All Channels
Popular
190°

The Order: 1886 Length Is The Wrong Argument

OnlySP: The discussion surrounding The Order: 1886 is the wrong one. Of course a site dedicated to single player games and the gamers who love them would defend a title that is unapologetically single player. It is in fact the most single player a campaign could BE: the kind that is linear and has no multiplayer tainting the focus of the developers on their vision. Yup, we defend that, but that shouldn’t affect the fact that an argument about the length of The Order: 1886 should be looked at skeptically by anyone.

SpaceRanger4117d ago

I agree with the article, the smear campaign from a lot of sites was successful in the hate that a lot, not all, still continue with. Some reviews warrant valid ideas and arguments about how the game can improve, but most are just a monkey see monkey do in giving it 2s and 1s.

Like I said yesterday...

I just don't understand where all these sites got their expectations from? They review the game for what it lacks rather than what it is. As if they were promised open world, currency system, multiplayer, 30+ hours of gameplay, co-op, and other things that the devs never mentioned. Bringing those arguments up are pointless when you already knew the game was never going to be like that.

It's like if you payed to go to a truck show and said it was really bad because of the lack of muscle cars that other vehicle shows sometimes have...even though you clearly knew you were paying going to a truck show.

In no way am I saying this game deserves perfect 10s. But, like I said, the devs were pretty specific on how they created this game to both show and depict their story.

The story is told very well so far (just finished the airship)! I'm excited to continue it tonight after work to see what else is in store!

uth114117d ago

The Order: Worst Tetris clone ever! 1/10

ArchangelMike4117d ago

Hahahahahaa... you made me actually laugh out loud! :)

S2Killinit4117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

they held the Order to a standard that other games are not being held to. I just wanna see how they will be able to keep a straight face when they turn around and give a 9 to the next game in the same genre with 10-12 hours official running time. Or the next game that "doesn't innovate". Or the next game that's "linear" (like linear was ever a bad thing before) I will be watching, and their credibility will be on the line. Someone's gotta slap them on the wrist when the stoop this low.

thekhurg4117d ago

It won't matter. There have been double standards for game reviews since magazines started reviewing them.

There are agendas, there are backroom deals, there are people reviewing games in genres that they don't even like, there are fanboy reviewers, there are reviews of games uncompleted, and finally there are legit reviews.

Volkama4117d ago

Why wait for answers when they're already out there?

http://n4g.com/news/1398465...

Oh look, other games are subject to the same kinds of criticism.

Man-Eee-Faces4117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

Volkama, polygon actually gave Ryse, a MS exclusive, a 6? That can't be as I thought those low scores are reserved for another console only from the MS once funded Polygon?

The damage control is strong in the aftermath. The game is what it is and people that still want to play it, just play it but don't play victim and how everyone is conspiring to hate on a game because most of the big reviews main issue with the game is not really about length but with the many boring and inspired gameplay of it.

The review from "videogamer" said that they love the graphics and setting of the game but the first 2/3 of the game is slow and boring and you are being hand held too much by constant cut scenes and button prompt and when the game got a bit more exciting on later chapter, they were disappointed that it ends without warning and unexpectedly. And they said that the entire game can be more like the later few levels of the game but don't really have an issue with the 7.5 hours of gameplay.

People that only sees and assumed length as the main culprit but when you read the reviews, that is mostly minor complaint and it is the other aspects of the game that are underwhelming for most reviewers out there. I wish people would read more of these actual reviews before going by the low scores and assuming that length is the main reason why the game is scoring the way it is.

S2Killinit4117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

@Volkama
Um not really, Ryse was not hated in articles BEFORE release, only after, did the articles really pick up the criticism. Secondly, Ryse was criticized for not having good gameplay. Did you play it? They complained that it was too sequency. (not that I personally agreed with them, i thought it was a decent gameplay) The Order was criticized BEFORE release that it wasn't "innovating", that it was "linear", that it was "short". Non of these arguments have EVER been used against a game in this genre before. Its new. So I want to see criticism that says: this 3rd person shooter is bad because "it does not innovate", it is "linear", or it is "too short". Did you know that the length of the Order was actually in line with the majority of games in that genre? Gears of War Judgment was 7.5 hours official (the order was 10-12 hrs), the first gears was something like 11? (not sure), and that didn't have multiplayer just like The Order. So what gives? why the new standards? I want these standards applied to EVERY SINGLE game from here on out, so its nice and objective.

At the end of the day, Im PLAYING this game, and it IS GOOD. So I'm very confused why these guys can mess with someone's reputation, and investment, and mess with millions of fans excitement. Reviews of 2s, 3? and 6s? Who do they think they are fooling here?

elninels4115d ago

The order reminded me of uncharted. Take that for what you will.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4115d ago
fanboysmackdown4117d ago

How is it a smear campaign when the reality of the game is it is boring. Walking around, turning objects in my hand, countless qte's and old used gameplay mechanics. That's the problem with the game.

Christopher4117d ago

"The reality"? I didn't know it was a fact, something that had been proven without a doubt.

I don't think the reviews are a smear campaign. I don't think this game is for a lot of people who did the reviews and many people here.

But, it's not a "fact" that it's boring.

I'll tell you what is a fact: people saying things now in defense or offense of The Order are likely to become hypocrites of those same statements when a game they do like with similar issues comes out down the line (or has already come out).

ArchangelMike4117d ago

What in your mind would be a new gamplay mechanic? Bearing in mind that FPS, TPS and RPG etc are all OLD gameplay mechanincs - tell me what you want for a NEW gameplay mechaninc?

Death4117d ago

Just because the devs designed the game to be short with little interaction by the player doesn't mean reviews should give it a pass. It's looking more and more like the design is what hurt the game the most.

Immorals4117d ago

A flawed idea executed well I guess. I'll still give it a go!

jhoward5854117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

Agreed, 1886 doesn't deserve a free pass. Today, I finally got the chance to play 1886 for myself and gotta say this game is not worth 60 bucks. I'm sorry to be harsh though, but this game deserves a 2 out of 5 score imo.

RAD game engine just seems to be unfinished. Good attempt though.

Silly gameAr4117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

That's funny because I bought the game today and was able to play more then 10 minutes of it and it damn sure doesn't deserve any 1 or 2 review scores.

Those were harsh scores that people gave the game because they figured since people seem to be crapping on the Order, that they might as well crap on it a little more then the others and get some hits for their lame sites while they're at it.

Silly gameAr4117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

ooops. repost.

Man-Eee-Faces4117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

Silky Gamer,

Different stroke for different folks. Believe it or not some people actually do also enjoy Too Human and Haze too but doesn't change the fact that both of them suck in many reviews and is disliked by the majority.

And your complaint about the 1 or 2 "1/5" review scores is just damage control as there is also a 95/100 scores that is at the very front page of almost a thousand degree on N4G at this moment. So you are right, it doesn't deserve the 1/5 that it got but there is no way it also deserve the 95/100 either. If you complaint about also the people giving it a 2/5, then we can also complaint about the 85/100 that Dualshockers also gave the game after a month's long marketing campaign for it on our very own N4G.

blakstarz4117d ago

Okay, at least explain what was it about the game that you didn't like?

jhoward5854117d ago (Edited 4117d ago )

@blakstarz
what I didn't like about 1886 ok. Honestly, I didn't get to play a lot of 1886 as of yet. So, I'll do my best to explain why I didn't like 1886 very much.

Firt off, I didn't like the game play mechanic in some part of the game b/c it seems like the action button weren't precisely timed with action moves which feels awkward. I'm use to playing a game that react the moment I press the button.

Another is, 1886 seems like a game that tries too hard to get the player to see the key points in the story, which comes off in a forceful way rendering the game to feel less spontaneous.

1886 world is extremely eye pleasing to the eye. I think 1886 world is beautiful, but at time I felt very compelled to destroy some of that beauty. But unfortunately, I couldn't and was completely restricted to just looking at it only, which frustrate me.

1886 has too much cut scene. That's all.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4117d ago
thekhurg4117d ago

You've clearly never played the game. I've got nearly 4 hours logged and the entire experience has been very interactive.

Volkama4117d ago Show
xXDerickXx4117d ago

I think the main problem here is if the game is overpriced for the short amount of gameplay and not being able to have a reason to keep playing outside of the campaign mode. It's like titanfall, the game shouldn't have been a full $60 because it was just a multiplayer game and should of been $40-$50.

Hellsvacancy4117d ago

Some movies get lower scores because they're too long "who wants to sit in a cinema for 3+ hours"

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4117d ago
yewles14117d ago

At least this didn't compare the reviews to racism...

christian hour4117d ago

Did someone actually do that? :-/ Am I on Bizarro Earth again? I'd love a link to that, sounds like a laugh of a read :D

christian hour4116d ago

Hiphopgamer?! I shouldve known... I thought he was banned form the internet much like Jack Thompson was barred from practicing law?

Father__Merrin4117d ago

well said, the developers made the game they set out. Never did they give expectations to demented reviewers / websites that their game is Open world, Rpg, Coop, multiplayer, and what not.....

it's as if they were promised one thing and came out another

I'm all for giving constructive criticism on things you don't like but handing it 1's and 2's is taking the piss Jan - Jul is great for playstation

4117d ago
DougLord4117d ago ShowReplies(9)
Show all comments (63)
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
pwnmaster3000368d ago

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

KyRo367d ago

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

Muigi367d ago

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

-Foxtrot368d 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.

RaidenBlack367d 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.

Charal367d 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_367d ago (Edited 367d 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.

AshleeEmerson367d 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.

Charal367d ago

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

CrimsonWing69367d ago (Edited 367d 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
SimpleSlave464d ago (Edited 464d 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_464d 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.

SimpleSlave464d 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.

coolbeans464d 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.

SimpleSlave464d 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.

Espangerish463d 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.

SimpleSlave463d 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."

-Foxtrot463d 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 463d ago
Inverno464d 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.

1nsomniac464d ago (Edited 464d 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!

thorstein464d ago

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

andy85464d 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_Scum464d 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_474d 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.

DodoDojo473d 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.

ravens52473d ago

Have you played it? Just curious.

ABizzel1473d ago (Edited 473d 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

goken473d ago

Whatever the number, can’t be worst than concord

SimpleDad473d ago

Glad that Alloy Lego is doing great.

Toecutter00473d 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.

Cacabunga473d 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 473d ago
pwnmaster3000473d ago (Edited 473d 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_Box473d ago

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

S2Killinit473d 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.

473d ago
Christopher473d ago

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

blackblades473d 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.

Sabbath1313473d ago

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

Bathyj473d 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.

TheEroica473d ago ShowReplies(2)
mkis007473d ago (Edited 473d 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 473d ago
-Foxtrot474d 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.

neutralgamer1992473d ago (Edited 473d 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-64473d 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-64473d 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

jwillj2k4473d ago (Edited 473d 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.

-Foxtrot473d 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-64473d 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-64473d 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?

jwillj2k4471d 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-64471d ago (Edited 471d 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 471d ago
S2Killinit473d 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.

-Foxtrot473d 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.

RaidenBlack474d ago

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

Relientk77474d 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.

S2Killinit473d ago

But Assassins Creed sold a lot.

Show all comments (57)