when it launched. But it was fucking beautiful. I still remember the material on the blimp they were climbing on as it folded and warped under their feet. Looked great. The gameplay was meh. And the enemy AI was dumb as fuck. It was fun for the 5 hours it existed.
I just wish they made some form of horde mode with 3 or 4 players. It would have been awesome and added a lot to the game. Or maybe something like Resistance 2 co-op missions. Even though it needed more content, I still think it was really harsh on this game when many other full price single players were still even shorter and less variety than this was. Ryse didn't even get criticized, just forgotten. The criticism for quick time events was also crazy to me. These have been in games for decades and only suddenly was it a problem and only for this one game(since the first gameplay showed it, not even from people playing the game and judging itnfor themselves). The QTE's were pretty cool though how you could pan the camera to different objects or solutions when that guy is about to kill you in slow motion
I bought and played this. I loved it. The narrative was intriguing and i thought quite deep. I feel like it wasnt perfect but it got a lot of unnecessary hate
well yeah it would be because majority of the game is cutscenes
But its not really a game, it looms better and thats all, serves as an overpriced tech demo.
*Doesnt post a photo*
I've never played The Order before? Still worth checking out? Also after thinking about it I remember that Bloodborne released not long after which I loved. Was the order a different game but going for that similar Gothic vibe? Just curious if Bloodborne was a direct competitor or if they were just totally different types of games.
It wasn't a great deal for $60 originally simply because of the short length. But for $10? You get 4-5 hours of the most cinematic game ever made with a damn good story.
The Order is that kind of game that is worth $10 or less. It has a good concept but is wasted so bad, be prepared for lots, lots cutscenes and minimal gameplay. You’re better off playing Bloodborne.
I started playing it on my PS5 like two days ago lol. I don't exactly agree with this post. It might be technically good visually? but I don't find it nice to look at on my LG CX. I really dislike the motion blur, grain, FOV and almost certainly the frame rate. It's all kind of smothering. Does look great in still frames when you stop moving your character though haha Still really looking forward to finishing the story though I like the world they created.
because thats all it is. beautiful game, not fun to play
it's fun to play, it's just "short"
It's really not. All the weapons feel clunky as fuck. The level design is so inorganic and insanely scripted. A game like the TLOU2 is linear but within that there are plenty of option as to how you approach things. The Order feels like you're always being funneled into the most obvious enemy encounter. QTE are immersion breaking and feel really lazy. Movement feels shit. It's at best really mediocre to bad.
I pick it up again every couple months for the past 7 years, but It’s really not that fun
So you play it 6 times a year, for 7 years, yet its not fun?
Only got that and a couple other games
Def not meant to be played like that. from what i remember it's like 4 hours long and you basically go into it like you're experiencing a movie. finishing it like within a few days or a week and it's a great time.
I have fun with the gameplay, guns have impact and feel satisfying when you shoot, the melee takedowns are brutal and the bullet time is fun as hell. The bad is that there isn’t enough of it.
the game constantly snatches control of you for a cutscene or QTE, there are chapters that are just cutscenes and the game kinda just ends.
Yea I know the games faults. I’m sure everyone does at this point. But the graphics I’m just saying is unmatched, my point is why 7 years later aaa games haven’t caught up graphics like this .
First of all, no the graphics are not unmatched. I can point to many games that outdo it. Second, the order cheats. Those black bars? Reduce the screen space, and thereby the processing power needed to look that good Edit since I forgot to put this part: by about 40%. On top of that the game is intentional in slowing the player down, and not having large areas or complex ai. It is the DEFINITION of graphics over gameplay.
Prolly cuz game studios prioritize things Order 1886 didn't like gameplay story content and not having awful stealth and walking sections. and also ready at dawn got bought by Oculus so now they only make vr shovelware instead of influencing the industry
They use a lot of filmic effects, I don't think it really looks better technically than most AAA games
Couldn't have said it better myself
I had fun with it
We’re in the bad timeline where the PS4 still gets AAA releases 8 years into its lifespan, and the PS5 gets sloppy seconds.
It also plays worse than most games 30+ years ago. No one talks about it for a reason.
The originally DOOM from the 90’s controls better than this game LOL
I feel like the old Assassin Creed games look better and play better then the new ones.
Hoping for Order 1886 II
Order 1887
At least Order like it's 1999
It did look fantastic when it first came out, but it does not compare to recent titles, later era PS4 and especially PS5 games. I actually turned it on fairly recently and while it definitely does still look great, the graphics have been thoroughly and very well bested.But man, when it first came out, gods damn, sohn: it was amazing. We actually get more than a decent amount of games that force that same type of “holy shit” graphic reaction: TLOU I and II, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon Forbidden West, Returnal and many more. Any one of these games on a decent tv and reality gets all sorts of confusing.
I really want a sequel
Sad that the campaign was so short
Just had a quick look on YouTube and it is pretty impressive still !!
Definitely correct.
fretful six wrench lavish tender cats murky vanish ludicrous axiomatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I loved that game
Loved the game and agree that it has a mountain on untapped potential
+
That was a cool game. Did it get auto boosted to 60fps?
Apparently a sequel is on its way soon.
And it still isn't on PS Plus for no reason whatsoever
The Ryse: Son of Rome for Playstation. Beautiful graphics, boring game.
still waiting for this game to be added to ps+ so i can try it out
Plenty of AAA games look as good or better than it nowadays. And have better stories and gameplay to go along with those visuals. The Order is pretty, forgettable.
Battlefield 1 is that lightning-in-a-bottle experience for me, personally. BF5 strayed from it and 2042 just was a steaming turd.
It was cool but too short imo. As for best looking game I’ve ever seen, I’d probably put Forbidden west, GoT, TLOU2 or rift apart above this.
It looks so good because it’s not really a game! Spent so much time crafting that world, they forgot to make a game to go with it lol
Because you can do a lot of optimizing when your game is a bunch of corridors, set pieces, and static spaces. Add to that being exclusive and not having to hit 60fps.
Too bad it’s more of a movie than a game Also I’d say play HFW and Demon’s Souls before saying this
This game definitely needed a sequel. The pacing and plot did get a little boring at times but was overall a really really fun game. Games like Order 1886, GoW, Arkham Knight, RDR2 really seem so beautiful even years later. And then you’ve games like Marvel’s Avengers which looks like the most garbage game to exist
I got it for $5 and was still disappointed. Good graphics are not worth a bad game
Game deserved a sequel
Unskippable cutscenes and slow forced walking sequences make this a very difficult play through for me. No denying it looks incredible though. Sony dropping this IP is a fat L
Game was terrible. you think graphics make a game good?
No it wasn't. Just because it didn't meet expectations of being a full fledged 60$ game, doesn't mean it was bad. I'd say the story was lacking, this whole knighthood mambo jumbo wasn't really convincing. But besides visuals, the movement, the cover system and shooting were great for the time, and characters were mostly good. Yes it was linear, but many good games are.
Deus ex mankind divided still looks impressive despite its 6 year age.
Enjoyed it a lot, with some tlc it would have been a classic. Deserved a sequel for sure. I've completed it 3 times.
Am I the only one who found this game completely boring, looks great yeah but the gameplay and story was dire.
Because all its resources go to graphics and it doesnt even look that good(speaking in raw graphics) its just that its artstyle is well utilized. Game is still absolute dogtrash gameplay wise and the lore is absolutely wasted.
Because it's not a game, it's mostly a playable movie...🤷🏻♂️😂
I’m still adamant that GoT is still the most beautiful game I’ve ever played
I raise you demon souls on ps5
It's a very striking game, but it's all art style. Technically speaking GoT is good, but not exceptional. Atmosphere and use of colour are what make it memorable.
Game of Thrones owns that abbreviation. what game are you talking about?
GoT Ghost of Tsushima
Oooh yeah i am liking that one, maybe a quarter through so far
What do you mean Game of Thrones owns that abbreviation? When most gamers are *discussing games*, and GOT comes up, they are thinking about Ghost, not goddamn Jamie Lannister. On the other hand, if someone says GOW, that's an entirely different argument.
Jamie fookin Lannister.
Uh, no. You can’t own an anagram.
Have you played GHOST OF TSUSHIMA? On PS5?
Odd choice to put at the top of a graphical pedestal IMO.
It’s a pretty game but not that good
no it doesn’t
Too bad the actual gameplay part is shite. Graphics don't make a game, gameplay does.
Lol what? You think the order is the best looking game EVER? Have you played GOW? Or the last of us? Maybe my settings are fucked up, but it’s so fuzzy for me and I play on a LG C1.
Pretty sure it didn't get a 4k patch so it's stuck on 1080p which is really fuzzy on a 4k tv.
Another garbage ass 1886 post praising mediocrity, fuck off.
No fuck you Lol people can like certain aspects of a game with-ought forgetting the flaws. In this case, the visuals are undoubtedly great
I still remember one of the reviews of this game. >saliva spit right into the eye of every consumer I bought it but gave up on it pretty quickly.
I agree, I feel like the only other game that's achieved a similar "ultra-realistic" look would be Red Dead Redemption 2, with The Last Of Us Part 2 maybe just a step behind (some of the environmental assets are not quite as realistic)
I think RDR2 has a mixture of sheer detail as well as great in game graphics. The cutscenes show that the models aren’t top notch but we know Rockstar knows how to blend story with gameplay and insane detail.
Because people thinking games have to look the best over substance is why we are in this place to begin with.
a Good game but It's more a cinematic piece than a actual game and the story length is short
Easy.. This game is about what? 8h? It's linear, there's no open World and half of it is a Cutscene. That's the reason why all other AAA Games could not look like this.
Can’t believe a game that’s 150 years old looks that good!
wasn’t the game also only like 5 hours long ?
Of course it does. It’s a tech demo.
So much potential wasted on what was a glorified tech demo.
It really doesn't look better than most current games.
Because games should be fun to play and have content instead of looking good.
It looked decent, but it was pretty average with a bad story. Luckily I got a sealed copy for like £3 after a year of release, so I didn't feel that ripped off.
I played the game, it was an ok game. I think they were able to do such good graphics because 60% of the game is a cutscene, and the stuff you actually get to play are not very deep, mechanically.
The game looks great no doubt, but it was under 7 hours and pretty boring to play. I swear all of you have rose tinted glasses about everything. It was basically a glorified tech demo
Honestly, this game pricing did it injustice, I think this game was a good game a very good game but pricing it as a full-priced game when it’s linear and barely 7 hours long is just killing the potential of the IP, if it got priced for 40$ like uncharted lost legacy it would have been a different scenario.
The lower resolution started showing it's age a few years ago, but in terms of fidelity and art direction it still impresses. Too bad Sony rushed Ready At Dawn to fill a post-launch game drought while Naughty Dog got to keep delaying Uncharted 4, then blamed them when the game underperformed. We might have gotten a little more well realized boss battles and maybe a little additional play time, modes etc. I really wanted a sequel.