The Order: 1886

By +Audioboxer
in PlayStation

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Showan

Posted
Posted

Thanks Larry!

 

I will pick it up myself when it's cheaper in the UK to experience the graphics/engine alone. As someone who used to be an avid PC gamer and get excited when I got a new graphics card and played the same games over but even prettier, I do unashamedly have a soft spot for being wowed visually. It's never something I've put so high on a pedestal it's above story or gameplay, but it is pleasing to the eye when something looks beautiful (whether its raw technology or an artistic masterpiece). As time has gone on and budgets changed priority as I've gotten older it's become easier to be swept away on the console ship of buy a box, not need to touch it for years, but still experience great visuals.

 

It seems it would be good to see the studio do a sequel now that all the groundwork has been laid and they can take constructive criticism on board to focus on other elements than the engine/graphics. It is quite clear a massive focus has gone into the graphics to try and ride their claims of cinematic, probably at the expense of gameplay/length/story, but it doesn't seem like a terrible first outing for a studio who has been making PSP games prior to this. I mean I did see some reviews at 1/5, it just doesn't seem that fundamentally broken to merit that kind of score - And I am saying that as someone who hasn't played the game, but a score that dire really should be awarded to really poor and/or broken games.

 

 

Only game(s) that I can think of that I actually played that deserves that score is Haze (PS3)... that was the worst...

 

I seriously doubt TO:1866 is along those lines...

Grand Master

MightyJordan

Posted
Posted

It would help if the sales figures were published with the charts. Going by Matt Lees' rant this morning, it might not be in the clear yet.

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

It then becomes NSFW...

 

And of course, we're talking purely physical sales. Digital still isn't a part of the top 10, which these days is ####ing ludicrous.

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569817502487871488

 

Tldr: who gives a #### it's meaningless bollocks that people only report on because it consistently riles people up.

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569817785825693697

 

It's the sort of thing that will look great in someone's PowerPoint deck in a marketing meeting, but effectively means close to ####-all.

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569818303411175425

 

 

I can't believe the charts are still only tracking physical sales. :/

Grand Master

dipsylalapo Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

^ This is what I thought, whilst it's great that it's at number 1, with no details on actual numbers it's a little difficult to see if it's a good thing. 

 

It's only numbers for a single week and looking at what else was sold, actual numbers may still be low. 

 

After watching that the latest Jimquisition video, game length (though hard to quantify) should play a part in the price of a game. 

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

It would help if the sales figures were published with the charts. Going by Matt Lees' rant this morning, it might not be in the clear yet.

 

It then becomes NSFW...

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569817502487871488

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569817785825693697

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569818303411175425

 

 

I can't believe the charts are still only tracking physical sales. :/

 

Is part of the problem not the companies (Sony/MS/Nintendo) not releasing the digital sales?

Grand Master

Hedon

Posted
Posted

Your best bet would be sales in the summer/winter. I doubt we'll see a slim version until late 2016. Maybe some revised internals on a newer model (chip shrinkage), but I don't think the physical appearance will change for a while due to it already being quite small.

 

It's a good time to buy a PS4 if you're interested in Bloodborne, but other than that I'd wait a few months. With MS losing Februarys NPD they've become really aggressive with bundles at $359, if it wins them back March NPD, Sony may follow suit in the coming months with a price cut and/or attractive bundles. Waiting until E3 is always a good idea as well to see what the consoles short term future looks like. I think if Sony do dedicate GDC next week to Morpheus, it MIGHT see a late 2015 release (which again may impact PS4 pricing).

 

We should also get a good idea if Uncharted 4 is going to make 2015 at E3. At GDC we might get an idea of when MGS5 is going to launch as well - It'll probably be technically superior on the PS4, and with Kojima there's always a chance to see some extra content go the way of Playstation.

 

January you mean?

 

It would help if the sales figures were published with the charts. Going by Matt Lees' rant this morning, it might not be in the clear yet.

 

It then becomes NSFW...

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569817502487871488

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569817785825693697

https://twitter.com/Jam_sponge/status/569818303411175425

 

 

I can't believe the charts are still only tracking physical sales. :/

 

Considering what it was up against.....we would hope it charted there.

 

My take on the game...

 

So my experience after playing the game is a "good" experience. I had expectations going into this game, and I did not build any hype up. The game, as I had perceived, has met my expectations. I went in knowing that this was a story driven, QTE, shooter, corridor, graphics linear type of game without any multiplayer (though I didn't know how short the game was going to be before I committed to buying it long ago).

Graphics - What can I say. Best graphics on console to date when you take into consideration the lack of AI, tiny corridor/linear maps and black bars. But when you take all those things into consideration, being the best at graphics this gen so far isn't saying much. To me it's almost like saying Forza 5 has the best graphics when you only look at Autovista mode (which if you only looked at Autovista, I would give FM5 bet graphics). Take out the AI, take out the map size and just focus on the lipstick and animations, and what have you got with the in game engine? A beautiful game. I still give the nod to Battlefield 4 as to having the best graphics this gen so far when you taking into consideration the insane maps sizes, physics, 64 player count, and the plethora of vehicles, destructible environment, explosions and endless supply of weaponry.

I could be wrong, but I think there were times when I could see the AI's chest or arms move as they sat and breathed. Not sure, but pretty sure I saw that.

Story - It was ok. Unlike in Alan Wake or Uncharted, character development was poor, and I never felt a connection to anyone. Lots of rebel talk brought me back to the old star wars days with this one. I love that they were able to make the game without a HUD and close captioning. It was very easy to understand what the characters were talking about. The facial expressions in the animations really helped you at least understand the feeling of the character as well. Without those good facial animations, it would have felt even more cold that it seemed.

Gameplay - It was slow most of the time. The QTE's were fine by me. The times there were battles (which I found to be more often than what reviewers were stating), it was my favorite part of the game. While the weapons didn't really have any individual physics/weight feel to them, at least they were all different and all had a different effect. Only one weapon (pseudo uzi) actually had any noticeable recoil. Headshots were handed out like flu shots. Which I enjoyed. I never got the headshot satisfaction feeling (like you get in COD for example), but it was nice to have all those one shot kills. Picking up the objects was neat at first, and really shows what the developer was trying to do with this game. I must have picked up close to every object and paper (though not all apparently since I didn't get the achievements for that), I got a little bored of it near the end. I was begging for more gameplay, more in depth story and more character development. Ammo quantity was sufficient, picking up weapons from fallen enemies was a dime a dozen. I did do plenty of exploring, looking for the papers, photos and objects.

I personally didn't see any objects or assets that were reused (at least not worthy of mentioning) and I didn't have any problem with the two boss battles. While the boss was the same, the place, the time, the cutscenes during the boss fights were all different.

The game took me about 6.5 hours to play. I must say that while I wouldn't recommend this game at $59.99, I would recommend it at $39.99 if you are itching to play a PS4 exclusive. But you absolutely need to realize that you will be playing this game for the story and graphics. Gameplay is good, but comes in third place compared to story and graphics it seems based on the way the dev made this game.

I would probably give the game 3/5 stars. I can see that if The Order 1887 comes out with a longer campaign, better character development, more game play opportunities, and yes possibly a "tacked on" multiplayer mode, the game could be a 4/5 for me the next time around.

Just my opinion.

Veteran

+Asmodai MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Your best bet would be sales in the summer/winter. I doubt we'll see a slim version until late 2016. Maybe some revised internals on a newer model (chip shrinkage), but I don't think the physical appearance will change for a while due to it already being quite small.

I'm almost positive there will be a revised version this year. Maybe even in the next few months. Samsung has already hinted up to selling their new 8Gb GDDR5 chips to Sony which means Sony will need to put only half the chips on the motherboard compared to the current design. The new GDDR5 chips are made on Samsungs 20nm process and the APU may well make a similar shrink (from 28nm) to either 20nm or even Samsungs 14nm FinFET process this year. Samsung is already making making their Exynos mobile CPUs on this process and have licensed it to GlobalFoundries as well. Shrink the APU and half the number of RAM chips you need less space (smaller motherboard) and less power (so they can include a smaller internal PSU). Sure the PS4 is already pretty small and I doubt it will be a huge physical shrink but I don't think they'd release them with the exact same case. The "slim" version may be only a tiny bit smaller but include things like more obvious power and eject buttons (since people seem to have a problem with the existing ones) and other small tweaks so you can visually tell a first gen from a second gen PS4. If I had to bet I'd say they'd have the new model out by Christmas of this year but I wouldn't be SHOCKED if they announced it as early as GDC next week (though admittedly that's highly unlikely.) Netflix has also said that Sony has promised them a 4k capable PS4 revision this year, though I suspect that will be a firmware update to all PS4s and not require new hardware.

With MS losing Februarys NPD they've become really aggressive with bundles at $359, if it wins them back March NPD, Sony may follow suit in the coming months with a price cut and/or attractive bundles.

I don't see Sony cutting the price until they can revise the hardware. According to IHS the current PS4 costs Sony about $381 to produce and with Sony struggling overall they can't afford to sell it at a loss. MS is probably selling the Xbox One at a loss at $349 (which is why they are reluctant to say it's permanent) but they can afford to do so. Also Sony never expected to win the U.S. so that they did is just bonus to them. Winning NPD is just winning the U.S. and MS hasn't even come close to beating the PS4 globally yet so there really isn't a ton of pressure on Sony even if MS starts winning every month in NPD unless they start winning by so much they offset Sony's wins in the rest of the world. The hardware revision will almost certainly reduce costs though so you may see something like a "slim" version with a 500GB drive for $349 or a $399 version with a 1TB drive where they use the price savings to upgrade the HDD instead.
Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

Is part of the problem not the companies (Sony/MS/Nintendo) not releasing the digital sales?

 

I don't know about the console makers but Steam/Valve never release sales figures. Though it stands to reason they probably don't as well.

 

Not that steam has anything to do with this game..

Grand Master

DirtyLarry Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I have to call this BS on this. But don't get me wrong, I don't dislike widescreen but I don't think it makes sense to consider it inherently more artistic a format.

 

Also interesting to here your thoughts on the game, I definatly want to play it, even it's just for the graphics & overall visual design, clearly the team put alot of work into that aspect of it.

You have to call BS on my opinion?????

 

I graduated from Parsons School of Design with a BFA in Illustration.

I have indeed been a fine artist, not just a digital artist, but a fine artist, my entire life.

 

As such, it is, again, my opinion, not a fact, my opinion, that choosing to present in a widescreen aspect ratio ultimately makes for more artistic visuals. I happen to believe that among other things that wider aspect ratio allows for the composition of scenes to be presented in a much more interesting way then a 4:3 ratio. That the camera is allowed more freedom on the overall image because they can indeed take in more of the environment, if they choose to do so. 

 

So in addition to my opinion, this has been something that has been discussed, dissected, and research for a very long time now within many different communities, especially the artistic ones.

Simply put... Why is it that over the years artists traditionally tend to work on canvases that are closer to a widescreen aspect ratio than to a 4:3 aspect ratio? Because that is all that was available? Or is it more because that is what artists historically decided was a more interesting visual approach? The answer is the latter. They could have created canvases at any ratio they wanted to. They decided to go with a wider aspect ratio as generally speaking in the artistic communities, that allows for much more freedom in the overall composition.

 

In addition to the above information, let me share, in case you do not know about it, something called "the golden ratio."

It is a belief that across many disciplines that there is in fact a ratio that is ultimately the most pleasing visually (and scientifically, along with many other reasons) ratio.

 

There is a reason that postcards, movie posters, photographs (excluding polaroids), and the list goes on and on, are all very similar in aspect ratio. Which all happen to be much closer to a widescreen aspect ratio than a 4:3 aspect ratio.

because this aspect ratio allows for a more interesting approach to visuals overall.

 

But yeah, you have to call BS on that right?  

 

Again, this is my opinion, so I am really, truly struggling how you can call BS on my opinion? 

However at the end of the day I do believe my opinion is also formed from education, experience, and what many other much smarter people than myself have developed over the years. This is not some new discussion. This discussion has been going on for centuries, just the mediums they used were different.

  • Polonium and +Audioboxer
  • Like 2
Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

Hey Larry, just to note

 

480p is 4:3

Current hi-def formats are 16:9 (which is 1.77:1 and close to the golden ratio which is around 1.6:1)

The Order is 2.4:1

 

I keep saying 21:9, but 2:4:1 is almost identical to that. Figures aside the ratio used in the order does allow a wider FOV, I've proven that already. The only other game to use black bars was The Evil Within. However TEW didn't actually use a wider FOV, it really was just 16:9 with black bars added (see the PC patch to remove bars for proof).

 

Not every game is suddenly going to do this, so people really do need to stop freaking out and just let The Order sit with it's artistic choice. No you don't need to like it, but it serves a purpose here like it or not (a genuine change in FOV, unlike TEW).

Grand Master

Ironman273

Posted
Posted

<snip>

I'm not going to touch on an opinion being called BS because you're absolutely right, it's your opinion.

 

However, in your example I think it would be more accurate to compare the widescreen in the Order to an artist using a "widescreen" canvas, if you will, then painting the whole top and bottom in black.  Most artists would make full use of the canvas they are painting on to take in more of the environment, as you mention.

 

I have a feeling people felt that the "artistic reasons" comment from the developer for using the 2.4:1 aspect ratio vs. 16:9 sounds like BS and that it was mainly a performance reason, where the "cinemascope" look just fit best in how to get the best performance on screen.  As for the FOV comments, it could easily be expanded vertically as well as horizontally for an even more immersive feeling.

 

It still ends up being the best looking game on console so far.

  • BajiRav, +Asmodai and Hedon
  • Like 3
Grand Master

Lamp0

Posted
Posted

You have to call BS on my opinion?????

 

I graduated from Parsons School of Design with a BFA in Illustration.

I have indeed been a fine artist, not just a digital artist, but a fine artist, my entire life.

 

As such, it is, again, my opinion, not a fact, my opinion, that choosing to present in a widescreen aspect ratio ultimately makes for more artistic visuals. I happen to believe that among other things that wider aspect ratio allows for the composition of scenes to be presented in a much more interesting way then a 4:3 ratio. That the camera is allowed more freedom on the overall image because they can indeed take in more of the environment, if they choose to do so. 

 

So in addition to my opinion, this has been something that has been discussed, dissected, and research for a very long time now within many different communities, especially the artistic ones.

Simply put... Why is it that over the years artists traditionally tend to work on canvases that are closer to a widescreen aspect ratio than to a 4:3 aspect ratio? Because that is all that was available? Or is it more because that is what artists historically decided was a more interesting visual approach? The answer is the latter. They could have created canvases at any ratio they wanted to. They decided to go with a wider aspect ratio as generally speaking in the artistic communities, that allows for much more freedom in the overall composition.

 

In addition to the above information, let me share, in case you do not know about it, something called "the golden ratio."

It is a belief that across many disciplines that there is in fact a ratio that is ultimately the most pleasing visually (and scientifically, along with many other reasons) ratio.

 

There is a reason that postcards, movie posters, photographs (excluding polaroids), and the list goes on and on, are all very similar in aspect ratio. Which all happen to be much closer to a widescreen aspect ratio than a 4:3 aspect ratio.

because this aspect ratio allows for a more interesting approach to visuals overall.

 

But yeah, you have to call BS on that right?  

 

Again, this is my opinion, so I am really, truly struggling how you can call BS on my opinion? 

However at the end of the day I do believe my opinion is also formed from education, experience, and what many other much smarter people than myself have developed over the years. This is not some new discussion. This discussion has been going on for centuries, just the mediums they used were different.

 

god. i was just sayin, is all.

Grand Master

Ironman273

Posted
Posted

My computer runs games at 1920x1080 with no problems also, but I can change how it performs by increasing or decreasing effects.  Still running at 1920x1080.  The most logical assumption is that they bumped up the visuals and lowered the pixels on screen.  You previously compared the amount of pixels at 1920x1080, the Order's resolution and 900p so you should be able to understand why they would take the route they did.

Grand Master

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Posted
  • Author
  • Subscriber²
Posted

My computer runs games at 1920x1080 with no problems also, but I can change how it performs by increasing or decreasing effects.  Still running at 1920x1080.  The most logical assumption is that they bumped up the visuals and lowered the pixels on screen.  You previously compared the amount of pixels at 1920x1080, the Order's resolution and 900p so you should be able to understand why they would take the route they did.

 

Pretty sure they said 4xMSAA came after the choice for the screen ratio. As I said short and sweet above it's not like the PS4 has been struggling to hit 1080p.

Grand Master

Emn1ty

Posted
Posted

You have to call BS on my opinion?????

 

I graduated from Parsons School of Design with a BFA in Illustration.

I have indeed been a fine artist, not just a digital artist, but a fine artist, my entire life.

 

As such, it is, again, my opinion, not a fact, my opinion, that choosing to present in a widescreen aspect ratio ultimately makes for more artistic visuals. I happen to believe that among other things that wider aspect ratio allows for the composition of scenes to be presented in a much more interesting way then a 4:3 ratio. That the camera is allowed more freedom on the overall image because they can indeed take in more of the environment, if they choose to do so. 

 

So in addition to my opinion, this has been something that has been discussed, dissected, and research for a very long time now within many different communities, especially the artistic ones.

Simply put... Why is it that over the years artists traditionally tend to work on canvases that are closer to a widescreen aspect ratio than to a 4:3 aspect ratio? Because that is all that was available? Or is it more because that is what artists historically decided was a more interesting visual approach? The answer is the latter. They could have created canvases at any ratio they wanted to. They decided to go with a wider aspect ratio as generally speaking in the artistic communities, that allows for much more freedom in the overall composition.

 

In addition to the above information, let me share, in case you do not know about it, something called "the golden ratio."

It is a belief that across many disciplines that there is in fact a ratio that is ultimately the most pleasing visually (and scientifically, along with many other reasons) ratio.

 

There is a reason that postcards, movie posters, photographs (excluding polaroids), and the list goes on and on, are all very similar in aspect ratio. Which all happen to be much closer to a widescreen aspect ratio than a 4:3 aspect ratio.

because this aspect ratio allows for a more interesting approach to visuals overall.

 

But yeah, you have to call BS on that right?  

 

Again, this is my opinion, so I am really, truly struggling how you can call BS on my opinion? 

However at the end of the day I do believe my opinion is also formed from education, experience, and what many other much smarter people than myself have developed over the years. This is not some new discussion. This discussion has been going on for centuries, just the mediums they used were different.

 

While the golden ratio is a perfectly good argument for their using a wider aspect ratio. It doesn't really warrant an ultrawide ratio. I would agree it might to make it seem more cinematic, but certainly not artistic. There are many ways to make something artistic and the word has been quite abused by many industries.

 

Owning a 21:9 monitor myself (which is the aspect ratio of the game) I will say the only reason I even got the 21:9 monitor is to have a larger FOV and to fit movies into the screen without the bars. It's not inherently any more cinematic or artistic (in fact it can be quite annoying at times when viewed at longer distances).

 

Really the only argument I can see being made here are two. That it was to mimic movie black bars, and because it did provide some performance gain. Whether or not either reason was the exclusive reason is probably not an issue. They are both, in my opinion, legitimate decisions. But I think we must agree that most gamers would probably like to see 100% of their screen real-estate being used.

 

Regardless, I see little reason to fuss over it. The decision made is in line with their goals for the game, at least to me.

Rising Star

Houtei

Posted
Posted

i think its pretty obvious that the bars were more than likely for performance.  Just cause it runs other games at 1080p 60fps does not mean it can run this one.  All the effects and such are way more taxing and this game has a lot.  Even with the bars its still the best looking game IMO on the ps4.  They probably decided at some point that adding some bars and enhancing all the effects outweighed setting it to a full 1080p for the directors vision.  Also I believe them when they say its to make it feel like a movie.  Anyone who has played this game can tell you it feels more like watching a long decent movie than playing a good game.

 

Not sure why this is the focal point of this game though.  Almost everyone that has played it will tell you its the best looking game on ps4 but its short and the story is not that good. 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing