Tony Polanco from The Koalition writes:
"More so than any other generation, the length of a video game has become a hot topic among gamers these days. While some feel that a game’s value is determined by the amount of time it takes to complete it, others feel that quality is more important than length. We on Throwdown have differing opinions on this subject and tonight we discuss it… at length (pun intended). We state why a game should give gamers as much as possible and why length doesn’t matter if the title is good."
Other topics include: Sony ditching smartphones & TVs to focus on Entertainment & PlayStation, The Last Guardian drama, and Resident Evil: Revelations 2 not coming to Wii U.
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.
I missed it when games use to have a multiplayer to them.
Hope Sony revives the game at one point
Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, TLOU, Motorstorm. Great times. Its a shame how far they've fallen this generation
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.
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.
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.
If "we" is sony, i agree. I liked the game but it was metacritic that contributed to it's death. It's a shame.
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.
No it is not, it is us has a community which crucified this game, which is happening much too often.
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.
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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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!
Exactly. What a weird metric that suddenly was important and then, within a few months, no longer mattered.
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 😅
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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..
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.
Exactly. I came to post exactly this. The game was torn apart upon release. It's not shocking that a sequel was denied.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
@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
@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?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Yea and there was/is a PC version of 1886 too in 2016 ... but now maybe collecting dust in some dev's hardrive.
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.
An awesome debate on this episode and let me say now the overall length of a game can be a positive for some and a negative for others. With The Order: 1886 I don't think the length is the issue here, but rather the concerning comments that the developers themselves had on the game as a whole.When they mentioned that graphics and cinematic feel were most important that actually through confused me on how gameplay would be. Eventually i'll see how the final product is of course but yeah I def didn't like that statement lol
Man it was fantastic being on the show with you guys. The conversation sparked was definitely worthwhile!
The fact of the matter is, there can sometimes a be a fine line if the value of a game shouild be put on it's length. I mean if we were getting a game that's like 2 hours long and being charged full price for it, then yeah, that's bad value no matter how much of a quality title it is. But I think that games with a length of 7-8 hours should be valued on the quality of the content rather than length. And obviously different people will hold different values to games of differing length. There are those that play the long games like dragon age, and there are those that play the short game, like uncharted.
If we take the order, it's roughly 7 hours long, so I would assess it's value on what it does in those 7 hours. Same with dragon age. Just because you can get 100 hundred hours out of one and not the other doesn't mean the longer game is better. What are you doing in those 100 hundred hours?? Because the story certainly doesn't take that long, so after that, what are you doing in the game?? I've heard, and I don't know how true it is because I haven't played it, that inquisition is made up of a lot of fetch quests or something like that. So IF that's true, then for me, playing 100 hours of fetch quests in between story is not worth my money. And a game that is a hell of a lot smaller, but gives me great graphics, good story, solid TPS is more something that I want to spend my money on. But look, that's just me. There will plenty of people out there who will agree with how I place value on a game, but there will be plenty more that would place value the exact opposite way that I just said. So it all comes down to preference and taste in games once again. It seems like a lot of sites are trying to convince us that there is one way for placing value on our games, that there's a formula and if a game is does not follow that formula then it has severely less value than others that do. But in reality a game can have value in many different ways, and it's up to gamers to decide which games give them the most value for their money.
So to summarize, length matters to a degree, but after that, it's the content provided in that length that gives a game its value. That's what I think anyway!