official The Order: 1886

[MorganX]

The part I don't understand is how can you have the best looking console game to date according to various reviews I've seen so far, countless users here agreeing that it looks amazing, yet it runs at 800p and 30fps.  Then these same users go on to the infamous Resolution thread and make arguments on how they can distinguish pixels and anything under 1080 is unacceptable, blurry, and just plain unwatchable.  Oh, and anything below 60fps is a jittery mess.  You just can't have it both ways.

 

Another thing this proves (again) is that pretty does not a good game make.

 

Don't have it, but looking at it, it is my type of game. Wish it was on PC. Maybe we need a new class of reviewer for a new class of Gamer. Gamers who want best in class graphics on top end hardware, and a AAA experience but only have 5-15hrs to dedicate to a game or they'll never finish it because they have other things to do in life.

 

Those who can dedicate hours or entire weekends to blowing through a game as fast as possible, missing out on half there is to see and getting immersed and escaping in it, have different (they would say higher, I say different) standards. The same crowd bashed one of the greatest cinematic button-mashing storytelling combo action games ever for the same reasons: Heavenly Sword. Still one of my all time favorites and still unparalleled production values ... IMO.

[Hedon]

It's the BEST looking 800p game on the PS4, that is for sure. Best looking game on the PS4 to date actually.

Guys, guys, this is next-gen right there! SO MANY PIXELS!

 

Some impressive 2D bushes there. 

[Ironman273]

Just because people don't like the resolution/frame rate doesn't mean they can't say it looks amazing... because it does.

 

Also well The Order has a wide screen aspect ratio; it displays natively at 1080p, but it's got black bars on the top & bottom.

  

Prove to who? Who is it that thinks good graphics make a good game?

 

Nothing wrong with admiring great graphics, art. In a game. I'll probably rent this game to do just that.

With the type of discussion that happens in the resolution thread it seems like better graphics means a better game. My argument is that a better game makes a better game. If it has good graphics that's just a bonus. 

 

It doesn't run at 800p. 800p is obviously less than 900p, and 900p is 1600x900 = 1440000 pixels. The Order is 1920x800 = 1536000 pixels.

 

None of the picture is stretched in any way like 900p games.

 

Really not hard to grasp http://tay.kotaku.com/why-the-order-1886-is-1080p-and-not-800p-1518902908

 

Ontopic gutted the games story can't hold it up. This is definitely a cheap pickup for a tech demo/atmosphere. Good luck with the sequel if it gets one RAD, a lot needs to change (besides the graphics).

And that's my whole point. So with that logic (which is the Resolutions thread logic) all the 1080p games that have 2073600 pixels beat The Order. Thing is we all know that's not the case.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

With the type of discussion that happens in the resolution thread it seems like better graphics means a better game. My argument is that a better game makes a better game. If it has good graphics that's just a bonus.

And that's my whole point. So with that logic (which is the Resolutions thread logic) all the 1080p games that have 2073600 pixels beat The Order. Thing is we all know that's not the case.

Yes they do on pixel count, buy unlike other games which run under 1080p The Order does no upscaling or stretching horizontally. Neither vertically either, that's what the black bars prevent. This is why it is not 800p. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just stating that the game is not 800p and to say so is to show ignorance.

It's easier to run in 1080p with bars, something you wouldn't have to say for films as films don't have spec requirements to play on a reader. But the game and films use the same aspect ratio hence the bars. What this means in gaming is 4xmsaa due to it being technically easier to run 1080p in this ratio than in standard 16:9.

[Ironman273]

Yes they do on pixel count, buy unlike other games which run under 1080p The Order does no upscaling or stretching horizontally. Neither vertically either, that's what the black bars prevent. This is why it is not 800p. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just stating that the game is not 800p and to say so is to show ignorance.

It's easier to run in 1080p with bars, something you wouldn't have to say for films as films don't have spec requirements to play on a reader. But the game and films use the same aspect ratio hence the bars. What this means in gaming is 4xmsaa due to it being technically easier to run 1080p in this ratio than in standard 16:9.

Yeah, sorry about the p at the end.  You are correct about the resolution and the p was a mistake on my end.  

[Guest]

Some impressive 2D bushes there. 

 

Call of Duty 1 wants its bushes back.

[MightyJordan]

The game length furore reminds me of Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes (although I'm not sure which one's being defended more), which is even shorter, but at least they had the decency to charge a lot less for it and there is some replay value in it.

[Hedon]

The game isn't bad. Graphics are great for a PS4 game. I like the small attention to detail, such as individual hairs on the character moving from the wind. Or things like allowing you to look at your weapon in closer detail by move the stick, showing a 540 degree view point of the weapon. It feels like a movie/cinematic experience, that allows you some control on occasion. QTE's are plentiful, but not problematic. The early tutoring is indeed helpful. I like the ability to dash between objects when taking cover. The animations are slick. I would recommend the game to those on the fence, but wait for a sale/discount. It is indeed worth a play through.

 

Took a few screenshots this morning. Gonna take more tonight as I progress.

 

[spacer]

@Ironman

 

There is more to graphics than resolution and framerate. The Order is using some of the best lighting models, material simulation, and AA in any game to date. That kind of stuff has a huge impact on visual quality. I agree with you about the framerate discussion, thouh.

 

Yes they do on pixel count, buy unlike other games which run under 1080p The Order does no upscaling or stretching horizontally. Neither vertically either, that's what the black bars prevent. This is why it is not 800p. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, just stating that the game is not 800p and to say so is to show ignorance.

It's easier to run in 1080p with bars, something you wouldn't have to say for films as films don't have spec requirements to play on a reader. But the game and films use the same aspect ratio hence the bars. What this means in gaming is 4xmsaa due to it being technically easier to run 1080p in this ratio than in standard 16:9.

But the game engine only has to render 1920x800 pixels for each frame. So isn't that, by definition, 800p? If the game was rendering 1920x1080 every frame, then you could call it 1080p, but the Order is NOT doing that.

[Guest]

Holy crap that looks a blurry piece of cow poo.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

@Ironman

 

There is more to graphics than resolution and framerate. The Order is using some of the best lighting models, material simulation, and AA in any game to date. That kind of stuff has a huge impact on visual quality. I agree with you about the framerate discussion, thouh.

 

 

But the game engine only has to render 1920x800 pixels for each frame. So isn't that, by definition, 800p? If the game was rendering 1920x1080 every frame, then you could call it 1080p, but the Order is NOT doing that.

 

No because as I've said 800p would incur either stretching or scaling. Movies aren't called 800p when they are shot in this ratio.

 

800p in the gaming sense would be less than 900p, and I've already shown this is not the case for The Order. Trials Fusion for example had a day 1 patch to increase the XB1 version from 800p to 900p - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-04-14-trials-fusion-has-day-one-patch-to-boost-xbox-one-resolution. The pixel count for The Order is not lower than 900p, so how can we call it an even lower 800p?

 

The game is 1080p, but due to the ratio used it is technically easier to run it than 16:9 1080p. It stands as a unique example because games are not normally played in this ratio, so if you say it's 800p how games are typically viewed you are implying scaling or stretching to reach a fullscreen 1080p, which The Order does not do.

 

IIRC 800p would be 1280x800

900p is 1600x900

 

The Order is 1920x800 and runs natively without any scaling in 21:9.

 

Both 800p and 900p are then upscaled or stretched to 1080p 16:9 for any game that uses either. On a 16:9 HDTV which 99% of us own you can not run a ratio of 21:9 without black bars, hence movies. The only way around that is to use your TVs zoom function which then defeats the purpose of the ratio which allows a wider FOV (see image above).

 

edit: If you want an example of any of the above using The Order's assets go to this link.

[Ironman273]

@Ironman

 

There is more to graphics than resolution and framerate. The Order is using some of the best lighting models, material simulation, and AA in any game to date. That kind of stuff has a huge impact on visual quality. I agree with you about the framerate discussion, thouh.

 

But the game engine only has to render 1920x800 pixels for each frame. So isn't that, by definition, 800p? If the game was rendering 1920x1080 every frame, then you could call it 1080p, but the Order is NOT doing that.

Oh I agree completely.  That's why it annoys me when there's a game that looks good then a week later some site counts the pixels on the screen and then people start complaining how "horrible" it looks because it's a little less than 1080p.  If it looks good it looks good.

[spacer]

I will concede that the term "800p" is misleading in the sense that the aspect ratio is not the same as when you're referring to a 720p or 1080p picture. However, it's still the case that The Order is NOT 1080p. That term, without a doubt, refers to an image of 1920x1080 pixels. The Order (the rendered game) is 1920x800. It's quite literally not 1080p.

 

The engine may be outputting a true 1080p image, because it's including the black bars. However, the game itself is only 1920x800. The pixel data for the black bars are loaded into memory once, never changed, and therefore never has to be recalculated for each frame. The game only has to render 1920x800 pixels for each frame; which, to me, means the game is "800p".

 

It's a subtle difference, but an important one when people start shouting that it's the "best looking game to date". It's not an apples-to-apples comparison with other games that are rendering full HD visuals.

 

Please don't misunderstand me though. I do think the game looks fantastic. It is quite an achievement by RAD to include all of the post-processing and other goodies that they did and still maintain a steady 30FPS. It's something to be praised for sure, but for the correct reasons.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Oh I agree completely.  That's why it annoys me when there's a game that looks good then a week later some site counts the pixels on the screen and then people start complaining how "horrible" it looks because it's a little less than 1080p.  If it looks good it looks good.

 

There are sites saying The Order looks "horrible"? Even the lowest scoring reviews admire how good it looks. I guess you're saying how annoyed you are at the multiplatform games getting analyzed... Any game that has to be upscaled will indeed be blurrier to a certain extent versus a title running natively. That is a fact, which can be found out from pixel counting. The Order is not upscaling so in no alternate universe can the game run any sharper than it does right now. However, a 900p 16:9 game can indeed run sharper if it's ran at 1080p 16:9.

 

 

I will concede that the term "800p" is misleading in the sense that the aspect ratio is not the same as when you're referring to a 720p or 1080p picture. However, it's still the case that The Order is NOT 1080p. That term, without a doubt, refers to an image of 1920x1080 pixels. The Order (the rendered game) is 1920x800. It's quite literally not 1080p.

 

The engine may be outputting a true 1080p image, because it's including the black bars. However, the game itself is only 1920x800. The pixel data for the black bars are loaded into memory once, never changed, and therefore never has to be recalculated for each frame. The game only has to render 1920x800 pixels for each frame; which, to me, means the game is "800p".

 

It's a subtle difference, but an important one when people start shouting that it's the "best looking game to date". It's not an apples-to-apples comparison with other games that are rendering full HD visuals.

 

Please don't misunderstand me though. I do think the game looks fantastic. It is quite an achievement by RAD to include all of the post-processing and other goodies that they did and still maintain a steady 30FPS. It's something to be praised for sure, but for the correct reasons.

 

 

It's far more misleading to call the game 800p. People can get as hell bent out of shape calling it 1080p as they want. They can include as asterisk every time they say 1080p* if they want. Doesn't change the fact running in this ratio that is the native resolution (no more hardware power can change that), and at the same time there is no upscaling or stretching of any kind you'd find on any sub native 1080p game running in 16:9.

 

It's really about native vs non-native, as I said to Ironman no alternate universe has this ratio any more native than The Order does. No movie, PC game, Xbox One game can run this ratio with a different resolution. Unless we start to examine 4k in 21:9. But then it's still a native multiple of 1920x800.

[Polonium]

Holy crap that looks a blurry piece of cow poo.

 

Screen captures don't do the game any justice. It's not blurry and it's not poo. It's the best looking game ever made on consoles by a long, long way.

[Cnónna]

Screen captures don't do the game any justice. It's not blurry and it's not poo. It's the best looking game ever made on consoles by a long, long way.

it should be considering they seemed to have spent all development time on the graphics and none on the actual gameplay or story .

[spenser.d]

Screen captures don't do the game any justice. It's not blurry and it's not poo. It's the best looking game ever made on consoles by a long, long way.

 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

[Polonium]

[Hedon]

It is indeed the best looking PS4 game to date. But it should be with that 800p tall display, 3 or 4 AI on the screen, corridor/linear environment, with numerous reused assets, pre-animated QTE events, minimal game play and only 30fps.

 

And the screenshots I posted are an exact representation of what I was playing. Those are PS4 screenshots taken in game.

[Cnónna]

Have you played it?

 

I've read a lot of gamer reviews that say there is plenty of gameplay and the story is decent enough. Yet again it seems the gaming media are hating on something just for the fun of it. I'm not saying that the game is perfect and deserved 9's and 10's but what do the gaming press expect to happen when new IP's are introduced to a torrent of abuse? Developers fold, or just jack in their ideas resorting back to COD type formulas. 

 

Eurogamer for example wrote "it has next gen graphics but last gen gameplay" - I mean, what does that even mean??? Define 'last gen gameplay', then define 'next gen gameplay'.

 

The media are, in my opinion, the reason why the gaming industry is so stale.

 

 

 

no and I won't, same goes for the COD series. short single player for AAA prices is a no no for me.

 

dev companys are getting lazy, especially EA and Activision even UBI are just churning out the same rehashed IP every year sticking 15.16.17....... on the end of it. and charging

[Hedon]

[Cnónna]

Well, I don't know how efficient the team is at RAD, but this title has been in development for like 5 years? I don't think that is lazy.

 

well you'd have though that in those 5 years someone could have made a story that not full of QTE's.

 

as for slaggins off EA earlier , am gonna shoot myself in the foot here. but they showed what they can achieve when they want to with the new Dragon age game. best one of the series. shame they let mass effect 3 down so badly with the ending

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

[Hedon]

Audioboxer, on 20 Feb 2015 - 09:52, said:

Prior to this they made PSP games, such as GoW. It's their first console outing (GoW on PS3 was a port of PSP games), so I doubt it's anything to do with inefficiency and a lot to do with learning. Even with talent they've brought in from other studios they're still fairly new to the scene. This is their first IP built from the ground up, everything else has been ports or someone else's original work/IP. Definitely not on the scale of EA/Activision or any other large dev/pub.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_at_Dawn

 

Write this down, I actually agree with you for once.