Before its official release on February 20, CNET's Brian Tong got to try out the new PS4 game "The Order:1886" alongside the game's director, Dana Jan. Going through a newly released sequence, Jan described the detailed work Ready At Dawn Studios put into its first next-gen video game and why it's tricky for even him to play the game while talking.
Digital Foundry : Released in February 2015, The Order: 1886 was a stunning PlayStation 4 game at the cutting-edge of rendering technology, with visuals that still hold up today. The game's release pre-dated in-depth Digital Foundry coverage, something we're looking to address with this new video! Ready at Dawn's game never received a sequel and never received a PS4 Pro upgrade, but thanks to developments with exploited, older firmware PS5 consoles, we can now show you the game running locked at 60 frames per second.
The gameplay was bland and extremely frustrating at times with unnecessary QTE combat at points. But the world and the lore and the characters and the story were fantastic. I’ve always wanted a sequel. I still hope Sony will surprise us one day.
And let's not forget,
Ready At Dawn showcased The Order 1886 running on PC at 60fps at SIGGRAPH 2015
https://www.dsogaming.com/n...
I still stand by my theory that this game just released at the wrong time. Almost every outlet spent a lot of time in their reviews ragging on the game for not being an online experience, everyone was in the Destiny hype train and at the time they wanted EVERY game to follow suit, bashing any game that didn't. If this were released after everyone realized how much that wasn't future, people would've appreciated it more. I loved it, and I'm always disappointed that we'll never get a sequel
That doesn't seem to be true about outlets complaining on the lack of online. The review summaries on Metacritic are very consistent: Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return.
Here's an example of how *little* time IGN spent talking about multiplayer:
"With no multiplayer, and no reason to revisit the short and stunted single-player campaign once it’s been completed, there just isn’t a lot to it."
It's the final sentence. They don't even take the time to say "online multiplayer"
"Amazing graphics, but shallow gameplay and a very short length with little reason to return."
You are right, that's what everbody was saying at the time, never heard anything about it not being online.
I've been thinking about trying this game for years, I may get it now that it's dirt cheap, no big loss if it sucks
Oh, add to that bad enemy AI, I remember that from the reviews, I saw a video of a wherewolf boss fight with a very weak AI
And there we glowing reviews for shorter games. It was one of the times where hating this game was "cool."
Can you show me the reviews that rag on it for not having an online experience?
I’m not doubting you or anything. I’m just being lazy.
That's also fake news, isarai. Again, the game was consistently criticized for what it was (Pretty but extremely short, extremely linear, hand-holding, no replayability), not for what it wasn't (multiplayer/open-world)
Nope, every review uses the term "linear" several times as if it's some inherently bad attribute. Not fake news at all. Since then there's veen plenty of short and sweet single player linear games that get lots of praise, again after the reality of everything being open world set it and it wasn't as great as everyone thought. But at the launch of the last gen everyone had open world fever, and especially the first couple years "linear" was a con in many games reviewed
That's your own contortion assuming criticism of its extremely linear design is suddenly a call for it to have been open world.
You totally made up a claim regarding an overall review consensus that isn't true. And, instead of just ignoring being called out for it, you respond with "oh actually i ment to say OPEN WORLD". Which literally isn't true either. You can't show us one review that bashed the game for "not being open world". And, somehow the other guy is getting downvoted. Over a bullshit liar.
Games were being criticized at that time for any game that wasn't open world or online. So yeah I got one mixed for the other, doesn't change my argument one bit that it would've been received better if it released later. People are agreeing because if you were not riding the "online and open world" hype train at that time, it was blatantly obvious there were biases in play for how games were criticized. Now after all that has happened since people want to say "oh wait these games were actually pretty good" cause they know better now
The gameplay was very shallow and when one says repetitive, it is by the very definition for some fights. As in, completely identical but different setting.
The game has amazing potential.
The graphics, the lore, characters…
This could most definitely have been all corrected with a sequel and became a franchise hit…
Still would love to see an attempt.
Ie fantastic premise and moments that shine…
But it had its downfalls that deserved the negative marks.
It was the "game to hate" when it launched. And right here, on this site, we saw people posting stories that were outright fabrications about the game. It was weird. The game launched, it was fun, a really cool game but the hate was too much. And so were the lies.
It was just too short....but I loved every minute of it....double dipped and grabbed the ultimate CE
That isn't true. I remember people talking about how incredibly short it was and the somewhat janky gunplay.
First I'm hearing of this. I don't know what multiplayer has to do with anything. The game was just dull. Amazing graphics, great narrative, great lore, boring gameplay sprinkled in pieces between cutscenes, and lackluster AI and controls.
People cried this game was too short. No people are crying because games are too long.
Games like Ubisoft open worlds not enjoyable lengthy games like Elden Ring or Baldur's Gate III
Gosh this game is just jaw-dropping.