TOKYO: When we first glimpsed The Order: 1886 it was debuted as an example of the PlayStation 4′s power. Sumptuous visuals in a Victorian steampunk setting, a neat Arthurian story, unique guns, mystery—it was everything you could ask for in a third-person shooter, and certainly in line with what we’d expect from a PS4 exclusive.
I played it at the PlayStation Experience in Las Vegas in December, and came away thoroughly underwhelmed. I’m far from alone. A number of outlets have previewed the game and share my sense of dismay. That a game can look as good as The Order: 1886 and still be this uninspired in terms of gameplay is a real shame.
Writing at DualShockers, Giuseppe Nelva argues that most of the criticism of the game from the gaming press thus far has focused on its lack of innovation:
On the other hand there has been quite a lot of very vocal negativity from many, and especially from part of the press. That negativity is probably going to reflect in quite a few reviews, and it’s often focused on a simple point: “it’s not innovative.”
Of course those that have been around for a while will recognize it as the token excuse that is normally used (and often abused) to criticize a game, which normally tends to be a hyped one, when a negative opinion would otherwise sound weak without that bit.
He then goes on to illustrate each of the ways he believes the game is innovative, from its score to its story. I’m not sure either is where most games receive praise for innovation, save for instances of particularly unique story-telling.
But nevermind all that. It’s beside the point. Nelva’s argument is little more than a strawman.
The problem with The Order: 1886 isn’t a dearth of innovation. The problem with The Order: 1886 is that it isn’t very fun.
Clunky mechanics, Quick-Time Events, and a wonky camera all contribute to the game’s shortcomings. Lackluster shooting mechanics, forced stealth…this isn’t a crisis of innovation, it’s a crisis of poor game design—at least as far as the demos have been concerned.
Interestingly, Nelva doesn’t actually quote anyone saying that the game’s biggest problem is a lack of innovation. He’s arguing against phantoms, essentially, and if there is such an argument out there in the wild he doesn’t point us to it.
On the other hand, I can easily dredge up a bunch of previews of the game that echo my own complaints.
Metro’s David Jenkins praises the game’s graphics, but writes that “after having played it, what we don’t understand is why so little effort effort has gone into the gameplay. We don’t just mean in the sense that it’s been overlooked but that the developers seem to actively resent its necessity.” And while Jenkins never once mentions the word “innovation” in his post, he does say that “The lack of inspiration is staggering” and that the game is “ruthlessly linear.” He also complains about forced stealth mode, poor AI, and QTEs.
Writing at Trusted Reviews, Nick Cowen also sing’s the game’s graphical praises and notes that the Victorian setting is “the sort of setting that’s likely to inspire a ton of fan fiction, if players can just get past the ham-fisted level design and stunted mechanics.” He calls it “unwieldy and unintuitive” but never once mentions its lack of innovation.
“Playing The Order: 1886 makes one want to weep, Cowen writes. “How could a game that looks so stunning and is clearly a labour of love boast such shonky mechanics?”
GameSpot’s Mark Walton complains about the bad stealth mechanics, the uninspiring combat, and the forced play sequences—”I was tasked with assassinating rebels disguised as official guards, who, I was told, could be identified by the lack of a shoulder patch on their uniforms. Easy enough, but the game refused to let me go out on my own, instead pre-highlighting the guards I needed to inspect, and sapping all the fun out of the mission.”—but he doesn’t spend any time bemoaning its lack of innovation.
Adam Sessler raved about the game in his preview, but did note that the combat is pretty “familiar.” That’s as close to critiquing its lack of innovation as I can find. But Sessler’s take is also one of the most positive I’ve seen, far more upbeat about the whole experience than later, and more critical, previews.
The trend here is pretty straightforward: Game writers previewing the game aren’t focusing on its lack of innovation, they’re focusing on its lack of fun. Maybe that’s a problem with the demos, or maybe it’s a problem with the game itself.
Either way, unless Nelva actually illustrates that this is the primary concern people have with the game by linking and quoting them, he’s simply defending a game based on a fictional account of its flaws—without actually discussing the gameplay experience at all.
This is hardly in readers’ best interests. A strawman argument for why a game might actually be good isn’t just over-hyping a product, it’s actively ignoring legitimate complaints other critics have had with a title leading up to its release. That’s not just unhelpful, it’s misleading.
Ultimately, the demos may all be poor examples of The Order: 1886′s final quality. It may be a fascinating game with a compelling Arthurian tale. It may have way better levels and combat than the ones that have been previewed.
