230°

Why It's Ok to Be a Little Disappointed That The Order 1886 Won't Feature Multiplayer

Pixel Critique writes: Actually, that phrase tacked on kind of bothers me in this instance. It’s one of many that people have to be careful to not make generalities regarding, and immediately assign it a negative connotation.

There have been many games which tacked on a multiplayer mode that may have not been brilliant game changers, but did lend the title a hefty amount of additional play time that ended up rounding out the experience. Uncharted 2 and Max Payne 3 are good examples of this.

Read Full Story >>
pixelcritique.com
staticdash224162d ago

No, it's up to developers to come up with ways to add replay ability to single player games. The game has changed, and narrative driven games have to evolve because it's a natural part of this industry.

What about adding multiple pathways in and out of levels? Add collectibles like dossiers. Promote some exploration/discover ability so players want to interact with the environment and with NPCs. There are lots of ways to promote replayable nature in narrative driven games than generic team deathmatch modes. It's time developers use their heads in that way.

Angels37854162d ago

There should be an article with the title

"Why no one cares that the order doesn't have multiplayer"

I know I don't.

Thatguy-3104162d ago (Edited 4162d ago )

"Can't wait to get my hands on the multi-player" wasn't a thought that popped in my head when watching the E3 trailer. Heck I rather have an amazing experience with the SP more than anything. Multi-player could work for this game but am I disappointed? No simply because I wasn't expecting it. Most likely for future installments they could work on it but for now I respect their choice for not including it. People just want to whine about any little thing. Sony exclusives always put SP upfront which I enjoy

MysticStrummer4162d ago

I couldn't care less about no multiplayer. Too many games have it tacked on.

Eonjay4162d ago

We don't even know what the game is about and people are complaining that it doesn't have multiplayer. There are a group of people who believe that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is the original video game and that all games are to be variation of this title.

Vegamyster4162d ago

We haven't seen any gameplay yet, can't really say if i'd care for it or not.

fenome4162d ago

I'm antisocial, and I could give a rats ass about online multiplayer. I love split-screen though, so me and my girl can play, that might've been cool.

We haven't even seen the damn game in action yet though, the 18-19th, whatever it is, needs to hurry up already. I'm stoked to see more on this, it looks phenomenal!

solar4162d ago

i agree mate. not every game needs MP. i really hate the shift from SP to every game needs MP. the industry is shifting that way...but imo the SP game can hold its' own still in this market.

Outside_ofthe_Box4162d ago

It's all about whether the developers wants it in or not. If a dev adds multiplayer to a game just because "it's the thing to do nowadays" or because they're forced to do it, the MP will be bad anyway and people would be complaining about that instead.

kreate4162d ago

Its like when they added MP to bioshock 2...

Horrible idea.

Ppl complained that MP shouldn't of been added.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4162d ago
lifeisgamesok4162d ago

I can't fathom the thought of why people wouldn't want added replay value through multiplayer

Wait yes i can, this is a PS4 title so people just say "It doesn't need it"

If you can't see this game being better with co-op you're probably being bias

Eonjay4162d ago

You make it sound like no PlayStation exclusives have multiplayer. When did multiplayer become the only thing that mattered in every game?

MysticStrummer4162d ago

Yeah it couldn't be that someone just doesn't care about multiplayer, especially when most people last gen didn't take their consoles online and most games didn't have local co-op. You're really onto something there, or maybe just on something.

karl4162d ago (Edited 4162d ago )

maybe they thought co op would take from the experience...

its pretty easy to get out of character while playing a game with a friend..

can u imagine playing the last of us and ellie being your best pal talking to u?

dude dude dude....

i cant take a game seriously like that, haha im sorry.

Baka-akaB4162d ago (Edited 4162d ago )

lifeisgamesok

You're the kind of people , aka nasty fanboy , making it about a particular console instead of caring about gaming as a whole .

There has been droves of people complaining when their franchises turned up with MP for no real reasons whatever the platform involved ... and almost all of those tacked mp ressources failed to impress and retain people .. Only a few exceptions .

Or are you going to pretend you shed a tears when Bioshock Infinite became SP only ?

Master-H4162d ago (Edited 4162d ago )

I could say the same for the absence of single player in Titanfall but you definitely wouldn't agree, considering your fanboy logic.

OT: game definitely doesn't need it, i never even touch the mp in Uncharted games, having mp just for the sake of having mp would ruin a part of the charm of the game imo.

fenome4162d ago

I don't like people, and that has nothing to do with the PS4. I like split-screen so I can play with people sitting next to me, but honestly I don't care about online multiplayer.

It's cool when you can just speak for yourself and not just think you're right because you try to lump a bunch of people into it all at once. This fanboy stereotyping crap is annoying. Why don't you just speak how you feel?

At least if you're gonna "quote" somebody, try actually quoting somebody. "It doesn't need it" was a quote you just made up because it's on PS4. It's called trolling and that's why you have one bubble..

DigitalRaptor4162d ago (Edited 4162d ago )

Oh right, you mean to say that this is something that is unique to PS4 fans this generation? It's obvious who the people are who care about the utmost quality of a game and what its creators want from it, rather than frothing at the mouth because a game doesn't offer them the value they personally want.

I care about the quality of a game over how much playtime I expect to receive, because after all, memories are shaped from the experience, not the amount of time I spend playing something. And it's not like a great number of PS4 games actually have or will have multiplayer and co-op, is it?

You're trying far too hard to try to and attach unfounded negativity to a certain fanbase.

I wonder if you are going to complain about Quantum Break not having multiplayer, and more added value. Well, of course you're not, cause that's on your console of choice and on your much anticipated list.

Destrania4162d ago (Edited 4162d ago )

I don't play games for MP over SP EVER, but when Playstation exclusives do have MP, it's always unique, creative, and addictive in ADDITION to outstanding and memorable SP experiences imo. I.e. TLoU, GoW:Ascension, Uncharted, Motorstorm, etc. Do I think The Order could benefit from having a great MP component? Yes. Is it necessary or warrented however? No. I play games for SP first and foremost. The Witcher 3 among many other games coming out is another example of this. Who knows what RaD will do for future projects, but for now, I'm unbeleivably excited for The Order.

solar4162d ago

Bioshock Infinite was a fantastic game, my GOTY last year and it didnt have MP. replay value is an overrated virtue. MP imo is another way to make you pay more for a game you have already purchased through MP and segregating the player base.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 4162d ago
4162d ago
dcj05244162d ago

I didn't care about the MP either. I was sad that there was no Co-op. Looks perfect for it.

wastedcells4161d ago

WTF is going on. There are single player games and multiplayer. Some that do both. But let's be honest..... Most people don't even play the single player in big multiplayer games and same with playing multiplayer in great single player games. I like that this game has no multiplayer. I love great single player games and can't wait for infamous and the order. It's the only time I'm really lost in a game. I love it. But I play online games a lot. Like them too but they don't provide that same feeling. Anyway point is who gives a $@&? If it has no multiplayer. Well that's my two cents.

hollabox4161d ago

Not a big deal, I play my PS4 for SP games anyway, anywho this games so far looks pretty damn good. Besides Watch Dogs and Metal Gear, this is my most anticipated game this year.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4161d ago
Majin-vegeta4162d ago

I wonder how all these whiners who cry about games having no MP.Would survive pre PS2 era??

Denton564162d ago

Isn't it a good thing, though, that games have evolved to the point that many of them are now able to include an entertaining multiplayer experience that adds value to a game?

I don't necessarily think that "13 years ago people wouldn't have minded" is the best mentality to have when looking for games to continuously grow and evolve.

fenome4162d ago

The evolution of gaming is definitely awesome right now, I won't argue with that. If they wanna include multiplayer I want it to be because they wanted it though, not because people were bitching and complaining that it didn't have it. I'd rather them dump all their time and resources into the game they want to make, be that single player, multiplayer, or both.

What happened to just playing and enjoying an experience these people created for you? Everybody's so damn critical now..

ziggurcat4162d ago

the problem with that statement is that MP is generally not really that entertaining.

playing an immersive story campaign is a lot more interesting than repeating the exact same game mode every 20 minutes - and it's all the same, repetitive nonsense regardless of the game you're playing.

kabala4162d ago

I guess some were xbox players. Just saying.

annus4162d ago

Times change. Sometimes you don't realise what you want until it is staring you right in the face. People were happy with PS1 graphics, but if you think they saw PS4 graphics they would want the PS1 instead?

And the 'good, devs can focus on single player' argument others are stating is stupid. Last of Us has some basic multiplayer, and look at how the single player for that went. You CAN satisfy both crowds.

I also wonder how the gamers would survive the pre-electricity era.

christheredhead4162d ago

More games need to ditch multiplayer. Props to the dev team for sticking with single player and improving upon that idea.

swishersweets200314162d ago

I agree. Some games could benefit better for just sticking to single player. Having a tact on multiplayer that is just sub par just to have "replay value" doesn't spark my interest. I rather have a long epic 40-to more hour single player game then have a 3 hour single player with a tact on multiplayer.

xXBlondieVanHarlowXx4162d ago

Agreed %100. I love the atmosphere of this game based on the screenshots alone. I hope the gameplay looks as good as the atmosphere feels.

My hype level for this game is through the roof!!

Kayant4162d ago

Competitive MP... Nah it shouldn't be missed or should you be disappointed IMO. Co-op however, sure I could see why people will be disappointed because with the four characters it would seem perfect for some Co-op.

iceman064162d ago

I can get behind this. I watched the trailer and thought...hmmm...possibly some co-op play. However, I'm not disappointed that it doesn't have it.

scott1824162d ago

If it becomes a great ip I could see them adding it in, like Uncharted. Uncharted 2/3 had some of my favorite Multiplayer and I would never have guessed Uncharted 2 would even have it.

Show all comments (72)
210°

The Order: 1886 Sequel Would Have Featured Larger-Scale Battles & Multiplayer

A sequel to Sony and Ready At Dawn's action-adventure game, The Order: 1886, would have featured larger-scale battles as well as multiplayer.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
pwnmaster300034d ago

I missed it when games use to have a multiplayer to them.
Hope Sony revives the game at one point

KyRo34d ago

Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, TLOU, Motorstorm. Great times. Its a shame how far they've fallen this generation

Muigi34d ago

Oh they still do…its just the whole game now 😂.

-Foxtrot34d ago

Why add multiplayer when the single player (despite enjoying it for what it was) had flaws?

You'd work out the issues with how you craft the single player then once you’ve perfected it do multiplayer after.

RaidenBlack34d ago

https://www.videogameschron...
"Two sequels were planned for the franchise, The Order 1891 and The Order 1899. While the third game was never in development, Weerasuriya says he had planned where the story of the franchise was planned to go, if he had been able to develop the full trilogy."
...
Alas, we'll also might never get the PC version of 1886, which is currently residing in some dev's hard drive, nearly ready for a release if required.

Charal34d ago

It’s a shame we didn’t gave its chance to this franchise.
Game world was very interesting, and gameplay could have evolved to a major hit with sequels.
Not even speaking about graphics that were way ahead of their time.

Reaper22_34d ago (Edited 34d ago )

If "we" is sony, i agree. I liked the game but it was metacritic that contributed to it's death. It's a shame.

AshleeEmerson34d ago

No, we are "us," the gamers who rated it so low on Metacritic, hurting... Killing its sales. I agree it is a shame. I loved this game.

Charal34d ago

No it is not, it is us has a community which crucified this game, which is happening much too often.

CrimsonWing6934d ago (Edited 34d ago )

I think MP being co-op would’ve been awesome. Essentially, I always viewed this as Sony’s take on the Gears series.

However, it really failed to measure up to what I expected. I definitely saw the potential but there were some things that really bogged it down for me like the forced slow walking segments (which I know was to hide loading), the repetitive warehouse werewolf fights, not enough variety in enemies, oddly we fought more humans than Darkstalkers, and the stealth sections were infuriating.

One thing there’s no denying though, this damn game was a looker. Such a shame at the wasted potential.

Show all comments (16)
120°

The Order: 1886, a Ten Year Reunion

WTMG's Leo Faria: "After finally playing the now decade-old The Order: 1886, what do I think about it? Is it really worthy of all the hate it has received over the past decade? Or is it some kind of hidden gem? I honestly think it falls somewhere in the middle. I loved the setting, the story is initially fine, the combat isn’t half-bad, and the potential for some awesome world building was there. It was all bogged down by too much ambition against a tight deadline, as well as poor marketing. As a result, it’s short, full of plotholes, infested with QTEs, and not exactly memorable as a whole. As a game you can grab for less than ten bucks today, I absolutely think it’s worth checking out. It’s one hell of a wasted potential, but for such a discount, I had some fun with it, and I’m sure you will too."

Read Full Story >>
waytoomany.games
SimpleSlave131d ago (Edited 131d ago )

Great setting, great graphics, even decent gun play, but what a trash of a game. The fuck were these people thinking? We could've had something like an Alan Wake 2 meets Mass Effect 2 style game. With investigations, creepy locations to uncover and explore, people to talk to and even recruit, clues to uncover and connect, monsters to slay, side quests to get lost in, and a more expansive lore to go with it.

Instead we got a shitty AAAAAAAAA Third Person Pew Pew snoozfest. Awesome.

_SilverHawk_130d ago

The order 1886 was one of the best games I played on ps4. Within a top 5 best ps4 games I'd put the last of us 2, the order 1886, days gone, horizon zero dawn and God of war.

SimpleSlave130d ago

"The order 1886 was one of the best games I played on ps4. Within a top 5 best ps4 games..."

Jesus H. Christ, bud. You just sound like a Sony apologist. What the fuck? Anyways. Good luck with that or whatever.

coolbeans130d ago

God. The "what could've been" you're describing would've been way better than just being the most empty cinematic shooter slop of that generation.

SimpleSlave130d ago

Right? I mean, I can understand people enjoying this thing ironically. Knowing that it sucks but still enjoying it for what it is. I get that. That's fine. We all have our guilty pleasure no doubt. But to come here and actually pretend that this is a top 5 PS4 game? Wow!

To pretend that this barely there game is anything more than an "empty cinematic shooter slop of that generation," as you said, is beyond ridiculous. But I guess Self-Awareness is some expensive ass DLC still.

Espangerish130d ago

I really enjoyed this game and also think it was one of the best PS4 games. It’s weird to me that this makes you so angry. I’m not a Sony fan at all by the way, very much pc player.

SimpleSlave130d ago

"and also think it was one of the best PS4 games"
"I’m not a Sony fan at all by the way, very much pc player."

Yeah, OK. You want to lie to yourself? You do you, bud. But like I said to the other Sony apologist, "good luck with that or whatever."

-Foxtrot130d ago

Jesus, it had some flaws but you're acting like it was unplayable.

It built a foundation, a rocky one but a sequel is where they could have refined things.

Personally my only issue is I feel like the "Gears of War" like over the shoulder gameplay, especially getting into cover and the like didn't really fit the game as much. In Gears you understand that kind of gameplay because they are wearing super heavy amour and guns but in the Order these guys are super human, they should feel more of a breeze to control, easily jumping over things and being allowed to climb whatever similar to Uncharted.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 130d ago
Inverno131d ago

Im back again to simp for The Order, if ya like games well grounded in their reality with consistency in everything it does then I recommend it if ya haven't played it. Play it thru emulation or on your PS it don't matter just play it.

1nsomniac131d ago (Edited 131d ago )

A great game run down by the media for it's price vs length - Which was understandable, but it shouldn't of been the be all and end all.

At the right price this was a great game & deserved a sequel!

thorstein130d ago

Exactly. What a weird metric that suddenly was important and then, within a few months, no longer mattered.

andy85130d ago

I enjoyed this. I think the complaints were the length if I remember. Nothing wrong with a short good game, at least to physical copy owners 😅

Rebel_Scum130d ago

Put the thing on PS plus already!

Show all comments (16)
310°

The Order: 1886 Dev Pitched a Sequel to Sony, But Was Denied

Co-founder thinks bad reviews were to blame.
Ready at Dawn co-founder has revealed the now-shuttered studio pitched a sequel to PS4 exclusive The Order: 1886 to Sony, but was denied the chance to make it.

Read Full Story >>
pushsquare.com
_SilverHawk_140d ago

I can't believe sony turned down a sequel to the order 1886 which ended basically on a cliffhanger. The game is amazing and I would love a ps5 pro enhanced version just like I'd like a driveclub ps5 pro enhanced version.

DodoDojo140d ago

About 2 million sales and not the greatest of reviews, I can believe it.

Tbh there's a lot of dormant Sony exclusives that are more deserving of a sequel.

ravens52140d ago

Have you played it? Just curious.

ABizzel1140d ago (Edited 140d ago )

2 million probably wasn’t enough to make a strong profit on, and the mid reviews didn’t help, even though it was a solid game just short, and could have expanded way more on the creature mythos.

Days Gone: +7 million / mid reviews (no sequel)
Infamous SS: 6 million / mid reviews (no sequel)
Killzone SF: +2 million (4 mo.) / mid reviews (no sequel)
Driveclub: +2 million (2015 / leaks say 5m) / mid reviews (no sequel)

Basically it looks like for the PS4 generation budgets were getting out of control and Sony made the decision

sales + reviews - budget = sequel or no sequel

goken140d ago

Whatever the number, can’t be worst than concord

SimpleDad140d ago

Glad that Alloy Lego is doing great.

Toecutter00139d ago

Two million in sales for a new IP is pretty impressive. The world-building was in a class on its own. Any moron could see this IP had mad potential and the fact that Sony balked on it makes one question their competence and leadership.

Cacabunga139d ago

Nothing to do with sales. It’s all about the broken vision that Sony is having lately.
Days Gone sold great but they still don’t want a sequel to it.
Sony wants Easy money and they saw it in gaas and lazy games like lego horizon and countless remasters..

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 139d ago
pwnmaster3000140d ago (Edited 140d ago )

Idky you can’t believe it.
This game was shitted on by everyone besides some PS fans.

Don’t blame Sony on this one. Blame everyone who wanted to see this burn. Sony does a lot of stupid shit with their IP and waste a lot of them like bloodborne and days gone, but don’t be surprised with this one.

Outside_ofthe_Box140d ago

Exactly. I came to post exactly this. The game was torn apart upon release. It's not shocking that a sequel was denied.

S2Killinit140d ago

Not “upon” release. There was a whole campaign “prior” to release.

In my opinion they should have made it a bit less linear and it would have been great. I did enjoy it. But the reception it got makes sense that Sony wouldnt want to risk a sequel if it was going to open up a can of worms with people who wanted the first one to fail.

140d ago
Christopher140d ago

I played the game. I 100% believe Sony turned down a sequel.

blackblades140d ago

Well pretty obvious when it was left on a cliffhanger. Many sequels get turned from companies as someone else said above blame the SOB's that always whining.

Sabbath1313140d ago

i 100% agree with you, both of those games were amazing

Bathyj140d ago

What's so hard to believe? Don't you remember this game was crucified by the media.. it was DOA. It's a shame because it was a really fresh new IP it was gorgeous and a play really well . it had some issues but it wasn't the only game with qte repeated bosses and a playtime under 10 hours.

TheEroica140d ago ShowReplies(2)
mkis007139d ago (Edited 139d ago )

It was panned because of the graphics hype. Kind of similar to Ryse and hellblade 2...although the story was pretty interesting in all 3.

As a matter of fact I think Indy's success is partially due to the fact the graphics were not hyped up pre launch.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 139d ago
-Foxtrot140d ago

It’s strange though Sony would be so proud about their work and overall quality but wouldn’t give them an extra year to, give them that quality.

Anyway he talks about if it was in the 70s they’d have had their sequel but Days Gone is at 71 on Metacritic and we don’t have a sequel.

Both games should have one, I think they deserve a second chance at refining and building onto that foundation already laid out.

neutralgamer1992140d ago (Edited 140d ago )

Definitely days gone 2 should happen. Who knows maybe now Sony will let them make it since bend had to cancel its live service game. Days gone 2 for PS6 sounds amazing

As far as order 1886 sequel it would be have been interesting. I think if this game was a RPG with 15 hour story it would have done so much better. Don't get me wrong game is great but you can tell the potential is there if they were allowed to make some drastic changes

Sadly this new Sony is not the PlayStation they are suits and spreadsheet guys. Playstation has lost its touch with gamers. I miss Shawn jack Andrew house etc

At the launch of PS4 Playstation was at its full strength with gamers running the company but not anymore. No we have a guy who loves horizon above every thing else and is willing to fund projects based on that IP

Redemption-64140d ago

So an IP that actually sell? Sony moved away from the type of games you saw during the launch of the PS4 because many gamer didn't support them. I hear people crying more about say Japan Studio closing than actually supporting their games when they were open. Wasn't it shawn layden who said many of these games fail and you hope a few like horizon to make up for the failed games. Maybe if gamers actually supported these games there would be more of them. Shocking right?

Redemption-64140d ago

There is no sequel for Days Gone because it didn't sell. The director himself said "If you love a game, buy it at f****** full price. I can't tell you how many times I've seen gamers say 'yeah, I got that on sale, I got it through PS Plus, whatever'.”

Majority of the sales from days gone came from when it was heavily discounted, and I have seen many gamers say they will not pay full price or the game isn't worth full price, but they will buy it when it's discounted. Yet they get triggered when the studio decides to move away from a game they refused to support at full price

jwillj2k4140d ago (Edited 140d ago )

What this is showing is that the majority of people don’t like the price. It doesn’t mean they don’t like the game. Two different dimensions.

Example: The company Take Two took advantage by selling NBA 2K at $20, completely undercutting NBA live to become the most popular basketball game. High priced games isn’t the only way they can make money.

-Foxtrot140d ago

Well. If we are going to go off that director apparently Days Gone hit 8 million sales around the same time frame that Ghost of Tsushima later did.

https://x.com/JakeRocket/st...

One was considered a failure, the other a massive success so I don't think it just boils down to sales.

Redemption-64140d ago

@Foxtrot

Hey, maybe you clearly know more than the director/writer. If memory serves me right, Days Gone went on sale faster than Ghost. Also, please know budget is a major factor. There is a huge difference between Ghost with a budget of $60M selling 8M, vs Days Gone, with a budget of $250M selling 8M after major price cut. One can be considered a success, because it had a much lower budget.

Don't Complain If a Game Doesn’t Get a Sequel” If You Didn’t Buy It “At F-cking Full Price, clearly shows the game didn't make the money it needed to make within the time frame it needed

Redemption-64140d ago

@jwillj2k4

What is shows is majority of gamers didn't think Days Gone was worth the $60 price tag and clearly Sony agrees with them. You can like a game, but if you don't think it is worth the price tag, why do you complain when the company decides to not invest in a game you don't think is worth what they are charging? They should release the game, lose money, cut the price and then you will support it?

jwillj2k4138d ago

Reading is fundamental. I said start with a reduced price not cut the price after you’ve already released it. It was an example to show how there are other ways they couldn’t make money. The idea is that number of buyers is much greater at $20 than $60. I didn’t think I had the point that out to you.

Redemption-64138d ago (Edited 138d ago )

@jwillj2k4

The number of buyers being greater at $20 than $60 does not equate to more money. You literally have to sell 2-3 times more to makeup the difference. Starting with a reduced price for an AAA that costs say $250M is pure stupidity and again would have to sell 2-4 times more depending on the reduced price break even. Or include micro transactions. They can make it into a free live service game with mtx. Yeah, you are right, maybe they should follow the route 2K NBA took

Clearly many don't think the game is worth $60. Who knows maybe the remaster can give it hope. But it would be funny if they get a sequel and people refuse to buy it at full price. Highly doubt those who think the game isn't worth 60, will be lining up for 70.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 138d ago
S2Killinit140d ago

Days Gone deserved so much better than 71. I’ve noticed that some PlayStation games get attacked and it feels generated. Like money is behind the hate campaign.

-Foxtrot140d ago

Days Gone was that one game which wasn't really attacked by gamers but by journalists.

As soon as it was revealed they really didn't like it for some reason, it was made out to be because it came across as a generic looking open world game or another generic "zombie" game but at the time we had plenty of open world games and a fair few "zombie/infected" games that these journalists didn't bad an eyelid towards.

When the game released broken before the Day One patch it just gave these journalists a massive excuse to slaughter the game in their reviews.

On one hand, a game shouldn't have released in that broken state or at least they shouldn't have given journalists a copy without the Day One patch HOWEVER these are the same journalists who usually gloss over that kind of stuff with so many other games, take Star Wars Outlaws for example, the game was a buggy, broken mess at launch with plenty of issues, bad AI, some clear performance issues and a lot of quality of life improvements needed but it still did a lot better than Days Gone at launch.

Personally I think they knew they could get away with it more because Sony Bend weren’t that high up and respectable, they knew calling their game out as much as they did wouldn't hit them with any major consequences unlike if they hypothetically were like this towards NaughtyDog, Sony Santa Monica or Insomniac.

RaidenBlack140d ago

Yea and there was/is a PC version of 1886 too in 2016 ... but now maybe collecting dust in some dev's hardrive.

Relientk77140d ago

That's lame. It's not perfect, definitely a flawed game, but deserves a sequel. You already have the first game as a starting point just need to improve upon it. This could have been a much better sequel like the jump from Assassin's Creed to Assassin's Creed 2. The IP has potential.

S2Killinit140d ago

But Assassins Creed sold a lot.

Show all comments (57)