Support NeoGAF

[Absoludacrous]

My theory is the review scale changed when AA gaming died. You saw it at the end of the last generation and pretty much throughout this one.

During the PS2/Xbox era, games that were considered AAA at the time were guaranteed to get great scores because they were being judged against their lower budget counterparts that tended to take up the 6's, 7's and 8's.

Now those games are gone, so the AAA's are left to fight each other. That guaranteed 85+ based on polish alone doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Domstercool]

AAA had a different meaning back in the old days. It didn't relate to budget, but quality, as in AAA meant it was a title that would push a system, a seller - Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, Goldeneye, etc. Now it's all money based, so even average games are now AAA.

 

[Absoludacrous]

AAA had a different meaning back in the old days. It didn't relate to budget, but quality, as in AAA meant it was a title that would push a system, a seller - Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, Goldeneye, etc. Now it's all money based, so even average games are now AAA.

Budget still had a lot to do with quality, even then. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear cost a lot more to make than something like, say, Gex.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

AAA had a different meaning back in the old days. It didn't relate to budget, but quality, as in AAA meant it was a title that would push a system, a seller - Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, Goldeneye, etc. Now it's all money based, so even average games are now AAA.

AAA has always meant budget

 

[KooopaKid]

My theory is the review scale changed when AA gaming died. You saw it at the end of the last generation and pretty much throughout this one.

During the PS2/Xbox era, games that were considered AAA at the time were guaranteed to get great scores because they were being judged against their lower budget counterparts that tended to take up the 6's, 7's and 8's.

Now those games are gone, so the AAA's are left to fight each other. That guaranteed 85+ based on polish alone doesn't exist anymore.

Plausible theory. I like it.

 

[Domstercool]

Budget still had a lot to do with quality, even then. Final Fantasy and Metal Gear cost a lot more to make than something like, say, Gex.

But the term AAA wasn't used like it is today. Reviews in magazines meant it as a game that would be a system seller. It's only when budgets blew up suddenly it moved to anything with a big budget.

AAA used to be used for titles released, titles that had scores in people's hands. In today's world it is now used before the games are even out, a mutation of the meaning that it original had.

 

[Domstercool]

AAA has always meant budget

That's not true - only in sales success it was.


Not the best of source, but it talks about what it was like in the 90s and what seeing AAA in a magazine meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(game_industry)

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

That's not true - only in sales success it was.


Not the best of source, but it talks about what it was like in the 90s and what seeing AAA in a magazine meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_(game_industry)

No, that article is not only wrong it is not even internally consistent; developers started using the terms amongst themselves to describe games they're working on, then game journalists started using it, then games companies started using it before games were reviewd? what?

It has always meant budget, specifically developer pedigree + development time + marketing budget.

Daikata was an AAA title.

 

[Domstercool]

No, that article is not only wrong it is not even internally consistent; developers started using the terms amongst themselves to describe games they're working on, then game journalists started using it, then games companies started using it before games were reviewd? what?

It has always meant budget, specifically developer pedigree + development time + marketing budget.

Daikata was an AAA title.

I never saw that game classed as that in any magazines I read.

 

[Basileus777]

No, that article is not only wrong it is not even internally consistent; developers started using the terms amongst themselves to describe games they're working on, then game journalists started using it, then games companies started using it before games were reviewd? what?

It has always meant budget, specifically developer pedigree + development time + marketing budget.

Daikata was an AAA title.

That whole article is a poorly written mess.

 

[Domstercool]

That whole article is a poorly written mess.

I did say it wasn't the best of source.


Still, that's what AAA has always come across to me from reading magazines in the 90s. They never used to slap it on previews. Attitudes changed with the saying as we moved into mid 2000s.

Just out of curiosity. Are you people UK based? I'm wondering if our journalists used it differently, too, back then.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I did say it wasn't the best of source.


Still, that's what AAA has always come across to me from reading magazines in the 90s. They never used to slap it on previews. Attitudes changed with the saying as we moved into mid 2000s.

Just out of curiosity. Are you people UK based? I'm wondering if our journalists used it differently, too.

I'm UK based.
Its of American publisher origin, and represents the confidence they had in their product and what publishers mean by confidence is how much money they are prepared to throw at it.
Top tier studio? A
As-long-as-it-takes development cycle? A
Pull-out-all-the-stops-marketing-campaign? A

All 3?
AAA title.

Publishers would refer to a title they expected to do extremely well as an AAA title, journalists picked up on it and started using it, readers of games magazines started noticing AAA titles tended to score really highly (and in the 90s particularly in the UK you could still basically buy scores as part of the marketing budget), readers started to use AAA to mean "really good game".

 

[Domstercool]

I'm UK based.
Its of American publisher origin, and represents the confidence they had in their product and what publishers mean by confidence is how much money they are prepared to throw at it.
Top tier studio? A
As-long-as-it-takes development cycle? A
Pull-out-all-the-stops-marketing-campaign? A

All 3?
AAA title.

Publishers would refer to a title they expected to do extremely well as an AAA title, journalists picked up on it and started using it, readers of games magazines started noticing AAA titles tended to score really highly (and in the 90s particularly in the UK you could still basically buy scores as part of the marketing budget), readers started to use AAA to mean "really good game".

That's where I would be coming from then, so it would make sense. Those games got high scores and were the system sellers. Stuff you wouldn't even dream of hearing as AAA today.

 

[jakonovski]

AAA games are being risk averse to the point of becoming bland. Just think about movies. You're lucky to get one interesting high budget movie per year.

 

[spekkeh]

It's actually really surprising that the designers at Ready at Dawn, simply haven't read the modern gaming landscape well enough to realize gamers aren't excited about QTE's and short linear adventures anymore. In fact, I'd say that at this point, gamers care less about super high end visuals, and care more about deep gameplay systems, and gameplay possibilities that flower in their minds with possibility, like Minecraft.

Stop projecting. Lots of people are excited about short linear adventures. Given the success of many indies, Telltale and other such games, the market for interactive experiences is only expanding. The problem with The Order 1886 is that (according to reviews) for an interactive experience, it's simply not very good. The story doesn't really go anywhere, it doesn't flesh out the setting, the characters are uninteresting.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I think this thought it very temporary. I don't buy it one bit. I do think the order was the exception and there will be yet another game that doesn't deserve higher scores while having either ok gameplay, maybe terrible graphics and either good MP and or story.

Reviews have never been consistent and just because everyone agreed on the order, I fail to see how moving forward... We are going to see more of it. We just won't and I bet money on that.

 

[danm999]

I mean, having played a fair chunk of the Order today, I do not agree with this Forbes article that it would have gotten a 95 in 2009. The Order is not necessarily a victim of changing review systems, it's a victim of poor game design.

For all it's visual beauty, this game has huge problems with its basic mechanics, with pacing and constant cutsences and QTEs stalling player interaction, with storytelling, with length and replayability. This is pretty basic stuff you can't get past; the Order doesn't play all that well.

Even if the Order released six years ago, I'm pretty sure it'd be found wanting compared to something like Gears of War 2 or Uncharted 2, even if the graphics were held up as revolutionary.

 

[Stereogatari]

I'm so glad that the reviewers have called it out so strongly. There was a scary sense that companies were going to be rewarded for yet another AAA off the conveyor belt, but hopefully this will be a watershed moment in how AAA games are developed.

It's actually really surprising that the designers at Ready at Dawn, simply haven't read the modern gaming landscape well enough to realize gamers aren't excited about QTE's and short linear adventures anymore. In fact, I'd say that at this point, gamers care less about super high end visuals, and care more about deep gameplay systems, and gameplay possibilities that flower in their minds with possibility, like Minecraft.

It's not a modern landscape thing. That's a timeless landscape that has been with us since the dawn of gaming.

 

[KojiKnight]

This is really the continuation of what we saw between the PS2 and PS3 generation... The lack of new creative ideas and the pressure to keep everything the same but bigger. Budgets for games are scary large now, there have been the predictions on the end of the AAA title for a long time and I don't think that's completely correct... We'll still see AAA titles, but as we go forward they are going to score lower and lower on average and their sales aren't going to be able to keep up because it's just unsustainable except for a few huge titles a year.

There is a reason why blockbuster movies happen in the summer and there are really only a few big budget titles, it's because the market can't sustain multiple huge releases and trying to force it just burns out the audience... Yet over the years the 'gaming droughts' have gotten smaller and smaller and the number of triple AAA (budget) titles have gone up and up without a noticable change in game style for fear of alienating people.

There won't be a big gaming crash like has been predicting hundreds of times by hundred of people over the years, but the threat of a AAA collapse seems more likely than ever.

 

[jelly]

I think the publishers push the technology so far because that is the easy option, less risky, good for advertising and fewer companies can compete. While I do like nice graphics, the game play needs to come with it and I hope companies have realised they can't coast on the same old or even less. Bring some new ideas to the table and build around it, you don't have to reinvent the wheel, just innovate a little.

 

[Scrupulous]

If the order was an open world game with rpg elements does anyone think it would have faired better?

 

[Queen of Hunting]

Shame these same reviewers couldn't point out all the shit wrong with unity n halo etc last year and gave them all high scores with no mention of the problems

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

If the order was an open world game with rpg elements does anyone think it would have faired better?

I think yes, it would have gotten spared a lot better because it's more modern, But because it's traditional nature with uninspiring aged gameplay and game design, it really takes a chunk out of what could have been if their priorities were best put somewhere else.

 

[motorised mallard]

If the order was an open world game with rpg elements does anyone think it would have faired better?

"Of course, it would have been 2 more checkmarks on the list atleast."

Spoiler

/s

For reviews? Maybe. As a game? Most likely not.

Shame these same reviewers couldn't point out all the shit wrong with unity n halo etc last year and gave them all high scores with no mention of the problems

[tinfoil hat]
They weren't viewed as bad/really meh by majority already so it would have been hard to justify being "harsh" on Unity atleast, MCC is a another beast all together. You can't touch Halo or people will rip you apart.
[/tinfoil hat]

I'm naive and hope that the trend really is changing, we have to wait for the next barely working AAAA game to see if it's actually true and not just a "Hey we can be harsh on games also!" stunt.

The problem with this hypothetical is that this would be a completely different game without many of the flaws and design problems that The Order was criticized for. You're basically asking if The Order wasn't The Order, would it have been reviewed better.

And it probably would have been like that.

 

[Basileus777]

If the order was an open world game with rpg elements does anyone think it would have faired better?

The problem with this hypothetical is that this would be a completely different game without many of the flaws and design problems that The Order was criticized for. You're basically asking if The Order wasn't The Order, would it have been reviewed better.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

But when the game is scoring lower than Wet, Stranglehold, The 50Cent Games, Bionic Commando 2009, Dark Sector... you can't really give so much credit to the scores, because the expectations from those games are so different than the comparison is flawed.

Stranglehold was fun and Blood on the Sand was actually a good game. And it had a swear button.

Not sure why the order should score higher than either of those games.

 

[Stereogatari]

But when the game is scoring lower than Wet, Stranglehold, The 50Cent Games, Bionic Commando 2009, Dark Sector... you can't really give so much credit to the scores, because the expectations from those games are so different than the comparison is flawed.

Zeitgeist matters. You can't cite old games as examples for a perceived unfairness in The Order's score.

 

[Scrupulous]

The problem with this hypothetical is that this would be a completely different game without many of the flaws and design problems that The Order was criticized for. You're basically asking if The Order wasn't The Order, would it have been reviewed better.

Thats pretty much what I was asking yeah its a loaded question but for all the crimes this game committed gameplay wise it also seems to have been punished just as much for playing it safe.
Scale wise, replayability wise, length wise and for being mediocre.

If R.A.D get another chance (I hope they do because I love this setting) I'd hope they learn from this lesson.

 

[Mman235]

Un-professional.

That's how I'd describe the majority of the review sites in recent times. There are problems with bias, funding, personal agendas and just plain bad ethics and work practices. This does not apply to all sites, but it's getting worse, and I think funding issues make up a high proportion of the reason it happens.

Games should be marked on their own merits, not because they are not something else they are not trying to be. There are people who like this genre, and others should not be trying to force everything they don't like out of the industry.

In the past review sites and publishers had a team of people who reviewed games in the fields they enjoyed, and we ended up with:

• Genre
• What it sets out to do
• Who it is aimed towards and would enjoy it
• Graphical Accomplishment
• Gameplay
• Enjoyment
• Overall

If people don't like it, then they just move on to another title they do like.

Now we just get people who have no interest in a genre/game just constantly slating it at every opportunity, trying to force their viewpoint on everyone else.

Sad times for the video game industry, developers, and also gamers who will see a contraction of game types to suit a very limited set of criteria to avoid the backlash such as seen by The Order and others recently.

"Ethics" lol. Most of the reviews I've read have obviously enjoyed TPS in the past, they just think The Order isn't a very good one.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Uncharted 2 had amazing spectacle and production values for its time, but I'd agree the gameplay itself wasn't anything special. It had average third person shooting mechanics, puzzle, melee combat, boss fights and stealth sections. The technical aspects (animation, voice acting, graphics, sound design) are all top notch but in no way is the game itself without flaws.

Agreed
Bought uc2 when it launched and its mediocrity bored me so much that it took me weeks to finish it.

The multiplayer was pretty cool imo (mechanics wise with the climbing and dragging people off edges etc) but the gunplay/"platforming" were really 6/10 average

Tomb raider reboot was a lot better in comparison gameplay wise (7-8/10 gameplay) as an uncharted clone.

Just because the order now makes uncharted look like zone of the enders or bayonetta in comparison does not change that uc2 didn't have good gameplay

There's so many way better gameplay games on consoles than frigging uncharted, idk why people get offended when you point out it didn't have good gameplay.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I keep hearing that the Order would have received great reviews a few years ago, that's bs!

Uncharted 2 was so much better! Yes it had cutscenes, but the gameplay was better, there was more of it, and it was fun.

What game specifically are they referring to?

[I mean, having played a fair chunk of the Order today, I do not agree with this Forbes article that it would have gotten a 95 in 2009. The Order is not necessarily a victim of changing review systems, it's a victim of poor game design.

For all it's visual beauty, this game has huge problems with its basic mechanics, with pacing and constant cutsences and QTEs stalling player interaction, with storytelling, with length and replayability. This is pretty basic stuff you can't get past; the Order doesn't play all that well.

Even if the Order released six years ago, I'm pretty sure it'd be found wanting compared to something like Gears of War 2 or Uncharted 2, even if the graphics were held up as revolutionary.

I agree with you completely. This game is more like lair, and heavenly sword. Games that looked great but played badly.

 

[Shabad]

I blame The Last Of Us. The game was so good that everything that came afterward looks shallow and bland.

Spoiler

I am just semi-joking, there is a truth to it, at least in my own experience.

 

[virtualS]

What do people want? What does next generation gameplay actually mean?

Video games are frequently evolutionary and rarely revolutionary with revolutions occurring hand in hand with big jumps in technology.

2D to 3D. 3D to VR?

Super Mario World was possible on NES in terms of gameplay and yet I doubt Mario64 could mirror its gameplay on SNES in any meaningful way.

Likewise, almost everything bar visuals could be accomplished on a hypothetical PS3 version of The Order.

I'm cool with that but I think we'll have to wait for mainstream VR to signal permanent revolution.

 

[Doc Holliday]

What do people want? What does next generation gameplay actually mean?

Video games are frequently evolutionary and rarely revolutionary with revolutions occurring hand in hand with big jumps in technology.

2D to 3D. 3D to VR?

Super Mario World was possible on NES in terms of gameplay and yet I doubt Mario64 could mirror its gameplay on SNES in any meaningful way.

Likewise, almost everything bar visuals could be accomplished on a hypothetical PS3 version of The Order.

I'm cool with that but I think we'll have to wait for mainstream VR to signal permanent revolution.

Not having your game interrupted by cutscenes every 5 minutes is not much to ask for. I want a good game, if it's revolutionary or evolutionary I don't care.
If the Order was like re4 or even gears of it would have been a better game.

 

[Stereogatari]

What do people want? What does next generation gameplay actually mean?

Video games are frequently evolutionary and rarely revolutionary with revolutions occurring hand in hand with big jumps in technology.

2D to 3D. 3D to VR?

Super Mario World was possible on NES in terms of gameplay and yet I doubt Mario64 could mirror its gameplay on SNES in any meaningful way.

Likewise, almost everything bar visuals could be accomplished on a hypothetical PS3 version of The Order.

I'm cool with that but I think we'll have to wait for mainstream VR to signal permanent revolution.

If The Order used tried and tested gameplay and level design formulas from critically acclaimed classics, it would have had a good shout as a great game. "Next-gen gameplay" and "innovation" are not what is being south out. Good games are good games regardless.

 

[Chris_C]

Thought it was a good article that was short and to the point. I think we're going to see more and more of this. I think a lot of people implicitly thought the next gen was going to be different, but from the looks of it devs are doubling down on the same ole tired routine of last gen.

I agree with you on a lot of counts, however I also think it's a little tough for devs to really bring innovation to the table right now. I think 3D gaming is beginning to reach a maturation point that requires a BIG jump in power that enables new experiences, or disruptive technology (like VR).

 

[Kai Dracon]

Agree with the article generally, and agree with the idea that the death of mid-tier games on consoles has helped bring about the current landscape.

As well this all feels as if it ties in to the gradual realization that the feeling of revolution many people in console gaming took for granted was due to a few key moments in technology. 2D bitmap to 3D polygon. 3D polygon to harware accelerated 3D. And then a couple of big bumps in processing and memory capacity enabling the creation of open, three dimensional game worlds.

But diminishing returns, technological barriers, and design end-points mean that iteration is now the standard, rather than revolution. It also lays bare how large, AAA gaming came to depend on improving graphics while keeping the content bland, and core game design unchanged in order to not scare away an audience which doesn't see gaming as a hobby, but a way to pass the time like television. Experimental and technical games are rejected by the mainstream, that just isn't into learning something new for the sake of having a bit of fun. Further pushing experimentation away from the AAA ecosystem.

That may result in a game like Watch Dogs selling 8 million copies. But in terms of critical appraisal, such products seem likely to be reviewed more and more poorly. It may also accelerate the process of driving gaming hobbyists away from big budget popcorn gaming.

 

[Fdkn]

Zeitgeist matters.

?

That's exactly the point I'm making. Review scores are useless and even harming because they lack context and are influenced by expectations.

 

[Dennis]

Most importantly, we’re out of the honeymoon period with next-gen: neither the PS4 nor the Xbox One has truly had a game that made us say: yep, that’s worth it

I thought GTA V was considered a great game?

I haven't played, waiting for PC.

 

[crazyjah2003]

I thought GTA V was considered a great game?

I haven't played, waiting for PC.

I think I'd consider GTA V a 360/ps3 game as opposed to a ps4/xboxone.

 

[ShamePain]

A 95+ six years ago? Wut? 6 years ago we had two uncharted games and two gears games, they hold up wonderfully even today and are better than the order in every way imaginable sans the obvious graphics difference.

 

[ROMAD]

I don't think that there's any truth to it. And a good illutration of that is the Master Chief Collection

Polygon


9.5

GameTrailers


9.3

Game Informer


9.25

IGN


9

Joystiq


9

Eurogamer


9

USgamer


9

Destructoid


9

Super hyped collection from major franchise? Doesn't work like it's supposed to three months after release and yet look at those comments and scores.

That's a terrible analogy. it's not even close to what we're talking about here. I can see why you may think that's the same thing but it isn't. At all. If a NEW game, was JUST LIKE the original halo, and made zero advancements in gameplay mechanics or ideas and the story wasn't as interesting it would get a crap score. Halo will always be a classic game. Just like if the movie scarface came out today it would be considered jist another rehashed rise and fall tale with some serious overacting and ridiculous dialogue. but as it stands now scarface is a fucking classic that everyone enjoyed

 

[zero shift]

Standards change, and video games are a technology driven and iterative medium. It's perfectly reasonable for certain games to age poorly despite being good games when released.

I've hardly ever experienced this before. The only time a game has aged badly from my experience is when the game was never good to begin with. Exhibit A: Bioshock.

Yeah. A lot of games from the past such as OOT were huge innovators that introduced things to video games never seen before. They might not seem as impressive now but at the time they were revolutionary.

But OOT is still a great game. It may not be revolutionary but it is still very enjoyable.

 

[Grady]

The only worrisome thing is publishers are just going to push for more remakes, remasters and sequels because that is whats selling. They wont want to put the money into new ips as they are unpredictable.

 

[Snapshot King]

I will add this ancedotal evidence:

While watching review threads for RE6, Titanfall, Infamous, Destiny, DriveClub, Assassins' Creed, Watch_Dogs, Sunset, and now The Order, I've seen the sentiment, "Why are reviewers only getting harsh on games now?" repeated in some phrasing or another at one point.

Whether that's due to reviewers slowly "opening up" two more points on the 7-10 scale, or AAA seriously dropping the ball in the last two years, who can say.

I think it's much more likely that it's a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Reviews have been getting harsher overall, but I think it's a direct result of AAA fucking the dog on game after game.

 

[Pyramid head]

A 95+ six years ago? Wut? 6 years ago we had two uncharted games and two gears games, they hold up wonderfully even today and are better than the order in every way imaginable sans the obvious graphics difference.

But lets pretend we're able to bend the fabric of spacetime to create an alternate universe where reviewers thought The Order was a good game! If there really is an infinite number of universes in the multiverse, I'm sure the game was a 9.5 in one of them.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Changing review landscape lol Sorry but that's BS. You could say the same thing about any game. No shit that if Chrono Cross released today GS wouldn't give it a 10. Standards change

Isn't that exactly what the reviewer is saying? How is that BS then haha

 

[BackBackPunch]

The key is consistency.

There is no consistent review criteria. It changes with every review. Some reviews love to deduct points for absent modes or features that the game was never going to have, for example. Reviewers are humans like you and me and subject to favouritism and bias like you and me.

But games media constantly needs to legitimise itself and ensure its relevancy. Which is why we get episodes like this one. Then, like a magpie, when the next shiny object appears, they'll flock to that one.

If reviews are intended as meaningful analysis then they are fundamentally broken - simply because they move the goalposts and metrics with every single review.

We're not asking the right questions when we ask about the significance of a review score. It's not about taking notices of a score on a review, it's about how much people are assigning value to someone else's opinion.

This won't be changing and the games media is acting like nothing more than a political party in the run up to an election.

This is so, so true. /thread

 

[charsace]

lol at people attacking other games. Every game in the Halo collection plays better than the Order and has more emergent game play.

Assassin's Creed has its problems, but like the Order it is also a great looking game. The difference is the game play and level design in AC allows for more emergent game play than the Order. In ACU you can attack missions in multiple ways with different character builds.

The key problem with the Order is that the game play that is there isn't fun. They stick you in small arenas with almost no enemy variation. The combination of these things with a lot of cut scenes was just a recipe for bad game. Even in the preview videos this was pretty evident if you looked past the excellent graphics and location damage system. At times the game can look like an on rails shooter/light gun game.

The only thing this game has in common with Uncharted and Gears is that it is in the same genre and is cinematic. Every game in both series have better game play than the Order.