dsheinem wrote:I just finished it and really hope they make another. The story has a satisfying enough ending, but there's a really cool world they've built here with compelling characters. A great game for a rainy weekend.
Played through The Order today. Overall I'd give it maybe an 8.5. I really don't see what the issues are. It's fairly short, but not much shorter than the average TPS. There are QuickTime Events, but this isn't the first AAA game to have them (I remember a lot of QTEs in Tomb Raider). The story and setting aren't perfect, but I think it's better than most AAA games in that regard.
I really hope it gets a sequel. I'd like to see where the story goes.
Would you all say if someone had no interest ever in multiplayer and was on a restricted budget the game is a must buy, but at maybe at like $30-40? I was very interested but all the confusion between whining and liking it I backed off the game.
It seems to me the whining is from big media jumping on the bitch rant band wagon so they're not left out of the crowd. I'm seeing more actual owners finding it very good, so it's like do you trust paid shills who play games and suck up to advertisers or consumers? The last places I'd ever trust is Gameshat and IGNorant.com as they do their own thing as do a few others.
Hey I'm seeing more of a trend with various posts online about The Order since I wrote my last post. It appears the complaints are the story sequences, the quick time like moments(heavy rain), NO multiplayer campaign, it kind of being shorter, and you can't really run and gun in it.
Is that about it? Because you know what another game came out last year that supposedly sucked too, Wolfenstein the New Order, and really it was a fantastic game that has NO sucking up to multiplayer people. Aside from no quicktimes, it too was story based, wasn't meant for run and gun, it wasn't terribly long, and that to me seems fairly similar.
Perhaps the problem here are the Call of Douchy online nuts and the media who play to that group and pander all the press and attention to it due to all the paid DLC and ad money around it. What good is there to support something that doesn't support their feel on what a FPS has to be instead of maybe what it should be and used to be in various ways. I kept Wolfenstein, I do not keep Call of Duty games...that's why. I'll take something that's more memorable than a yearly white washing for full price plus much extra.
There's nothing wrong with being in both, my criticism was the immature gaming media and the people who feed off of it and feed back into it. It's like taboo to really show mass appreciation for a FPS that doesn't emphasize or even bother to include multiplayer which is sad.
I've got/had a fair share of COD games, Medal of Honor too over the years, but I rarely take them online because in the past those games in the WW2 setting has some incredible missions and stories around them making them worth doing again and again. The stories and stages in the stuff now feel more forced, filler just to round out a package being too timid to just sell a multiplayer only game like MAG on PS3 was.
It has nothing to be about lesser beings, just a lesser quality media outlet and website that turns a nose up to something that does it differently like Wolfenstein and it appears The Order does as well. It's just fishy when consumers buy it and throw around numbers like 8s or 9s whatever a game is, then many paid media outlets come in around maybe around a 5 or a 6 as that just doesn't do it.
It averages an 81, which I think is a fairly good take on it having played it through. Major sites like Polygon, Giant Bomb, Game Informer, Gamespot, etc. all gave it an 80 or better.
anyone want to farm some legendaries tonight in diablo 3?
