Review Ore And Order · automation · 71 hours Opening graded: shown · 31 minutes to competence
The Tutorial Desk mark The Tutorial DeskFirst thirty minutes
Review

Ore And Order Solves Automation Onboarding By Making The First Machine Deliberately Bad

You turn a crank by hand for six minutes. It is boring on purpose, and it teaches the argument for automation more convincingly than any panel of text has ever managed. The highest score in this file.

A small starting workshop with two conveyor belts, a hand crank, crates of ore, a chalkboard of diagrams and warm industrial light
The first machine in the game is worse than doing the job yourself, and that is the point.

Automation games have the hardest onboarding problem in the medium. Their pleasure is second-order — the satisfaction of a system that works without you — and second-order pleasure cannot be demonstrated in a first minute.

Most of the genre responds by explaining. This one responds by making you do the job by hand until you resent it.

The six minutes

The opening task is to fill a crate with crushed ore. The only crusher available is hand-cranked: you hold a key, the wheel turns, one piece is crushed, and the crate needs about forty pieces.

It takes roughly six minutes. It is dull. Around the four-minute mark we started looking around the room for a better option, which is precisely the behaviour the design wants, and on a shelf behind us was a small motor and a belt.

Nothing had suggested we look. Nothing had explained what the motor was. We wanted it because we had spent four minutes earning the desire.

The most reliable way to teach why a system matters is to withhold it just long enough for the player to invent the need themselves.

What the opening contains

SegmentDurationHow rules arrive
Hand crushing6 minShown — the problem, felt directly
Finding the motor3 minDiscovered — no prompt of any kind
First belt built7 minShown — placement rules by trial
Power runs out4 minShown — the failure teaches fuel
Second machine chained8 minShown — throughput mismatch is visible
Interface and saving3 minTold — four prompts, once each

Twenty-two rules, of which eighteen are shown or discovered. Only the interface conventions are stated, which is the correct division: a keybinding is arbitrary and must be told, while a throughput mismatch is a fact about the world and can be seen.

Letting the first build be wrong

Our first belt layout was bad. It fed a machine faster than the machine could process, ore backed up, and the line stalled. Nothing warned us and nothing corrected it.

That stall is the second great teaching moment. Throughput matching is the central skill in this genre and the hardest thing to explain in words; here it is a pile of ore sitting on a belt, visible from across the room, and it took us about ninety seconds to understand it without assistance.

The retention check

Twenty of twenty-two rules intact at ten hours. The two failures were both told rules — a keybinding for the overview map and the existence of a blueprint copy function, neither of which we had used in the interval.

Every shown and discovered rule survived, which is now consistent across the whole file and is the finding this publication is most confident about.

Where it costs the player

Six minutes of deliberate tedium is a real gamble and it will lose some players. We would defend it, but not without acknowledging that a person browsing a refund window at minute five has been handed a reason.

There is also a discoverability risk in the motor: it is on a shelf, unlit, unremarked. We found it because we were looking for something. A less curious player might crank out three crates before noticing, and the design has no fallback for that.

The rest of the game

Excellent, and the longest thing in this file at seventy-one hours. The mid-game logistics puzzle around a river crossing is the best set piece we have played this year, and the research tree resists the usual problem of making earlier machines obsolete — the hand crank remains genuinely useful in a corner case forty hours later, which is a lovely piece of design discipline.

Complaints are modest: the late-game interface strains under large factories, and the endgame objective is arbitrary in a way the rest of the design is not.

ElementAssessment
Opening (31 minutes)Best-argued in the file
Rules shown or discovered18 of 22
Retention at ten hours20 of 22
Risk of losing players earlyReal and unmitigated
Game overallSeventy-one hours, few regrets

Where this leaves it

The highest score this publication has given, for a game whose opening is willing to be briefly unpleasant in order to be permanently understood. Every automation game should study those six minutes, and every one of them should also notice that the motor on the shelf needed one more grain of visibility.