1080°

The Order: 1886 16:9 1080p vs 2.40:1 1920×800 Video and Screenshot Comparison: Pixel Count vs Art

The reveal that The Order: 1886 will most probably be rendered in 1920x800 resolution at a 2.40:1 aspect ratio seem to have bunched quite a few sets of underwear, with people rioting because the game is unlikely to touch the "magical" 1080p, and because of the black bands that many see as a waste of screen estate.

This video and screenshot comparison aims to highlight the pro and cons of Ready at Dawn's artistic choice.

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
TomShoe3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Before anyone gets carried away crying "800p!" Read the story and take a look at the the number of pixels each resolution is rendering.

1920 x 800 = 1,536,000 pixels

1440×900 = 1.296,000 pixels

So cinematic 800p > normal 900p. Weird, right?

OT: I like it, it really feels like you're actually watching a movie as while you're playing an awesome game. The cinematic feel really adds to the dramatic and suspenseful tone Ready at Dawn was aiming for.

abzdine3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

The Order has it ALL!
This is the first game of R@D on PS4! Future looks bright.
I really like the envelope style, brings back the nostalgia from the past.

ZodTheRipper3712d ago

This will end this discussion once and for all :P
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I think RaD should just do what they think is right for their game.

Saigon3712d ago

Man...some are not going to happy to read this; either way RD itself proved why this was the right choice. There is a better aspect ratio when playing the game in this format. Good choice RD.

Boody-Bandit3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

I'm looking forward to trying this game using this format. It will be different and that's what I'm looking for in this new generation. Usually I play my games on a 46 or 55" displays. I will just take this game into my theater and play it on my 120" screen since they are using a cinematic view.

Either way I can't wait to play this game. It looks incredible.

ManyFishToFry3712d ago

I'm not sure why they want to go this route for a videogame. A director for a movie will use various formats because they want a wide panoramic view which does create an art form on screen. But you have to remember that directors are thinking of the audience in the theater where the screen is naturally wide. On home screens I don't think that transfers very well for videogames. People want all the real estate they can get to create that immersion. I fear the black bars will take away from that.

UltimateMaster3712d ago

It would be cool if we had options from which to choose from.
Bu 1080p would probably be the best option.

alexkoepp3712d ago

Whomever made these comparisons chose to chop of the sides of 1920x800, rather than draw in the 280p worth of pixels to make a full 1080p frame. You can tell because there character model gets bigger, instead of remaining the same size. Make the game fullscreen. Movies are already stupid with black bars on top and bottom, the gaming industry should not follow suit. I'm sorry, id play the game fullscreen but if you are going to put in some stupid aspect ratio gimmick, I'm not interested in playing your game.

scott1823712d ago

I thought they were gonna show gameplay of this soon?!?

thejigisup3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

@alexkoepp no one choose to chop anything. If you have a tv or a pc try this experiment on you monitor and just change the aspect ratio a few times and answer me this, who is chopping anything? You don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself before commenting.

sobekflakmonkey3712d ago

resolution scale (basically lowest to greatest):

1024x768
1152x864
1280x720
1280x768
1280x800
1280x960
1280x1024
1360x768
1366x768
1400x1050
1440x900
1600x900
1600x1200
1680x1050
1920x800
1920x1080

Just for your guys' info; 1920x800 is impressive considering how good The Order is looking.

ProjectVulcan3712d ago

Not sure about your maths there sobekflakmonkey...

1600 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050

They are both higher resolutions with more pixels than 1920 x 800 BTW.

1600 x 1200 is actually not far off 1920 x 1080 in terms of size. It is just a different screen ratio.

4:3.

1280 x 1024 is also larger than a couple of the resolutions you posted above it.

yellowgerbil3712d ago

@alex
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Movie aspect Ratios and "bars" are there because TV's have chosen to make a aspect ratio the STANDARD, there is no standard though. Certain movies are greatly enhanced by being in a very wide aspect ratio. It allows for great cinematic shots that a square just can't do justice. If you are old enough to remember pre HD tvs you will remember how boring the composition was due to the awful cropping. Though I highly doubt you're old enough based on you ignorant opinion

TheGreatAndPowerful3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Dat wide viewing angle.

sonypsnow3711d ago

Playstation Now can do 4k resolution.

ShinMaster3711d ago

Wider viewing angle
http://i.imgur.com/Zu2AGmX....
And the game's resolution output is still 1080p.

Full screen looks cut up in comparison. I have a lot of Bluray movies that are wider than 16:9, just like The Order game.

InactiveUser3711d ago (Edited 3711d ago )

A lot of you (above and below this comment) have no business talking about resolution and aspect ratios, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Lnds500 in the comments section of the dualshockers article is correct. Read Lnds500's comments.

Giuseppe Nelva (the article's author) is not showing the difference between 1920x800 and 1920x1080, he has shown a comparison of 1920x800 and 1422x800 (upscaled to 1920x1080).

Giuseppe Nelva cut the sides (498 horizontal pixels) off of the original 1920x800 pictures, resulting in a 1422x800 image that he then upscaled to 1920x800.

A correct comparison would not have cut the sides and stretched the resulting image. The correct comparison would be to show the extra viewable space within the black bars, above and below the original 1920x800 image.. to show the extra 280 vertical pixels.

Meaning you would still have the wider viewing angle of the original, because you can clearly see that exists as the original image. The point is, what is being essentially 'blocked' by the black bars.

You are not gaining a wider viewing angle with 1920x800, you are losing vertical data.

Another point, to people saying this is still 1080p or to ziggurcat below claiming it's "2592 x 1080". This is not 1080p and this is not 2592 x 1080; period. This is 800p (assuming it's progressively scanned) in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio.

1080p (2592x1080) in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio is 2799360 pixels.

This 800p in a 2.4-1 aspect ratio game is 1536000 pixels.

Falsely claiming it is 1080p or 2592 x 1080p is saying that Ready at Dawn is rendering 82.25% more pixels and then downscaling it to fit to 1920x800. I highly doubt this game is being made for 4k tvs and being downscaled to full/standard hdtvs.

Lastly, for disclosure, for people that like to cry when you say something they presume to be 'bad' about Sony.. I only have PS products. PS3/PS4, and a PS Vita (which I never use). Proof for those that still want to disagree instead of learn some facts about aspect ratios, etc. http://psnprofiles.com/JLP-

I just want a good game if I decide to pick this up. If they feel 1920x800 with a more cinematic feel makes the game better, then great.. just don't around claiming 1.2 million extra pixels that don't exist.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 3711d ago
Blaze9293712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

out of curiosity @TomShoe, lol, why did you choose 900p as your comparison comment? Why not 1920 x 1080? You know...what the actual article is comparing?

As for the aspect ratio, it's honestly not bad at 2.40:1 - but I've never played a game like that so it's hard to say how it'll "feel"

hkgamer3712d ago

I think he is trying to say that 800p doesnt mean less pixels then 900p.

But I guess that's not the argument at all. the argument should be, what is the better aspect ratio?

I'm not a big fan of having this super wide aspect ratio, 16:9 is good enough for me and i prefer having my screen filled. I wonder how the screen would look if played on a 4:3 screen, screen must be filled with black borders XD

Dee_913712d ago

Because Xbox one games got crap for being 900p

evs4903712d ago

Blaze929 if you read the article it clearly makes the same comparison TomShoe makes in regards to people thinking 900p is superior.

ziggurcat3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

the common mistake people are making in all of this is they're not considering the *aspect ratio* of the image.

The Order is being rendered at 2.40:1 aspect ratio, and being placed into a standard 16:9 aspect ratio.

If you were to view The Order in full screen, without any black bars, its resolution would be 2592 x 1080 since the game's output resolution is actually 1080p. A quote from the RaD studio head:

"But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p."

http://www.vg247.com/2014/0...

So instead of just cropping the sides off of the image to fit the 1920 horizontal pixel dimension, they're scaling the image to fit the so that they're not sacrificing any of the picture plane, which results in an image size of 1920 x 800.

It's the same thing as a blu-ray movie that's viewed in widescreen on your TV. It's still 1080p despite the black bars because its native aspect ratio is not the same as consumer TVs/monitors.

The other reason why The Order isn't "800p" is because that in order for it to be considered at that resolution, it's native horizontal pixel dimension would have to be smaller than 1920 (something close to 1422 x 800 if you were to maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio). It's why Ryse is 900p - its native pixel dimensions are 1600 x 900, and native 720p games have a native pixel dimension of 1280 x 720.

We know for a fact that the game isn't being upscaled to fit 1920 x 800 because it maintains a 1:1 pixel ratio of a full 1920 x 1080 image.

assdan3712d ago

It's because a lot of xbox idiots are screaming "More powerful? That's a lower res than ryse!" because they don't understand how res works.

CERN3712d ago

Resident Evil 4 had black bars.

TomShoe3712d ago

@Blaze Hk nailed it pretty much spot on.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3712d ago
shivvy243712d ago

Yeah, the game runs at native fullHD but instead of using 1080 it uses 800, not running at 800p

CERN3712d ago

You just don't get it. Doesn't matter if it's 1920*1080 or 1920*800. The part of the image you see is still rendered in full HD. It's not 1920*800 because it's lower resolution but because 140p from the top and 140p from the bottom is covered with black bars. That's what makes a full HD Blu-ray movie.

This is Ready at Dawns first console game, this is there vision, this is there art. They have said it many times, this is a story based linear action gameplay with a cinematic experience that feels like a movie. So I don't know why so many of you are surprised about the aspect ratio. It's what they want in this game, it's what many people want. If you don't like the idea of it, then don't play it. There are millions of other games out there without any black boarders you could chooses to play. Go play them. But leave us to actually enjoy the one game that's like a movie. There are going to be many fans for this game once it comes out.

Mikey322303712d ago

I read an article where the Developers said that they could either do 1080p (Without a lot of Anti-Aliasing) OR they could do 1920x800 with (A ton of Anti-aliasing)

I much much rather have the smoother (no white line jaggies) 1920x800.

DigitalRaptor3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Yep. Ready At Dawn are using 4xMSAA, which would produce an incredibly clean looking game, with very very minimal visual artefacts.

http://www.dualshockers.com...
--

@ sinspirit

Pardon my ignorance. my definition of artifacts must be different to the norm. I meant jaggies.

sinspirit3712d ago

I would love to have the option to turn it off for traditional 1080p. If I don't like it then I'll change it back.

I wonder if they will change the black bars or aspect ratio for those running on below 1080p monitors/TV's.

@DigitalRaptor

Artifacts have nothing to do with anti-aliasing.

ProjectVulcan3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

1440 x 900 is a 16:10 screen ratio.

I'll just point out 'normal' 900p is 1600 x 900 if by 'normal' you mean the screen ratio is 16:9.

I assume that is what you meant because 16:9 is the most common widescreen ratio for TVs. 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080 are both true 16:9 ratio resolutions.

Therefore 1600 x 900 = 1440000 pixels. Slightly less than 1920 x 800.

Personally I would always prefer the full resolution, because it's not a movie no matter how hard it tries. It's a game. So I prefer 1920 x 1080. The more resolution the better for games IMO.

I wouldn't be too upset either way though.

zeuanimals3712d ago

I've played games at 21:9, that's similar to The Order's resolution.

http://i.imgur.com/Zu2AGmX....

It doesn't make it more like a movie, it actually makes it better IMO. The Order can't look like this because most TVs are 16:9 and it will create black bars on them but if you play it on a 21:9 monitor, no black bars.

ProjectVulcan3711d ago (Edited 3711d ago )

My view is that The Order is not a movie, it's a game. Therefore the argument about cinematic quality and style thanks to black bars is not valid in my eyes.

Black bars were never welcome when old ports in the past console eras to PAL systems left some games with them (because of the different resolutions and refresh rates NTSC and PAL systems used.) Most of the time magazines and such decried them as lazy porting, inferior localisation.

Which they were.

Those days might be gone thanks to HDTV standards but a different reason for black bars on a game can't get a different reception i.e positive in my eyes, the result is still the same.

Welshy3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

I personally dislike "cinematic widescreen".

It was first introduced on square 4:3 TV's (which were the norm for younger readers) to bring a a cinema like experience, but when 16:9 widescreen TV's took over, the fact that they were BUILT widescreen removed the need for those black boxes.

It's so frustrating having a widescreen flattened even more by redundant "cinematic" black bars.

Are we going to go one step further and make TV's to THAT ratio, then have black bars on those and repeat the cycle till we have super skinny, super wide 30:0.5 TV's?

It's pointless and annoying, I have a cinematic widescreen TV, do I need widescreen on my widescreen? *insert xzibit meme*

I've been super excited for The Order ever since E3 but that's my 2 cents on this ratio stuff.

hkgamer3712d ago

I feel the same way, if the devs really wanted us to have a cinematic feel with black borders than just have black borders packaged with he box so we can stick it over our Widescreen TV's to give it that feel. :P

ziggurcat3712d ago

"I have a cinematic widescreen TV, do I need widescreen on my widescreen?"

you have a widescreen TV, but you don't have a cinematic widescreen TV.

your TV is 16:9 (or 1.78:1), cinematic widescreen is 2.40:1. That's why you have widescreen on your widescreen - because the movie you're watching wasn't shot at a 1.78:1/16:9 aspect ratio.

And it's like that so that you can see everything that's intended to be on the screen.

morganfell3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

I have to agree with Tom. You do not notice the effect watching the videos in the players. But the minute you expand the player and go full screen, especially on a large monitor (mine is 42) or a big screen TV you get the movie theater presentation.

As it is we have less that 2 days remaining until the embargo lifts on the 18th and the media explodes.

mania5683712d ago

the problem is theres not much as games go with that resolution, people often jump to the conclusion less screen means worst, it is explained that it is better quality than 900p would be but in a smaller screen, maybe its too soon to render games with that quality knowing most people read 800p and start saying 800p is very low and the bars take the experience away.

christrules00413712d ago

There is also things like they are using more Advanced anti aliasing because of the resolution they are choosing.

Ju3712d ago

I don't even know why this is worth a discussion. 1920x800 isn't a "design decision". R@D said, they would go 800p if they use 4xMSAA, else it will be full HD. Those "shots" are useless because they don't account for the difference in AA in either version. "Artistic comparisons" are a waste of time.

Crazyglues3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Wow what a mistake this game company is making...

Forget about Res for a second and just think about which one looks better to play... -Because that's all the gamer is going to care about, and when the picture is bigger it looks better because I can see the detail, when it's smaller in that wider aspect-ratio 2.40:1 it looks like a dam PS3 game..

Yes it has that amazing cinema look and you can see more but it does not matter because you can't see the detail.

This is a huge mistake - trust me, Most people are not playing on a 4k monitors and most gamers are not going to care about cinematic view it adds nothing to the game experience... 16:9 is fine... you don't need 2.40:1, it's a stupid waste.

The only thing that will matter in the end is that when I'm in the closer view I can see the detail on the character, when I'm further away it looks less impressive, that's all Gamers will see at the end of the day..

.____........___...
.____||......||.......|___||
||.........___||............ ||

thejigisup3712d ago

Sit closer to your tv. Problem solved?

Crazyglues3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Or Maybe I don't understand what we are comparing here, then?

.____........___...
.____||......||.......|___||
||.........___||............ ||

Jack_Reacher3712d ago

Nice to see another person who thinks he speaks for the rest of us.

Guess what. You dont

strifeblade3712d ago

He is right and I think the same thing. It's great if they can enhance quality of the image but when.they reduce screen size how are we going to notice a better or clearer image when screen size is reduced? Becomes difficult to notice. Ppl will now have to get a larger screen or sit closer to the TV to notice the quality upgrade. Those of us with small tvs are even more screwed.

I'm no development.but why don't they go 900p upscale 1080 with 4xmsaa

gigoran3712d ago

Just go enjoy your xbone and leave us to play our superior games.

mixelon3712d ago

Ok.. That doesn't make a lick of sense. How does having a black bar at the top/bottom decrease detail, exactly? They'll obviously frame things so you can see them fine.

rainslacker3711d ago

The letterboxing effect is hardly noticeable when playing, although I suppose now since everyone is making a big deal about it, people are going to notice.

Beyond: Two Souls had letterboxing(not sure the aspect, and it was done for cinematic effect. Everything in the game is made to fit in the chosen aspect ration. Someone above said one of the resident evil games had it, never recall anyone making a fuss about it and it's the first I've heard of it.

If you have a fairly small screen, say 42" or less, then I could maybe agree with you if you sit far away from it, but above that, the picture will be plenty big. There are many movies that come out in this ration and most people don't have a problem with it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3711d ago
Kribwalker3712d ago

It's funny how there aren't flocks of xbox fanboys in here trashing the ps4 games lack of resolution. Maybe ps4 fanboys can learn a thing or two

morganfell3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

You're here. All it takes is one look at your post history to realize the fact of who you are. What you posted is in reality a very poor attempt to stealth troll.

Kribwalker3712d ago

I'm not here bashing the fact that it's 800p like you guys do on every Xbox one post, I'm not here bashing it at all, I'm here saying "it's pretty nice we aren't bashing on your games like you guys like to bash on ours" that's all. It's not like it's a positive titanfall post or anything

thejigisup3712d ago

When you say 'we' do you mean xbox fanboys or do you mean gamers? And why is it funny?

morganfell3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

No you didn't directly attack Sony, you attacked it's supporters. Mainly because you feel hurt over the fact the X1 is nowhere near as capable a system and with every game it is being realized that Microsoft was quite deceptive in their promotion of it's capabilities.

So instead you aim your attempt at Sony supporters (instead of MS, the people with whom you should be upset) And you actually believe you are being quite sly in your methodology but it is a transparent as as glass. Everyone sees it for what it is. A poorly executed attempt to stealth troll.

All of this is machts nichts anyway as there are less than 48 hours before the NDA embargo lifts and people see The Order. All of these excuse arguments and apologist pieces over graphics not mattering will suddenly become the stuff of deserved ridicule.

aerisbueller3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Game fanboys, and console fanboys have some knowledge of how graphics work. On my PC, I would personally sacrifice a little fps to get better effects, shadows, model and texture detail, etc. This is a compromise developers must do as well. Choosing what they care about more, more amazing graphics, or higher framerate. You'd have to be blind if you think that TitanFall has as much an excuse to not be higher res, and higher framerate as the Order does. Doesn't even look like the same console generation.

The power gap is big enough that it matters, period, graphically. Enough that every game journalist, gamer, reviewer, dev knows it and feels the need to mention it. It's also fun for people who enjoy this console war thing to pile on all the earned 'I told you so's built up from last year, when we pointed out that all those shaders, clock cycles, ram gigs, and Mhz would add up, and when we pointed out every step of the way what a farce MS was pulling over your eyes.

And while desperate xbox fans pretend ps4 fans are hypocrites for being excited about a game that looks this good and runs 'only' at 30fps, because it's worth it, the real hypocrisy is all the xboxers who suddenly feel like graphics don't matter. It seems they came to that realization at around the same time it became clear that ps4 was the winner in that category

scott1823712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Show me any exclusive X1 game using 4xMLAA at 1920x800... Ready at dawn could easily reduce the anti aliasing and make the game 1080p. You have no argument for the resolution debate here.

" there aren't flocks of xbox fanboys in here trashing the ps4 games lack of resolution"

Because they would get trashed on with all the examples of higher res on ps4 and lack of it on x1 and they know it, honestly PS4 fans have much more ammo in the argument. You think the usual xbox trolls are staying away out of the goodness of their heart?

Kribwalker3712d ago

Or it's because we are all to busy playing the titanfall beta. And as much as you like to think otherwise, Ryse has (other then the same bad guys models over and over) the best looking graphics of all the launch title games. That point has been expressed by multiple game websites and developers, not just Xbox fans. And really don't care about who has better resolutions ect, I typically buy all consoles so I can play all the exclusives I want to play. My psn is the same as my xbox gamer tag which is the same as my username here. I'm just trying to point out how rediculous it is when every positive xbox article gets lambasted by sony fanboys and every positive playstation article isn't lambasted the same way. Just stick to ps4 articles if that's what you are interested in, don't try to be a troll on every positive xbox article

morganfell3712d ago

Do you even know the meaining of the word irony?

strifeblade3712d ago

He is right. Go to a titanfall article nothing but trolls. This article- seems the xbox community can care less- no intrest in trolling becausevwe have better things to.do

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3712d ago
mikel10153712d ago

Why would you ever want a cinematic widescreen? It just cuts off your ability to see more of the game. It's not a movie, stop trying to make it one -__-

BlackCountryBob3712d ago

It's not trying to be a movie, it's just that it is in cinemas where it is used most. A 2.35 ratio will mean that the environment and the surroundings will be on more of the screen rather than the player, ultimately it will make the scale of the world grander and more awe inspiring by makings he character smaller and thus more vulnerable.

Think Lawrence of Arabia for the effect

Jack_Reacher3712d ago

but its not your game to tell them what to do or how to make it. So. . .

why don't you stop telling people who are not listening or don't care what to do.

you might not want cinematic widescreen, some of us do.

No one is making you buy the game on its release

mixelon3712d ago

Compositionally it doesn't - it can allow for a wider horizontal field of view, which makes sense for some games. Particularly third person shooters having extra sideways space sounds great.

It could get annoying if there's a lot of vertical motion though but im guessing they've that of that!

Zhipp3712d ago

Actually, true 16:9 900p is 1600x900(1,440,000 pixels). 1440x900 has a more narrow 16:10 aspect ratio, wish afaik is only used on pc monitors. So yeah, this so called "800p" has more pixels, but the disparity isn't as big as you suggest.

SharnOfTheDEAD3712d ago

Blending Gaming with true Cinematic feel is an interesting choice. I expect this game to provide a unique experience for sure.

Sayai jin3712d ago

Don't care...this games looks awesome. It seems like every game is scrutinized these days beyond belief.

BallsEye3712d ago

I personally hate black bars even in the movies. I bought that 50 inch TV for a reason. Want the whole real estate of my screen to be used.

asyouburn3712d ago

16:9 TVs have been bullshit from the start as far as movies are concerned. Movies have been shot in 235 for way longer than 16x9 TVs have been on the market. Blame tv manufacturers

SaturdayNightBeaver3712d ago

But, do you wanna watch a movie or play a game with your full control ?

fanboysmackdown3712d ago

I'm sure glad I play games and not numbers like most of you.

Tzuno3712d ago

so this is the base excuse for any Sony fan-boy now when he faces the truth about the ps4? i thought it is almighty and does 1080p on everything and even Kojima told that has room to spare when it does 1080p. in your face fan-boys in your face, now wait until it does 30 fps and next time STFU. Enjoy you laptop.

gedapeleda3712d ago

I still have hopes that 16:10 becomes standart everywhere

Akuma073712d ago

Anyone who gets carried away about 800p is a moron themselves. The game is being rendered at 1080p.

MrSwankSinatra3712d ago

i dont want to watch a movie, i want to play a game.

Elimin83712d ago

Oh yeah.. 2.40:1 it is then... Can't wait for this.

nerdman673712d ago

People just need to stop obsessing over everything being 1080p and 60fps. It is nice, but isnt always necessary.

showtimefolks3712d ago

i just want to play games man whether its 1920-1080 or 1920-800

most developers will try to do what they think is best for the game. Next gen all i hear is 1080P-60FPS, come on we play the games for fun. If a game is 1080P yet boring will it matter that's its 1080P

just enjoy games. As long as we can achieve 720P-30FPS i am happy

ITPython3712d ago

Yeah, too many just see the last part of the resolution and think, only 800p? But BOTH the horizontal resolution and vertical resolution is key in actual pixel counts.

Heck, even if it was 480p (1920x480) it would have the exact same pixel count as 720p (1280x720). But just looking at the last part, 480p, people would immediately think it was significantly less than 720p even though it would be identical in terms of pixel numbers.

IMO, it's probably best to only use terms like 720p or 1080p when the horizontal resolution is as we expect (meaning 1920x1080 or 1280x720). If it's not a standard resolution, the entire resolution should be indicated. Because just saying something is 900p or 800p means absolutely nothing without knowing the horizontal resolution.

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ3712d ago

900p on Ryse is 1600x900 BTW which is 1,440,000 , oh and I know I will get disagrees for being right, but just look it up if you are doubting :)

come_bom3712d ago

So much fuss... Why not give the option to the gamer. Let the player choose if he wants to play The Order: 1886 at 16:9 1080p or 2.40:1 1920×800... and everything is resolved.

JsonHenry3712d ago

Its coming out for a console. Why is anyone in 2014 surprised by news like this?

I will always happily embrace a higher native resolution. But if it comes at the cost of better lighting, post processing effects, texture resolution, or on screen details then I will be more than happy to take a cut to the native resolution.

Pon43711d ago

Game looks horrible won't be buying this garbage

Bathyj3711d ago

Having the extra wide screen lets them pull the camera back further so you see more on the sides. It is not simply taking the picture and chopping the top and bottom off as some seem to think.

The best way to describe it would be if you were looking at a wall in 16:9 and you could see the wall 16 feet wide and 9 feet high, in 2.40:1 you would still see the wall 9 feet high still but you would see it about 22 feet (my best guess) wide.

Have a look at the picture with the chairs. In the wide one you can clearly see a lot of extra room to the right of the chair. In the narrow one the chair is right on the edge of the picture. Thats the difference and what it means in a shooter is youre going to have much wide peripheral vision, meaning you will see enemies appear earlier when coming from the side.

imt5583711d ago (Edited 3711d ago )

Guys, buy a 2.40 : 1 or 21 : 9 aspect ratio and you will not have black bars!

http://www.rtings.com/image...

Btw. WELCOME TO NEXT-GEN

Xboner's, 720p thread is here. Go there and stay there :

http://forums.n4g.com/Xbox-...

Chapter113711d ago

Why do game developers always feel the need to ape movies and why do gamers think video games should be movies? They're two separate mediums, I don't want my video games to be like movies, I want my video games to be like video games.

Edsword3711d ago

While I'm still very excited about this game, I'm not going to defend RaD decision. The game should render at the resolution that fills the screen. I feel really bad for people who game on anything less than a 32 in screen because the image is going to be so small. I game on 46 in TV. You are losing more than 25% of the screen area. It's not too bad on 46 in TV, but the smaller the screen the more annoying it will likely become. 16:9 is a compromise between the theatre and home and I feel it serves it's purpose really well. I do not feel I'm losing out when movies have 16:9 ratios. Still it is RaD's decision Nd while I'm skeptical, if they feel it is the best experience they should go with it.

+ Show (32) more repliesLast reply 3711d ago
djplonker3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

I dont mind the resolution the ps4 has proved it is more powerful than its competitors and can easily handle 1080p but if the devs would prefer another resolution then all the power to them!

alexkoepp3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Funny the Ryse developers said 900p was their preferred resolution, and a design decision - though I'm sure it only works when a ps4 game chooses a different resolution in your mind. PS4 has proven to be the more powerful console ill give you that. But the Xbox one has also proven it can graphically best its competition as it did with Ryse.

I do own both games and Ryse is the better looking game. Hard to compare since the games settings are so different, but go to similar scenes and Ryse definitely looks better.

http://i59.tinypic.com/6f6w...

Zhipp3712d ago

Lol, I have to give you a thumbs up for actually posting proof that you own both consoles. I disagree with the content of your post, however. I think The Order looks a little better, and with all the crazy physics they have going on, I'm sure it's much more demanding.

Still, props to you. Haha

djplonker3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Yeah but ryse is a linear ex360 kinect game that has a 4 hour campaign so it is unfair to compare them!

zebramocha3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

@alex No,it's not funny because they could reach 1080p where ryse isn't even in the same ball park as the order.

@dj the order is linear too.

Shakengandulf3712d ago

What game exactly are you comparing, because as far as i know.. The order hasn't even got a release date whether alone be released.. Ryse is also upscaled from 900p ( upscaling introduces a slightly blurry screen) unless they want an even lower frame rate..

"The order" wont be upscaled and they have the choice of 1080p.. I'm not seeing the same situation here.
Having said that, i'd pick black bars 1920x800 over 900p upscaled any day.

aerisbueller3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

graphically best it's competition? I must've missed the release of Ryse for PS4. Also 900p upscaled is not the same as 1080p cropped. Lastly, I don't think Ryse was a big deal for being 900p, because it actually looks like it belongs in this gen. Tomb Raider and Titanfall...not so much.

Rayansaki3712d ago

That makes no sense. A lower resolution is never a design option, it's a compromise. They felt that a lower resolution with more post processing was preferable to keeping the game 1080p and with inferior effects, because the hardware was not capable of having both. A different Aspect ratio CAN BE a design choice however.

There is no reason to believe in this case that it is a compromise. Ready at dawn have mentioned several times that 24:10 was their preferred aspect ratio for this title. It allows for higher FoV without weird effects on the corners, and it allows for more interesting shots that can be used for better story telling. And that means that the resolution will have to be lower vertically for it to be so. (Would make no sense for them to render at 1080p and then squeeze the image) Doesn't mean it doesn't afford them advantages in terms of performance, but it's obviously a design choice rather than a compromise.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3712d ago
KakashiHotake3712d ago

I like the 1920x800 look. It gives the game a more cinematic look and feel and actually matches the tone of the game. I say they should go for it.

Pekka3712d ago

Those bars only make screen smaller, it has absolutely nothing to do with cinematic feel. In fact, those bars make game look LESS cinematic and worse to play. Actually, the only reason they choose 1920x800 is because they can't do 1080p fluidly, that "cinematic" feel is an excuse. Yes, there is no other reason.

Pelmete3712d ago

True that. Can't believe fanboys believe that "cinematic experience" BS. 800p<1080p. Funny when PS4 gets the better resolution games than xbox one then all the fanboys say that it's better to have 1080p but when PS4 gets 800p instead of 1080p then it's all right because hurr durr cinematic... God, fanboys are stupid.

JackVagina3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

Only make the screen smaller? it also makes the view wider. witch looks awesome imo, i prefer 2.40:1

http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.c...

http://cdn2.dualshockers.co...
http://cdn2.dualshockers.co...

People need to understand how aspect ratio works...

"the only reason they choose 1920x800 is because they can't do 1080p" Thats not true at all, the game has 4x AA, all they would need to do is lower the AA and 1080p will be easy to reach

WickedLester3712d ago

Most TV's allow you to manually put a 2.40:1 movie in 16:9 mode. If it bothers you that much you can always manually "force" the game into 16:9 mode.

Bathyj3712d ago

Yes, because there are no fluid games on PS4 at 1080p.

Yes that was sarcasm.

I don't know what's worse, that you actually believe that or that people agreed with you.

Either way, I enjoyed reading your comment because it makes me feel smart.

LKHGFDSA3712d ago

WickedLester, last time I tried that with a movie alot of things got cut off on the sides. People would stand half off the screen in scenes.

Ju3712d ago

They can do 1080p - but not with 4xMSAA. FXAA or 2xMSAA should do just fine.

Rayansaki3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

If that were true then why wouldn't they just make it 900p? It would be 16:9 and it would actually even be lower res, so they could get better performance out of it.

Fact is, their resolution allows for a wider field of view without any stretching or squeezing, which makes for more interesting shots. It's the same reason it's used in a lot of movies. Indians specifically are big fans of the format and bollywood's standard is actually 2.35:1

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3712d ago
thejigisup3712d ago

I agree the devs want you to see more on screen rather than up close.@wickedlester you are correct most tvs will allow you to change it if you don't like the aspect ratio it is in and @lkhgfdsa @bathyj you too are correct a Ton of stuff is going to get pushed off the screen. The developers want you to see and experience more, they could just zoom out but honestly that would look like crap.
Read the article people, play with the aspect ratio on you tvs or monitors and really see which one looks better or feels better. I'll definitely say that not every thing looks better in a 16:9 or 2.4:1 but some things do benefit from a different aspect ratio which is why directors, developers, photographers even bother with them in the first place. Leave it too the professionals, if you don't like their ratio you can change it on your tv but you will lose what they were trying to show you in the first place.

Omran3712d ago

looks interesting
18th of february can't
come closer !!!

can't wait

OrangePowerz3712d ago

It's the same picture quality as 1080p only difference is that the pixel count is lower because of the black bars, but the quality is the same. It's just taking a 1080p picture and adding borders on the top and bottom.

Not surr yet how I feel about this cinematic view since I prefer to have the full picture and no borders.

palaeomerus3712d ago

And those borders subtract about 25% of the pixels to render.

1920x 800 =1,536,000
1920x 1080 =2,073,600

800/1080 =.7407 -> 74.07% of the pixels being rendered compared to a 1080p image.

If you kept your FOV setting and rendered those pixels cut off by the bars you'd have more floor and ceiling in the shots and probably fewer effects and possibly a lower frame rate but you'd still see everything. They didn't make the picture wider in pixels to include more stuff, and they aren't filming a real thing. They are just not rendering the top and bottom strips. So it's not like they stretched anything, to include more horizontal space in the shot. They just limited the vertical by omitting the top and bottom strips. It's more like they laid a frame that obscures the top and bottom of the image so that it doesn't need to be rendered.

Shakengandulf3712d ago

Ok after watching those videos, I'm lost.
Both aspects are showing the same game vertically but in the 1080p shot, the game is actually rendering less horizontally. I thought the blacks bars meant that we should be seeing less on the top and bottom? But In fact we see the same amount.. With extra on the sides? Am i wrong or are these videos wrong?

Rayansaki3712d ago (Edited 3712d ago )

@Shakengandulf

Technically it isn't wrong, but it isn't right either. In this specific case, the author of the article did not have access to art rendered at full 1080p, so the only way to visually display the difference was to cut the sides of the 2.35:1 image. On the other hand, it isn't necessarily true to say that 2.35:1 displays less vertically. It all depends on how it's shot.

But generally, assuming it's shot from the same place and the number of pixels was the same, 2.35:1 would show more to the sides and less vertically compared to 16:9

In this particular case, the 16:9 resolution that would have the closest amount of pixels to The Order would be 1664*936.

So, assuming the game was rendered at 1664*936, with a lower FoV to compensate for the less wide ratio and it wasn't stretched, it would have about the same information as at 1920*800, but slightly more on top and bottom, and slightly less on the sides. And instead of 2 black bars, you would have 4, but all smaller than the ones The Order has.

The difference is that the 16:9 image can be stretched to hide the black bars, while keeping the same ratio, while the 2.35:1 can't.

Show all comments (247)
350°

The Order: 1886 pushed visuals hard in 2015 - And still looks stunning today

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.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
VenomUK250d ago

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.

shadowT251d ago

Sony missed the opportunity to acquire Ready at Dawn Studios.

Tacoboto251d ago

But... Sony didn't want Ready at Dawn. Clearly

mkis007250d ago

I'm guessing had 1886 turned out more positively they would have.

RaidenBlack251d ago

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...

isarai251d ago

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

Tacoboto251d ago

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"

MrChow666250d ago (Edited 250d ago )

"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

MrChow666250d ago

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

thorstein250d ago

And there we glowing reviews for shorter games. It was one of the times where hating this game was "cool."

CrimsonWing69251d ago

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.

isarai251d ago

Sorry, not multiplayer, open world is what I meant.

Tacoboto251d ago

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)

isarai251d ago

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

Tacoboto251d ago

That's your own contortion assuming criticism of its extremely linear design is suddenly a call for it to have been open world.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 251d ago
zumlauf14250d ago

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.

isarai250d ago

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

Rude-ro250d ago

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.

thorstein250d ago

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.

Minute Man 721250d ago

It was just too short....but I loved every minute of it....double dipped and grabbed the ultimate CE

babadivad250d ago

That isn't true. I remember people talking about how incredibly short it was and the somewhat janky gunplay.

KwietStorm_BLM250d ago

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 250d ago
anast251d ago

People cried this game was too short. No people are crying because games are too long.

isarai251d ago

Pretty sure everyone is complaining about bloated games lately but ok

anast251d ago

Thank you for the ok. I needed that.

RaidenBlack251d ago

Games like Ubisoft open worlds not enjoyable lengthy games like Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate III

anast250d ago

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".

Show all comments (50)
230°

The Curious Case of The Order: 1886 - A Retrospective

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?

Read Full Story >>
lordsofgaming.net
moriarty1889717d ago

Wanted a sequel for this game so much. It was left wide open for one with the ending it had.

porkChop716d ago

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.

REDGUM716d ago

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.

Ninver716d ago

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.

barom716d ago

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.

monkey602716d ago

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.

S2Killinit716d ago

I really enjoyed it. I was hoping for a game in the same world but less linear. With lots of that sweet lore.

YoungKingDoran716d ago

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..

moriarty1889716d ago

Agreed. Such an interesting title just abandoned. Makes no sense. As I said the ending of the game sets up for a sequel perfectly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 716d ago
porkChop716d ago

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

robtion716d ago

I think Bluepoint could do a good job. They have the technical capability if Demon's Souls is anything to go by.

MeatyUrologist716d ago

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.

uth11716d ago

This was a weird one in that the community hated the game but also demanded a sequel

SonyStyled716d ago

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.

robtion716d ago

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).

Eidolon716d ago

All the early hate was a people who haven't played it and were quick to call it a QTE game.

AuraAbjure716d ago

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.

coolbeans716d ago

-"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.

716d ago
Shiore2u716d ago (Edited 716d ago )

Can't ever forget those terribly designed lycan fights.

ClayRules2012716d ago

Ugh, I love this game! But yes, those lycan fights were terribly designed, for real.

Overall though, solid gameplay.

Show all comments (37)
540°

Sony Files A New Trademark For The Order: 1886

The Order: 1886 has received a new trademark filed by Sony. The trademark application is for a video game, implying that they want to extend it.

Read Full Story >>
novicegamerguides.com
zsquaresoff852d ago

I hope they give this game another chance, it had an incredible story and gameplay, It was just unfortunate that the game length was extremely short.

Magog852d ago

The team that made it was bought by Facebook. I don't see why they would continue the series with a new team rather than just make a new IP.

Neonridr852d ago

I guess it's still possible that another studio could take another swing at it. But yeah, Ready at Dawn was bought by Facebook.

darthv72852d ago

would be cool to see an oculus version.

CrimsonWing69851d ago

It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Bungie and 343 come to mind with Halo.

Magog851d ago

@CrimsonWing69 the difference is Halo was still successful. In my mind they should have put the series to rest when the original creators got tired of it but Microsoft love to flog the series so there you go.

ALMGNOON851d ago

am pretty sure Sony owns the IP so that doesn't matter at all.

GamingSinceForever851d ago

So what other great games has that studio produced since being bought by Facebook?

Magog851d ago

@GamingSinceForever they made Lone Echo a well received VR game.

Lord_Sloth851d ago

The team was, but that doesn't mean all of them left Sony. It's entirely possible that several of the employees still work for Sony.

Rhythmattic851d ago (Edited 851d ago )

"The team that made it was bought by Facebook."
Yes.. Not the IP...
Personally, The IP has soooo much potential for exploration.......If done right.....
Which brings me to your post... Unlike FB... Sorry, Meta.... A team is not IP, and with an even better team working on such said IP, It could be a winner...

Def wont be 1886 infinite,

deleted851d ago

Exactly @Rhythmattic Could you imagine if The Order was handed over to a studio like Santa Monica?! The Order 1886 set up a really nice setting and lore... now the idea could be pushed to the next level by one of Sony's high tier studios. It may be too much to ask to get one of the big dogs on it, but one can dream.

It could even work out that someone like Santa Monica create a smaller team just for creative vision, then hand over the busy work of building that world to one of their subsidiaries like the newly acquired Valkyrie Entertainment, which specializes in high tier support work.

Magog851d ago (Edited 851d ago )

@Lord_Sloth Readyatdawn were never owned by Sony so no, none of their employees stayed with Sony. Order 1886 was a second party game funded by Sony but developed by an outside company.

Neonridr851d ago

@GamingSinceForever - Lone Echo and its sequel are some of the better VR games out there with a great story and some awesome VR integration. The second game only came out in October of this year, so it will be some time before we see their next project.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 851d ago
_SilverHawk_852d ago

Hopefully playstation-5 will have a sequel to the order 1886.

FlavorLav01852d ago

Please let one of the big boys take a swing at it and slay us with an awesome game. Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Sony Santa Monica, and Sony Bend could all do this IP justice.

Magog852d ago

Why would any of Sony's teams want to take their time and resources to work on another studios unsuccessful IP instead of their own unique ideas? Generally speaking Sony doesn't assign their top teams games to make they let them make what they want and are passionate about.

senorfartcushion851d ago

It’ll be just to hold on to the rights. They’re not making a new one. A remaster in 5 years is most likely, but until then, no.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 851d ago
FlavorLav01852d ago

If it had been marketed correctly as a strong narrative experience and sold for $30-40 instead of full price, the game would’ve big a huge success and we’d have guaranteed sequels. Loved the game, hope more from this IP is on the way.

Rhythmattic851d ago

It def cut corners though.. The Wolf fights where copy and pasted, the gun mechanics, decent... But the World was what made it... Maybe your standard gun mechanics, but never the guns....

The round table needs to be fleshed out....

ChasterMies852d ago (Edited 852d ago )

Short games are ok with me. Everyone loves the Titanfall 2 campaign and it was only about 5 hours. The issue is gameplay, and frustrating controls that did not need to be frustrating. Other than that, the look and feel was fantastic.

porkChop851d ago

Titanfall 2 also had an excellent multiplayer mode though. As excellent as the campaign was, no one would have paid full price for just that.

Ramboforlife852d ago

Totally agree. If it was a 20-30 hour campaign, it would have sold very well. It deserves another chance.

Livingthedream851d ago

Nah it had mediocre to terrible reviews. Don’t really know anyone who actually loved the game, but there was potential. They should give it another go same studio. Lol

Rude-ro851d ago

This is not that type of game.
I can not think of a single story driven game that does not have endless fetch quests in a forced open world type game that comes close to 20 hours.

Let’s be realistic…
Either way, the game had issues that can easily be remedied and make for an amazing sequel and I hope it happens.

senorfartcushion851d ago

It was good but had a terrible
Cliffhanger. An actual second half would have skyrocketed the game’s status. TLOU 2 was over 30 hours long for some people.

porkChop851d ago

It really just needed to be twice as long. I can put up with super linear, tightly scripted gameplay as long as I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. But the game was so short with little replay value. And the length prevented the lore from being properly realized.

I'm interested as long as they can flesh out the length. Possibly open up the gameplay slightly without detracting from the movie-like scripting.

-Foxtrot851d ago

Yeah I really liked the overall world and Sir Galahad

(SPOILERS)

Having Werewolves and then vampires opened it up to so many possibilities, who's to say other mythical beasts couldn't be introduced.

EmperorDalek851d ago

The story was good until it ended on a cliff hanger, I wouldn't call it incredible. The gameplay was dreadful. I would like to see an improved sequel however.

itsmebryan851d ago

@zsquare

Maybe I'm missing something but, wasn't that game panned after much hype as not very good and poor gameplay? Metacritic is 63% and user rating of 6.7 and by no means consider a hit.
Actually a new developer could be good for the game.

Flewid638851d ago

Limited gameplay mechanics too but I REALLY enjoyed what was there.

alb1899851d ago

Yep, I always liked the atmosphere and characters of this game. I think it can be a really good game if they put emphasis on the gameplay.

DarXyde851d ago (Edited 851d ago )

I don't know if I would say the gameplay was "incredible." The lore was fine and the weapons were awesome (and truly a standout visually, no questions asked). I'm impressed they got a game looking this good to run in such a stable condition when you consider the tech last gen. I only played it on base PS4, and that was really a marvel.

But that all said, the gameplay didn't stand out for me at all. Felt like a pretty standard affair and, as you said, the length was pretty short. Granted, I got it on sale for $12, so I don't feel bad about that purchase. It didn't really linger so the point was really to tell the story they wanted to tell, which I can respect.

I also hope they give it another chance, but I would prefer if they really made it stand out. There's a ton of creative talent over at PlayStation, so if Ready at Dawn had learned from the shortcomings of the first game and they're willing to solicit feedback from PlayStation studios, it has great potential.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 851d ago
NovusTerminus852d ago (Edited 852d ago )

I really want another one, I bought it day one zero regrets. I enjoyed it a lot and has lots of room for a sequel.

HOWEVER

USPTO policy is that a trademark only be updates with visual proof once every ten years after initial filing, and since the game is still for sale on the PlayStation Network it is likely just a paper work error that will be corrected so that they can continue selling the game digitally.

RaidenBlack852d ago

Yea ... I initially though this might be for a near-future res+fps boost and/or a PC port, paving way for 1887.

GhostofHorizon852d ago

It was a really good game but there was a ton of room for improvement all around. If they had another crack at it, it could be something special.

Eidolon851d ago

A lot of games before and since have made absolutely shameless attempts at making a great experience that ended up falling short. This game gets the worst of it because of hype. And it's actually has really good narrative and gameplay. Tell me one thing NOW that it did wrong that other games aren't doing. Tell me.

BenRC01851d ago

I really like it, bought the special edition years after release, expecting an average game but was very pleasantly surprised

Relientk77852d ago

I really liked the concept, but the game wasn't perfect. It definitely had some flaws. The graphics not being one, they were insane. The coolest guns in the game were only usable for a short period of time. I believe there were like 2 werewolf fights that were basically identical which people pointed out. I'd love for the series to get another shot.

masterfox852d ago

hope there is a sequel, first one was and still is stunning from every aspect, from gameplay, visuals , music, etc, you name it, it literally the whole game is realtime cgi!, imagine what a PS5 can do to it!

Show all comments (88)