Entertainment Fuse: Another week, another Digital High but with a new guest host, as well as apparently Vincent’s new friend, Josh. Aaron, Vincent, and Josh discuss, at great length, multiple topics while having too much fun. Find out their opinions regarding such topics as the Sonic Boom announcement, The Order: 1866 – does no multiplayer hurt it, is Metal Gear too short, and much more.
Digital Foundry : Released in February 2015, The Order: 1886 was a stunning PlayStation 4 game at the cutting-edge of rendering technology, with visuals that still hold up today. The game's release pre-dated in-depth Digital Foundry coverage, something we're looking to address with this new video! Ready at Dawn's game never received a sequel and never received a PS4 Pro upgrade, but thanks to developments with exploited, older firmware PS5 consoles, we can now show you the game running locked at 60 frames per second.
The gameplay was bland and extremely frustrating at times with unnecessary QTE combat at points. But the world and the lore and the characters and the story were fantastic. I’ve always wanted a sequel. I still hope Sony will surprise us one day.
And let's not forget,
Ready At Dawn showcased The Order 1886 running on PC at 60fps at SIGGRAPH 2015
https://www.dsogaming.com/n...
I still stand by my theory that this game just released at the wrong time. Almost every outlet spent a lot of time in their reviews ragging on the game for not being an online experience, everyone was in the Destiny hype train and at the time they wanted EVERY game to follow suit, bashing any game that didn't. If this were released after everyone realized how much that wasn't future, people would've appreciated it more. I loved it, and I'm always disappointed that we'll never get a sequel
That doesn't seem to be true about outlets complaining on the lack of online. The review summaries on Metacritic are very consistent: Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return.
Here's an example of how *little* time IGN spent talking about multiplayer:
"With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it."
It's the final sentence. They don't even take the time to say "online multiplayer"
"Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return."
You are right, that's what everbody was saying at the time, never heard anything about it not being online.
I've been thinking about trying this game for years, I may get it now that it's dirt cheap, no big loss if it sucks
Oh, add to that bad enemy AI, I remember that from the reviews, I saw a video of a wherewolf boss fight with a very weak AI
And there we glowing reviews for shorter games. It was one of the times where hating this game was "cool."
Can you show me the reviews that rag on it for not having an online experience?
I’m not doubting you or anything. I’m just being lazy.
That's also fake news, isarai. Again, the game was consistently criticized for what it was (Pretty but extremely short, extremely linear, hand-holding, no replayability), not for what it wasn't (multiplayer/open-world)
Nope, every review uses the term "linear" several times as if it's some inherently bad attribute. Not fake news at all. Since then there's veen plenty of short and sweet single player linear games that get lots of praise, again after the reality of everything being open world set it and it wasn't as great as everyone thought. But at the launch of the last gen everyone had open world fever, and especially the first couple years "linear" was a con in many games reviewed
That's your own contortion assuming criticism of its extremely linear design is suddenly a call for it to have been open world.
You totally made up a claim regarding an overall review consensus that isn't true. And, instead of just ignoring being called out for it, you respond with "oh actually i ment to say OPEN WORLD". Which literally isn't true either. You can't show us one review that bashed the game for "not being open world". And, somehow the other guy is getting downvoted. Over a bullshit liar.
Games were being criticized at that time for any game that wasn't open world or online. So yeah I got one mixed for the other, doesn't change my argument one bit that it would've been received better if it released later. People are agreeing because if you were not riding the "online and open world" hype train at that time, it was blatantly obvious there were biases in play for how games were criticized. Now after all that has happened since people want to say "oh wait these games were actually pretty good" cause they know better now
The gameplay was very shallow and when one says repetitive, it is by the very definition for some fights. As in, completely identical but different setting.
The game has amazing potential.
The graphics, the lore, characters…
This could most definitely have been all corrected with a sequel and became a franchise hit…
Still would love to see an attempt.
Ie fantastic premise and moments that shine…
But it had its downfalls that deserved the negative marks.
It was the "game to hate" when it launched. And right here, on this site, we saw people posting stories that were outright fabrications about the game. It was weird. The game launched, it was fun, a really cool game but the hate was too much. And so were the lies.
It was just too short....but I loved every minute of it....double dipped and grabbed the ultimate CE
That isn't true. I remember people talking about how incredibly short it was and the somewhat janky gunplay.
First I'm hearing of this. I don't know what multiplayer has to do with anything. The game was just dull. Amazing graphics, great narrative, great lore, boring gameplay sprinkled in pieces between cutscenes, and lackluster AI and controls.
People cried this game was too short. No people are crying because games are too long.
Games like Ubisoft open worlds not enjoyable lengthy games like Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate III
I get it, but people also complain about the main stories being too long or just games being too long in general because they are "adults".
300,000 Metal Gear games were sold during the first quarter of 2023, Konami has announced, bringing the total number to 59.8 million.
Do not worry they will give use those pichincko remakes for top dollar soon.
Metal gear solid 3 in the fox engine looked/ran amazing but was sealed away :(
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I know re-makes and stuff have been played to death this generation.
But damn I wouldn't mind an MGS4 remake
I thought the series would have sold more over all these years and different releases.
Metal Gear isn't that big, and there hasn't been a new release in years. Also MGS2 and 3 are still missing from digital storefronts.
5 mgs games in total if I'm not mistaken. 59 60 million seems about right. Mgs is dope to some of us but it would be hard for a lot of regulars to understand
Although there are notable exceptions (GTA, certain first-party Nintendo games, Gran Turismo), as a rule games didn't sell as much in earlier generations as they have in the past few generations. So a lot of PS1-PS2 era titles that are viewed as seminal games didn't actually sell all that much by today's standards (yes, despite the large install bases of those systems lol). I remember a similar surprised reaction happening a few months ago when Square announced the total overall sales of Final Fantasy VII.
Some of the best fun you can have online was the first metal gear online and to a lesser, but still fun to an extent, MGO2. The magazine, CQC, stealth, and tactical play Vs real players is just a blast. Not to mention playing Snake vs everyone? Amazing. The game will never be the same without Hideo, but Konami can definitely update what’s already there and take my money.
You wouldn't be talking about the OG MGO that was included with MGS3:S would you? It's rare running into another former player. Those were some of the best memories of any online game I had.
Yes my man!! That seems like the BEST game that nobody played! Tranquilizer pistol, drag the body to a corner and lay a girly mag right by their head so they wake up and instantly get caught by the mag. You could get real toxic if you wanted at that point, but man that game was incredible! The only thing annoying was that damn Konami ID
Hideo Kojima: "After the launch, many people seemed to expect GZ to be a full game."
People would have gotten “your intention” if you stated it from the beginning but people didn’t want smaller episode like MGS games.
He should have just focused on MGSV and work Ground Zeroes into that game instead
I don't remember there being confusion over Ground Zeroes being a full game. But then again I was just starting to catch up on the MGS series as a whole at that point so I might've not paid enough attention or simply have forgotten that there was confusion about it. I bet the whole Moby Dick Studios thing didn't help the casual observer understand what the hell was going on though.
I only got both MGSV games when Phantom Pain was already out and I kinda agree that it probably would've sucked if I had to wait one and a half years to pay The Phantom Pain after Ground Zeroes.
I'm sorry what now?
Who expected that?
If it was meant to be episodic or an experiment for that, the price should / would have reflected that
To be fair, there really wasn't enough content to actually justify even the smaller price tag. It was still half the cost of a full game, yet a 20th of the content.
I can't stand these paid glorified demos.
Honestly, it was basically similar to the FF15 Duscae demo. My theory is he was taking too damn long to make a game and Konami was like, “Sell what you got!” It just has kind of a scummy corporate “let’s sell this demo for half the price of a full game,” feel to it.
That’s just my take on it. I love Kojima and I love the MGS series, but this and 5 were the biggest let downs, ever. Clearly unfinished work forced out because, in Konami’s defense, Kojima was going over budget and taking forever on the project.
Lol, I loved Ground Zeroes, but releasing that level at $40 during a dryspell for games at the onset of the new gen was an obvious cash grab.
I handed over my money happily, but plenty of non-diehard fans were understandably letdown by the scale of what $40 bought them.
The price was originally $40 for the physical PS4 and XBO versions, but due to controversy it dropped down to $30 before launch. And as much as I love GZ, and even bought it twice, I do agree that $30 was too much. It should have launched at $20.
https://kotaku.com/konami-c...
I don't know how about anyone else. But i've bought it for $20 1 week after release (or $15, don't remember the exact exchange rate) and spent 24 hours beating every mission and getting all the steam achievements. I was 100% aware what the game was about beforehand though and i did enjoy every second of it. I knew it was a work in progress and it was probably the best and less restrictive game i've played in a long time (and controls were just perfect).
Even previous MGS games didn't gave me that much freedom as Ground Zeroes did.
Love stealth? Got you covered.
Want to speedrun? Here's the timer.
Wanna kill everyone? No problem, grab that AK then and let's party.
Wanna cause chaos? Just tell Pequod where to land.
Love to drive? Then go ahead.
Miss Raiden? Then play as him.
I wish they would continue MGSV, finish remaining chapters and add more missions as DLCs, there was SO many options... A poor man still can dream...
#FirstWorldGamerProblems
That's Sony: no coop games! With all this thing going about online, Sony still insists on single player games
Yeah is a way to make your games be forgettable real quick no co op or multi player in this day and age is a bit of a fail.
I agree. No mp on the order turned it into a rental for me. They created a fiction that screams for mp and they decide to make it a linear sp game. Thanks but no thanks.