Gameplay doesn't sell in high numbers on the back of a box. Pretty screenshots and 3- second long adverts with "the best looking video game ever" do. You know this.
If graphics sold games, Ryse and Crysis 3 would be more popular than Minecraft...
Gameplay doesn't sell in high numbers on the back of a box. Pretty screenshots and 3- second long adverts with "the best looking video game ever" do. You know this.
There's no gamer who would say, "No, I don't like good gameplay, it's pretty graphics that matter most to me".
If graphics didn't help sell games then studios wouldn't have a need for spending so much time and money on making games look nice. I'm sure if The Order looked like a PS2 game, people would be talking about it less, it would have cost less to make, and it could have been made faster.
Gameplay and graphics are both important for making a game successful. Games like Minecraft may not be filled with next-gen assets but it looks very pleasing to the eye because of the unique artstyle that wasn't popular at the time of its release. The problem with games that try to be as photorealistic as possible is that after a few years, they will look terrible in comparison to the new releases of that time period, while games that have more stylized art will still look great.
i think it's unfair to use minecraft as an example of "simple graphics" because while they might not have sold the game, the game being fun in and of itself... i can't think of a single person who runs minecraft without some kind of shader enhancement to make it look better, like this:
hell, there isn't a single game in the history of games where the graphics don't get enhanced as soon as it's possible to do so.
Everybody wants good visuals and good gameplay. But if they have to choose between good gameplay and good graphics, they're always going to go with gameplay.
The reason why visuals are important to sales is because generally people DONT have to choose between the two.
I don't think it's any coincidence that the visual fidelity arms race is most prominent in genres that are the most saturated and difficult to innovate on. Everybody knows more or less what to expect from a first person shooter, when they look at the market for FPS games they dont have to try to find the one with the best gameplay so they start narrowing it down by second tier criteria which includes graphics.
i think it's unfair to use minecraft as an example of "simple graphics" because while they might not have sold the game, the game being fun in and of itself... i can't think of a single person who runs minecraft without some kind of shader enhancement to make it look better, like this...
Millions on millions sold on consoles and mobile platforms says otherwise.
People are forgetting Dear Esther, at launch was around 15 bucks, 1h "game play" and you ONLY walked, so it was a museum, there is no quality of food in a museum! So, I disagree with the restaurant comparison. I'm not saying the game is perfect, definitely a lot of mistakes, and I recognize that.
Now to the comments of players who complain that the value of open world games are better. I played Dying light, and whenever I reached my 10th hour of it, I got EXHAUSTED of looking at the same thing and doing REALLY boring quests, the kind of ones that I needed to find the cat of someone or shoot the same kind of zombie all over the game.
Well I hope you guys are working on a sequel because I fudging love it!!! 6/10 almost seems like click bait, it's loads of fun and gorgeous, yea it's simple and it could be better, but it's a cinematic experience none the less. There's a lot artists will be able to learn from it aswell. A must buy for me
I hate where games are at the moment, with their micro transactions, planned dlc, unobtainable achievements, season passes, ridiculous collectables, companion app, freemium BS. I love that it plays like an old school game. when games were actually fun and the money side wasn't so transparent.
Unfortunately these all seem like necessities these days to make a profit haha I'm so old!!!
People are forgetting Dear Esther, at launch was around 15 bucks, 1h "game play" and you ONLY walked, so it was a museum, there is no quality of food in a museum! So, I disagree with the restaurant comparison. I'm not saying the game is perfect, definitely a lot of mistakes, and I recognize that.
Dear Esther wasn't sold as a restaurant, gameplay was taken out of the equation entirely.
Now to the comments of players who complain that the value of open world games are better. I played Dying light, and whenever I reached my 10th hour of it, I got EXHAUSTED of looking at the same thing and doing REALLY boring quests, the kind of ones that I needed to find the cat of someone or shoot the same kind of zombie all over the game.
There are middlegrounds, the order definitely doesn't have to be open world, but it could've been way less linear, and with the environments it has it's a shame that players cannot utilize the interactive aspect of games and are stuck on a predefined path.
The last of us, which is probably one of those games that manages everything got this perfectly right, it let the player experience the world on his own terms rather than that of a director.
Since the start of going public with The Order, it was known that it was not supposed to be like Last of Us but way more cinematic and linear. It's a category or even a new category of a game, not supposed to be taken generically. Sure I know the pacing and the QTEs were quite unnecessary sometimes.
Also, it depends what you think Game play is, is it a gun fight? is it jumping? is it walking? Is it talking? What if I also consider looking around game play? It's something interactive no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you in liking The Order, it is what it is, I also see the failures the same way, what gets me mad is that people only see the mistakes instead of looking at what we also believe it was good and achieved.
Since the start of going public with The Order, it was known that it was NOT supposed to be like Last of Us but way more cinematic and linear. It's a category or even a new category of a game, not supposed to be taken generally. Sure I know the pacing and the qtes were quite annoying sometimes.
It's a bad defence to use the "it's not trying to be".
The last of us is a fantastic high point of the third person cover shooter, it's also has a heavy focus on story and cinematic aspect, it also has the emphasis on making you believe the world.
It's all about getting every element right, and the order only hit the audio-visual department right, the rest is mediocre.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you in liking The Order, it is what it is, I also see the failures the same way, what gets me mad is that people only see the mistakes instead of looking at what we also believe it was good and achieved.
Picked the game up on friday, was a wee bit concerned over length issues but I gotta say the game has been a real treat. Gameplay wise there is nothing that hasn't been seen before but the whole experience adds up to something real solid, its got atmosphere for days and that's something I really dig seeing in a game. Controls feel tight and the shooting nice, some of the guns are just great to shoot and have a nice beefy feel. I know some folks would not be into it but one aspect that is overlooked in discussion for the game is the rad melee take-downs, I love how contextual they are and violent as all hell.
And of course the art...the goddamn motherfucking rape my eyeballs through the back of my head amazing art. Probably the first game I've ever played where the transition from cutscenes that feel like a higher end pre-rendered visual to gameplay is completely seamless.
What is not good for you might be good for others...
I absolutely love third person shooters and I love this art style, but the flaws in gameplay and story are so noticable that it's not a matter about taste anymore.
Even the people who are defending the game are at the best using terms like "ok" whilst moving focus on to the graphics, that's not the standards we should accept.
I will also agree that Esther is not a 'game' but an 'interactive experience' or 'interactive story'.
Also, I have no opinion on the game as I have not played it.
Still though, general consensus is that it's beautiful but the gameplay is average at best. So all the artists should be very proud about basically setting the bar for the industry. That's a very difficult thing to do these days.
**edit**
I found an interview with the game director and this quote really says a lot to me:
So of the three key aspects of a game - visuals, gameplay and story - which would you say was your priority with The Order 1886?
I think story and visuals are very high. Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it. We love games, but we also love telling stories, so I think story is always going to be at the top because it's what we start with. It's at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that. I think it'd be more challenging to make a game for the gameplay's sake, then try to make a story that fits in there.
In my opinion, that pyramid that they mention is wrong. A game should be fun with no visuals or story.
If any dev wants to focus on the other elements before gameplay, there's nothing wrong with that, but there shouldn't be any surprise when it gets low scores.
After further play, I kinda see Odium's point. I didn't fully have the same issues with the plot (although some parts were fairly predictable,) or supposed weakness of the guns, however the gameplay does become very linear and repetitive with not much replay value. It depends what you go into it expecting - if you want a very cinematic experience, then you'll be happy. To conclude, I would say feckin amazing visuals, but it is let down by mediocre game play, although loved the plot and thought it was well executed
But I still play SNES games simply because of their gameplay. Gameplay will always trump graphics for me. But this gen so far seems very much like the gen of "well, who cares about the gameplay, lets just polish it up".
Yep, definitely agree, which is why I'm glad a lot of indie studios are out there trying new things! The re-visiting to old school retro days is also awesome
Even the people who are defending the game are at the best using terms like "ok" whilst moving focus on to the graphics, that's not the standards we should accept.
Oh, indeed it is "alright", and I agree, the last thing I want to do is accept The Order 1886 gameplay, it can be improved. But please before saying things about the game I invite you to play. It's like judging without even trying, youtube aint the same experience.
not really sure where the massive bandwagon of hate is coming from. feels like people just echoing what they read online without playing it.
i thought it was great. not everything has to be skyrim. there's plenty of room for all types of games
Lots of people are xbox fans and they hate Sony, and also vice versa. That attitude affects sony games as they would call "less intelligent". But at the same time there is also the fact that our game got entirely leaked 1 week before launch, with a person that did a speedrun with a short amount of time, and that made a LOT of the community to be frustrated.
That's actually a good point ... Wouldn't it be more profitable and more ground-breaking that way ? Basically, releasing a fully realtime movie showing the power of the platform for $5 or so ; and then putting the video version for 99 cents or even for free online, making revenue from ads on the streaming page.
As a matter of fact, I do not quite understand why game studios/publishers are not releasing video playthroughs of their games for some ad/youtube revenue. I know I would personally watch a lot of these, as I personally developed a very low level of tolerance for anything that slows down gameplay, or any game that is sluggish for "cinematic" reasons. For instance, I won't buy a game with unskippable cutscenes on principle alone. I don't mind developers doing that, as it is a choice on their end, but I just don't buy these games as I don't like the idea of my time being wasted. With a video playthrough I can skip the boring parts and/or the cheesy dialogue, and it makes for a far more pleasurable experience ...
Now don't get me wrong, I had a blast playing games like Gears of Wars 1 and 2 because they are tongue in cheek and don't take themselves too seriously, and the gameplay was fun for the most part. Same goes for all the MGS games, even with their lengthy cutscenes. But I don't quite get the point of actually playing through a game like The Last of Us ; watching it being played on video was a great experience in itself.
The Assassin's Creed series, any game by Quantic Dream, the Telltale games, the CoD campaigns and The Order are all examples of games I do not have the time to actually sit down and play but would love to casually watch while doing something else - which in turn would give me more time to fully enjoy and play "game games" like Bayonetta or Street Fighter.
Oh, indeed it is "alright", and I agree, the last thing I want to do is accept The Order 1886 gameplay, it can be improved. But please before saying things about the game I invite you to play. It's like judging without even trying, youtube aint the same experience.
It's perfectly fine if you know what you look for, as it stands now after reviews AND taking the time to investigate the game myself I have to say that it would be a bad way to spend $60.
Lots of people are xbox fans and they hate Sony, and also vice versa. That attitude affects sony games as they would call "less intelligent". But at the same time there is also the fact that our game got entirely leaked 1 week before launch, with a person that did a speedrun with a short amount of time, and that made a LOT of the community to be frustrated.
People became frustrated because it wasn't too far from the truth even having been disputed as "impossible".
I will also agree that Esther is not a 'game' but an 'interactive experience' or 'interactive story'.
Also, I have no opinion on the game as I have not played it.
Still though, general consensus is that it's beautiful but the gameplay is average at best. So all the artists should be very proud about basically setting the bar for the industry. That's a very difficult thing to do these days.
**edit**
I found an interview with the game director and this quote really says a lot to me:
In my opinion, that pyramid that they mention is wrong. A game should be fun with no visuals or story.
If any dev wants to focus on the other elements before gameplay, there's nothing wrong with that, but there shouldn't be any surprise when it gets low scores.
Loving this game so far. I don't really agree with the negativity towards it either. I'm not the biggest fan of third-person shooters, and despite me getting caught up in switching between cover and standing, it's been really entertaining.
Does anyone know if their walls/columns are using displacement or are they modeled? I see a lot of various brick and stone meshes with pretty intricate silhouettes that would be a pain to model and stack up in the polycount for things that are only seen when you're hiding behind them for cover...
Man, I played through this last night....I loved it, honestly.
I got the impression that people that didn't like the game, and reviewers who were so harsh on it were trying to review it as the game they wanted, not the game it was.
Definitely was moderate on gameplay, and heavy on story/atmosphere/visual storytelling. I like those kinds of games, and I enjoyed The Order immensely. I'm also a fan of games like Dear Esther as well, where the gameplay (yes there is still gameplay in Dear Esther imo) is less about shooting up dudebros and more about exploration and experiencing a new place/story.
I realize that is not for everyone though, as the lack of traditional gameplay is the biggest gripe against the game...
So...yeah I couldn't put it down until I beat it..the story was cool...pacing was strange at times, and the ending felt really abrupt. QTEs were a little on the heavy side...I thought combat was fun, even if it does nothing particularly new.
And man, the quality of the environments in this game was insane! So good!!!
I wonder what it looks like when you take away all the 1 and 10 scores.
Metacritic should add a system to user reviews where you have to scan your UPC code to prove ownership.
That's not really unusual, user reviews practically always look like that.
I suspect it's why sites like youtube moved away from star rating systems and toward up/down voting instead since that's how most people treat the system anyway.
Worth noting though that in spite of the messed up distribution the average score is the same as the critic average.
It shows that 10 point scales don't really work. I think most games or movies fall under a system like this
(no stars) Complete waste of time
* Not good unless it's your niche and can look over the faults
** Mediocre, fans of the genre might like it
*** Good, definitely worth the cost, fans of the genre will really enjoy it
**** One of the best games this year
Man, I played through this last night....I loved it, honestly.
I got the impression that people that didn't like the game, and reviewers who were so harsh on it were trying to review it as the game they wanted, not the game it was.
Definitely was moderate on gameplay, and heavy on story/atmosphere/visual storytelling. I like those kinds of games, and I enjoyed The Order immensely. I'm also a fan of games like Dear Esther as well, where the gameplay (yes there is still gameplay in Dear Esther imo) is less about shooting up dudebros and more about exploration and experiencing a new place/story.
I realize that is not for everyone though, as the lack of traditional gameplay is the biggest gripe against the game...
So...yeah I couldn't put it down until I beat it..the story was cool...pacing was strange at times, and the ending felt really abrupt. QTEs were a little on the heavy side...I thought combat was fun, even if it does nothing particularly new.
And man, the quality of the environments in this game was insane! So good!!!
This mirrors my experience with it as well. I had lots of fun and I didn't want to stop until I had wrapped everything up. I'd also like to point out that I never saw one single bug in the game across my 8 hours of play. Then add the flawless presentation and you have a truly awesome game.
Replies
If graphics sold games, Ryse and Crysis 3 would be more popular than Minecraft...
Gameplay and graphics are both important for making a game successful. Games like Minecraft may not be filled with next-gen assets but it looks very pleasing to the eye because of the unique artstyle that wasn't popular at the time of its release. The problem with games that try to be as photorealistic as possible is that after a few years, they will look terrible in comparison to the new releases of that time period, while games that have more stylized art will still look great.
hell, there isn't a single game in the history of games where the graphics don't get enhanced as soon as it's possible to do so.
graphics sell games, graphics are important.
also this:
[ame]
gameplay is more important though!
The reason why visuals are important to sales is because generally people DONT have to choose between the two.
I don't think it's any coincidence that the visual fidelity arms race is most prominent in genres that are the most saturated and difficult to innovate on. Everybody knows more or less what to expect from a first person shooter, when they look at the market for FPS games they dont have to try to find the one with the best gameplay so they start narrowing it down by second tier criteria which includes graphics.
OMG
Millions on millions sold on consoles and mobile platforms says otherwise.
Graphics: the location and ambiance of the eatery
Gameplay: the food
I really like this analogy... My girlfriend won't eat curry, regardless of how fucking amazing it tastes or smells. Because it looks like "dog vomit".
And then there are the ones which are both...
Now to the comments of players who complain that the value of open world games are better. I played Dying light, and whenever I reached my 10th hour of it, I got EXHAUSTED of looking at the same thing and doing REALLY boring quests, the kind of ones that I needed to find the cat of someone or shoot the same kind of zombie all over the game.
Plenty people don't consider Dear Esther a game, and most people have said it's not worth $15.
Is like a recipe!
But anyways, with a Metacritic of 6.2/6.5, they missed the target!
I hate where games are at the moment, with their micro transactions, planned dlc, unobtainable achievements, season passes, ridiculous collectables, companion app, freemium BS. I love that it plays like an old school game. when games were actually fun and the money side wasn't so transparent.
Unfortunately these all seem like necessities these days to make a profit
Dear Esther wasn't sold as a restaurant, gameplay was taken out of the equation entirely.
There are middlegrounds, the order definitely doesn't have to be open world, but it could've been way less linear, and with the environments it has it's a shame that players cannot utilize the interactive aspect of games and are stuck on a predefined path.
The last of us, which is probably one of those games that manages everything got this perfectly right, it let the player experience the world on his own terms rather than that of a director.
Also, it depends what you think Game play is, is it a gun fight? is it jumping? is it walking? Is it talking? What if I also consider looking around game play? It's something interactive no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you in liking The Order, it is what it is, I also see the failures the same way, what gets me mad is that people only see the mistakes instead of looking at what we also believe it was good and achieved.
It's a bad defence to use the "it's not trying to be".
The last of us is a fantastic high point of the third person cover shooter, it's also has a heavy focus on story and cinematic aspect, it also has the emphasis on making you believe the world.
It's all about getting every element right, and the order only hit the audio-visual department right, the rest is mediocre.
Because people want good games these days.
And of course the art...the goddamn motherfucking rape my eyeballs through the back of my head amazing art. Probably the first game I've ever played where the transition from cutscenes that feel like a higher end pre-rendered visual to gameplay is completely seamless.
Did you play? Gun shooting is well done, the story is also good and intriguing in a way.
What is not good for you might be good for others...
Haven't played myself, only watched.
I'm arguing for the sake of not just having high standards in art, but everywhere else as well.
I absolutely love third person shooters and I love this art style, but the flaws in gameplay and story are so noticable that it's not a matter about taste anymore.
Even the people who are defending the game are at the best using terms like "ok" whilst moving focus on to the graphics, that's not the standards we should accept.
i thought it was great. not everything has to be skyrim. there's plenty of room for all types of games
Also, I have no opinion on the game as I have not played it.
Still though, general consensus is that it's beautiful but the gameplay is average at best. So all the artists should be very proud about basically setting the bar for the industry. That's a very difficult thing to do these days.
**edit**
I found an interview with the game director and this quote really says a lot to me: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/464912/previews/hands-on-and-interview-the-order-1886s-e3-demo-showcases-style-over-substance/
In my opinion, that pyramid that they mention is wrong. A game should be fun with no visuals or story.
If any dev wants to focus on the other elements before gameplay, there's nothing wrong with that, but there shouldn't be any surprise when it gets low scores.
Yep, definitely agree, which is why I'm glad a lot of indie studios are out there trying new things! The re-visiting to old school retro days is also awesome
Oh, indeed it is "alright", and I agree, the last thing I want to do is accept The Order 1886 gameplay, it can be improved. But please before saying things about the game I invite you to play. It's like judging without even trying, youtube aint the same experience.
Lots of people are xbox fans and they hate Sony, and also vice versa. That attitude affects sony games as they would call "less intelligent". But at the same time there is also the fact that our game got entirely leaked 1 week before launch, with a person that did a speedrun with a short amount of time, and that made a LOT of the community to be frustrated.
Took me around 10h to finish. I want more.
As a matter of fact, I do not quite understand why game studios/publishers are not releasing video playthroughs of their games for some ad/youtube revenue. I know I would personally watch a lot of these, as I personally developed a very low level of tolerance for anything that slows down gameplay, or any game that is sluggish for "cinematic" reasons. For instance, I won't buy a game with unskippable cutscenes on principle alone. I don't mind developers doing that, as it is a choice on their end, but I just don't buy these games as I don't like the idea of my time being wasted. With a video playthrough I can skip the boring parts and/or the cheesy dialogue, and it makes for a far more pleasurable experience ...
Now don't get me wrong, I had a blast playing games like Gears of Wars 1 and 2 because they are tongue in cheek and don't take themselves too seriously, and the gameplay was fun for the most part. Same goes for all the MGS games, even with their lengthy cutscenes. But I don't quite get the point of actually playing through a game like The Last of Us ; watching it being played on video was a great experience in itself.
The Assassin's Creed series, any game by Quantic Dream, the Telltale games, the CoD campaigns and The Order are all examples of games I do not have the time to actually sit down and play but would love to casually watch while doing something else - which in turn would give me more time to fully enjoy and play "game games" like Bayonetta or Street Fighter.
It's perfectly fine if you know what you look for, as it stands now after reviews AND taking the time to investigate the game myself I have to say that it would be a bad way to spend $60.
People became frustrated because it wasn't too far from the truth even having been disputed as "impossible".
Bandwagon of kudos to the team!
Right on. YES. YES. ........and a BIG YES.
It's sad, it seems AAA games feel like they have to prove or put themselves above Hollywood.
Almost, like making a fun game is not as important or "cool" as a film? I don't want to talk out of my ass here, just a thought i had.
But, I think the next time someone says "cinematic experience" it shouldn't be watching cut-scenes, but playing a game that feels cinematic..
Does anyone know if their walls/columns are using displacement or are they modeled? I see a lot of various brick and stone meshes with pretty intricate silhouettes that would be a pain to model and stack up in the polycount for things that are only seen when you're hiding behind them for cover...
manual dispalcement
the only displacement we had didn't work with the height blending. so you'll find it on some floors//ground... and some key areas.
Thats true, however it was left on the cobblestone in black wall yards. My baby. 😄
thx for sharing this. Watched the whole thing. The engine and shader programmers are frking beast.
I wonder what it looks like when you take away all the 1 and 10 scores.
Metacritic should add a system to user reviews where you have to scan your UPC code to prove ownership.
I got the impression that people that didn't like the game, and reviewers who were so harsh on it were trying to review it as the game they wanted, not the game it was.
Definitely was moderate on gameplay, and heavy on story/atmosphere/visual storytelling. I like those kinds of games, and I enjoyed The Order immensely. I'm also a fan of games like Dear Esther as well, where the gameplay (yes there is still gameplay in Dear Esther imo) is less about shooting up dudebros and more about exploration and experiencing a new place/story.
I realize that is not for everyone though, as the lack of traditional gameplay is the biggest gripe against the game...
So...yeah I couldn't put it down until I beat it..the story was cool...pacing was strange at times, and the ending felt really abrupt. QTEs were a little on the heavy side...I thought combat was fun, even if it does nothing particularly new.
And man, the quality of the environments in this game was insane! So good!!!
I suspect it's why sites like youtube moved away from star rating systems and toward up/down voting instead since that's how most people treat the system anyway.
Worth noting though that in spite of the messed up distribution the average score is the same as the critic average.
(no stars) Complete waste of time
* Not good unless it's your niche and can look over the faults
** Mediocre, fans of the genre might like it
*** Good, definitely worth the cost, fans of the genre will really enjoy it
**** One of the best games this year
This mirrors my experience with it as well. I had lots of fun and I didn't want to stop until I had wrapped everything up. I'd also like to point out that I never saw one single bug in the game across my 8 hours of play. Then add the flawless presentation and you have a truly awesome game.
http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/20/8079815/video-games-steak
Lawl.... Think I spotted a spicy sausage in there somewhere