Gameondaily discusses whether paying full price for multiplayer-only games like Titanfall is justified.
"With the announcement that The Order: 1886 will be a single layer only title, one has to ask, why do single player games get a free pass for not having a multiplayer component but multiplayer only games come under scrutiny from console gamers?"
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".
Popularized by Doom in 1993 and still making video game haters gnash their teeth today, first-person shooter games are the best thing to happen to gamers since pizza rolls. So here are 15 underrated first-person shooter games you may have missed.
Although the late 2000s Turok wasn't my favorite, I would love a new entry. Open world survival with shotguns and dinosaurs. Not sure how we'd get the fusion cannon, but that would be pretty sweet too.
Lol
All of these games are pretty much universally praised. Outside of Timeshift I literally own all of these.
XIII, The Darkness 2, Far Cry: Blood Dragon, Timesplitters: future perfect, Bulletstorm are awesome games
Ready At Dawn cut their teeth developing spin-offs for PlayStation Portable and porting games to consoles. When they got a chance to establish their own with The Order: 1886, its poor critical reception ostensibly halted their trajectory. Can one middling game really sully one’s reputation in the eyes of Sony?
Wanted a sequel for this game so much. It was left wide open for one with the ending it had.
Sony did file a new trademark a while back, so you never know. Though if I were to guess it would be a reboot rather than a sequel.
The Order was great from my playthrough and really enjoyed it. The same with Days Gone. Both, amongst others out there, deserve a follow-up. Anyone who actually played through the complete games knows there were hidden gems in and around these 2 games. Too many out there put too much faith in reviewer's opinions instead of thier own and get put off or join the hate bandwagon.
Seriously, gamers need to game & not read or view other people game with added opinions thrown in.
Honestly, if you haven't played either of these 2 games yet, do yourself a favour, pick it or them up, forget anything you know about them & just play it for yourself & create you're own opinions.
I ignored the reviews and went straight to the store to but the game. Thoroughly enjoyed it I might add. If only Sony had the balls to summon enough faith to reboot or give us a sequel. Maybe even a prequel done right and make it a 3 part series. Wasted opportunity for a really different exclusive if you ask me.
Days Gone is really an exceptional game though it feels like it took a bit of time for it to get interesting.
The Order 1886 was unfortunately not very good. Super beautiful game with beautiful cinematics but felt incomplete and don't really remember much happening at all in the game i.e. it was kind of bland. A sequel where they learned from their mistakes would be very intriguing though and I would have bought it.
I loved Days Gone and I would have loved a sequel.
I didnt like The Order. There was enough there for me to give a sequel a chance if they improved on bits but I'm losing no sleep over the absence of it. I thought the 1st one was genuinely terrible for a multitude of valid reasons.
I really enjoyed it. I was hoping for a game in the same world but less linear. With lots of that sweet lore.
Yeah with the tech sorted and expanding on the existing assets, they could/should have been able to do a trilogy that gen. What happened..
Agreed. Such an interesting title just abandoned. Makes no sense. As I said the ending of the game sets up for a sequel perfectly.
Incredible graphics and presentation. Great use of photo mode. A really interesting premise. The actual gunplay felt solid. The game just needed to be longer, and the levels could have been a bit less constrained. More enemy variety as well. At full price it just didn't have the value, at least in my opinion.
I would like to see a sequel or reboot, which I think is more likely. It would need to be a new dev as Ready at Dawn are part of Oculus now
I think Bluepoint could do a good job. They have the technical capability if Demon's Souls is anything to go by.
Agreed. Because of all the bad reviews I waited until the end of last gen to buy it, but was really surprised. The only knocks against it were length and linearity. Really loved the visuals, atmosphere, story, and characters. The gunplay was actually really well done with unique and fun weapons.
You mentioned the photo mode, and this was one of the best examples I have seen. They actually allow you to add filters and modify the visuals in the photo mode, and then apply those to the game. I have never seen that before or since. I really wish more games would allow this. Give the users more control over how the game looks to cater it to their tastes.
Because it’s literally a 5 hr game, yet had the same quality offering of the other AAA Sony games that are tens to hundreds of hours of gameplay.
I used a walkthrough trophy guide for the platinum to not miss any collectibles in one run, it took 8hrs. I thought it was actually a pretty great game, but always wonder why that level of game development didn’t continue for a 15hr single player campaign.
I'm part of the community and I loved it.
I think a lot of the hate was from people who didn't even play it jumping on the bandwagon. Clearly there was the usual hate from xbox fans but also from insecure PC players as the graphics were (still are) phenomenal.
The game is a flawed gem. A new entry on PS5 would have great potential (doubt it will happen though, Sony isn't into risk taking these days).
All the early hate was a people who haven't played it and were quick to call it a QTE game.
I'm an Xbox fan and I'm planning on getting a PS4 pro one day to play this game along with gravity Rush 2 and others.
-"I think a lot of the hate was from people who didn't even play it jumping on the bandwagon."
Can we please stop retreating back such tired defenses? It's had a heavily mixed reception ever since critics PLAYED the game back then, and justifiably so. Even trying to rope in "insecure PC players" just shows how shallow this view actually is.
Ugh, I love this game! But yes, those lycan fights were terribly designed, for real.
Overall though, solid gameplay.
Nope. Specially when they'll most likely be making you pay for future dlc.
are $60 single player only games with little to no replay value justifiable? (there are exception hence i put little to no replay values, before you start wanking about games like skyrim)
Value is justifiable to worth. If you feel that you will get hours in a mp games then IT IS worth it.
also people there is something called renting, neither EA or Respawn locked the game with an online pass.
What kinda question is this? multiplayer games add the most replayability with hundreds of hours of gameplay, single player only games need to justify the price more than a multiplayer only game
example: counter strike
I think it's sad that such questions are even being asked in 2014. Respawn are a small team by today's standards, I'd rather they take their talent and focus it on improving the MP than pulling a Battlefield and having a mediocre single player just to say it's there.
When they have alot of maps, guns, modes, and consistent support from the developer than hell yes it's worth ti, especially considering that multiplayer automatically has higher replay value(if it meets the standards above).