official The Order: 1886

[Polonium]

Maybe on consoles.

 

Seeing as we are in the console section I feel your post wasn't really required. Nor do I actually understand what you are actually getting at

[nosense]

Where one experience is aimed to shine, it may falter elsewhere. I seriously doubt you're going to get many say Gears was an amazing story up there with the giants of gaming storytelling (mass opinion).

 

Money and effort have been funneled into making this game shine like TLoU did with story. As I said above while I doubt it will come anywhere near as close, I would expect it to surpass the writing and atmosphere of Gears of War. It's gameplay probably won't be as good, but Gears had to be setup with gameplay high on the agenda as any game with MP/co-op really has to.

 

And to reiterate what I've already said twice, small studio previously based with PSP only making a leap to this level. Their budget and experience aren't on the same scale as ND or Epic. Doesn't mean we can't critically examine all titles in the same way, we should, in fact especially when a game defines itself as featuring exclusively on one area (narrative). If it fails at that then the whole title goes down (no MP to redeem crap story, like say BF or COD).

 

Sure it's harder to spend RRP when there isn't MP tacked on, but to build a real SP franchise you have to start somewhere (like Uncharted 1 with no MP).

And again i never said that the game sucks or the story sucks. Maybe they will add co-op dlc or mp\horde dlc to add replayability, who knows. As it stands, we don't know if the story is good(you can if you watch the YT link). But we do know its around 5-7 hours of cutscenes\qte\gameplay.

 

I do agree with you everybody plays games for a different reason and at a different level. I personally play games for gameplay.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

And again i never said that the game sucks or the story sucks. Maybe they will add co-op dlc or mp\horde dlc to add replayability, who knows. As it stands, we don't know if the story is good(you can if you watch the YT link). But we do know its around 5-7 hours of cutscenes\qte\gameplay.

 

I do agree with you everybody plays games for a different reason and at a different level. I personally play games for gameplay.

 

I think we all do, but there is a market for games that take story a little more seriously than a throwaway popcorn flick. Some of the FPS/TPS games out there with amazing gameplay have stories you won't even pay attention to. Brilliant fun to play, but there's nothing wrong with another title in that genre trying to appeal to those who want a memorable story that doesn't seem like it was farted out by an angsty teenager or yet another alien invasion. That is why The Order 1886 will especially live or die based upon it's quality of writing. If it sucks it literally has very little else to stand up on (no MP and a campaign which is definitely going to be shorter than say TLoU which clocks in at 15-20 hours on average).

 

Farcry is a beautiful example of an FPS with amazing gameplay and open world fun, but does anyone herald it for tight writing and a location you'll remember every part of? (hard to with open world titles which makes it harder to create a memorable setting - outside of going I remember it was all jungle!).

 

The writing, the characters, and the location all have to be masterfully done in a title like this, which I actually argue is a lot harder in development than people give credit for. At times it seems like if your game tacks on MP these days it can get an easier pass as being worth money even if the 3 things I just mentioned are weak. I will admit any sort of MP can add replayability but with the amount of games coming out these days I personally find it hard to dedicate myself to the completion of a game if it's really not something done well (in terms of SP).

 

There's a reason my SP backlog is frickin huge, that there's MP games I own I haven't and won't even look at SP (BF4) and why there is even MP experiences I just don't have time for (never played TLoU MP even although it's suppose to be good). Only SP and MP portions that are done really well tend to get my attention (not necessarily always on critical merits, Nier for example was a SP story I was hugely fond of, but janky gameplay).

[Guest]

Seeing as we are in the console section I feel your post wasn't really required. Nor do I actually understand what you are actually getting at

 

You cannot say 99% of the shooters have exactly those mechanics, because they don't.

[Polonium]

You cannot say 99% of the shooters have exactly those mechanics, because they don't.

 

But as you have already stated, they do on consoles right? So seeing as I'm in the Sony console section I think I'm quite safe in saying it.

[Guest]

But as you have already stated, they do on consoles right? So seeing as I'm in the Sony console section I think I'm quite safe in saying it.

 

It was not a serious statement, but then I am not a console gamer so that may very well be true.

[Polonium]

It was not a serious statement, but then I am not a console gamer so that may very well be true.

 

Ahhh, now that makes more sense :-)

 

I think most shooters do include going from point a to point b, cut scenes and shooting people though.

[Showan]

Rumor has it TO:1866 is a short game.

 

I will only link (I don't wanna be a spoil sport)

 

Click at own risk...

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2vybg8/order_1886_playtime_details_from_youtubers_play/

 

 

 

 

 

Youtube link (Spoilers)

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Guess who didn't read the last few pages before posting

 

Besides, just use http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20067 and you'll see the longest, shortest and average times. 1 person's playthrough is not gospel.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Guess who didn't read the last few pages before posting

 

Besides, just use http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20067 and you'll see the longest, shortest and average times. 1 person's playthrough is not gospel.

 

A couple of months and counting now for your TLoU playthrough, amirite?

[Showan]

A couple of months and counting now for your TLoU playthrough, amirite?

 

I never bought TLoU on the PS3, when it came out.  Borrowed a friends copy played it for 2-3hrs and stopped.

 

I immediately knew that TLoU had PS4 written all over it.  It already felt 'next gen'...

 

When it came out on the PS4 i got the physical copy... Beat the game, traded it in, and put the $$ towards Playstation Store Card and re-bought it digitally...

 

TLoU is special...

 

I hope TO:1866 can fall into that category as well...

[_neutrino Veteran]

My wife just preordered me the game for Valentines day so i will be picking it up on Friday when it comes out.

 

I have been seeing a lot of negative comments about how short the game is online however, all of them have the same  thing in common, the gave is good and worth the time.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

RAD comments (these were made before the YT walkthrough posted earlier when the rumours online were 3-5 hours, or a few hours)

 

Last week I had a chat with Ru Weerasuriya, founder, CEO and creative director of Ready at Dawn, to discuss The Order's length after a previous report indicated it could be completed in just a few hours.

 

"I know there are numbers out there," he said. "I know why the question comes up. I know numbers have been put out there that are actually not right. It's impossible to finish the game in that time, so we know the numbers are wrong.

 

"At the end of the day, we're not going to comment on it. We can't stop people from writing the things they do. And we're not going to jump at every single mistake that is made out there. Every time somebody has the wrong impression of something we made, or somebody writes the wrong thing about what we did, it would be a full-time job to be like, oh no, that's not right. We make games. We do what we do for the players. And, ultimately, that's where I want to leave it."

 

While Weerasuriya denied The Order, which leans heavily on interactive cutscenes and quick-time events as it blends third-person shooting, exploration and puzzle-solving with in-engine cinematics, can be completed in just a few hours, it is clear the game won't be considered long by anyone's standards.

 

But how long, exactly, had Ready at Dawn's tests shown The Order to be? Weerasuriya wouldn't reveal the average playthrough time, but he was willing to enter into the debate about it.

 

"Game length is important," he said. "Every game has to take its own time to tell its story. Some games can be short. Some games can be long. I still remember the first time I picked up Modern Warfare, I finished the campaign in about three-and-a-half or four hours. And it was fun because they made that campaign work for that because they had something else.

 

"Any of these games need to pack in what it needs to to deliver the experience you were hoping to deliver when you first tackled it. For us that meant, it's not going to be a short game, it's going to be something that rewards you as you play through, that there is a storyline, that you have information there, and then also it opens the door to a lot of questions you might be able to answer either by what you find in the game, or hopefully by what you will find out in the future.

 

"Our industry is diverse enough that we need different games. We have to allow for different genres and single-player games like we do, multiplayer games, co-op games, social games, whatever it is."

 

 

Weerasuriya said he understood concern about The Order's value as a full-priced game, but hoped Ready at Dawn's quality over quantity approach would satisfy players.

 

"I absolutely understand," he said. "To tell you the truth, that's something we always keep in our heads. We know people want to be entertained and have things they can play longer. But the industry has always had diversity. You go back 10 years, there were a lot of games that were just single-player, one time play. There were some games that were single-player and you could jump back in and get more. That's what we did in our game. You can jump back and get other things out of it.

 

"Do we all need to do the same thing? I hope people who do like these kind of games, do play them. But I also want to be in an industry where me as a gamer, I'm given the choice to do that. I've played games that lasted two hours that were better than games that I played for 16 hours. That's the reality of it.

 

"I've had many more experiences of very short games that have floored me, that have left me dreaming of the things I could do after, more than the games that have lasted 15, 16, 20 or 30 hours, where I've just been like, okay, I played it through and I got what I wanted, but I didn't get more than what I was expecting. Sometimes I want to be floored, even if it's for a short amount of time.

 

"Gameplay length for me is so relative to quality. It's just like a movie. Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn't make it better."

 

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-16-ready-at-dawn-responds-to-concern-over-the-order-1886s-campaign-length?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialoomph

[Hedon]

For 5 hours, and no MP, the game should probably be $29.99.

 

"Gameplay length for me is so relative to quality. It's just like a movie. Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn't make it better."

 

A movie also isn't $60.00. I pay $5.00 to see new movies at the theater.

[Skin]

Guess who didn't read the last few pages before posting

 

Besides, just use http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20067 and you'll see the longest, shortest and average times. 1 person's playthrough is not gospel.

 

No matter what, it looks like about 4-5 hours of 'game', and that includes 2 hours or so of cut scenes and QTEs. Heck, it looks like several 'chapters' of the game are fully cut scene and you do nothing in terms of gameplay. Yeah, you can wander around in the linear level and look at walls and textures, but the 'normal' gameplay pace seems to support the 4-5 hours.

 

Not saying this is a good or bad thing, just that this game (from the gameplay stories and videos) seems rather like a movie where you occasionally run to cover and shoot everything to move on and then do it over again, then again, then again.

 

So, that said, people need to decide if 60 bucks is worth a interactive movie with no re-playability and no multiplayer experience. I guess it's a flipped argument to what Evolve just went through - is 60 bucks worth limited gameplay and just multiplayer. Shrug. Everyone has their own idea on that.

[Cnónna]

For 5 hours, and no MP, the game should probably be $29.99.

 

"Gameplay length for me is so relative to quality. It's just like a movie. Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn't make it better."

 

A movie also isn't $60.00. I pay $5.00 to see new movies at the theater.

 

such short single player campaigns the reason I stopped buying call of duty series, I really don't care for multiplayer.

 

then reading about this title being full of QTEs and apparently the whole things on rails it never really peaked my intrest.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

For 5 hours, and no MP, the game should probably be $29.99.

 

"Gameplay length for me is so relative to quality. It's just like a movie. Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn't make it better."

 

A movie also isn't $60.00. I pay $5.00 to see new movies at the theater.

 

You completely missed the point in that statement. It's not to compare gaming costs to cinema costs but to say inflating a games completion time just for the sake of making it longer doesn't always work out. Why do you think we get director's cuts of movies? Some content is not seen as meaningful enough to go into the theatrical production. My Dragon Age Inquisition playtime of 90 hours probably has about 60 hours of generic fetch quests (just saying, it's still one of my favourite games this generation). They work fine in an open world game, but a purposely linear title to focus on story/atmosphere?

 

Since you brought up a direct price comparison though, I'll say one thing as to why it's stupid to compare games to movies. How many millions of people can a movie bring in at cinemas worldwide? Lots. If a movie was possibly only going to get 500k-1.5m views to recoup the costs of production a cinema ticket would not cost $5. Completely different market sizes than games. 

 

For as much flak as the games potential length may be getting people buying it are also contributing towards what looks to be one hell of an engine graphically, that sure cost a pretty penny to make. Are you happy paying for graphics? Maybe, maybe not, but the devs comments ask why can't there be different experiences with games and that really is the main point. Sure an indie title or mobile game may cost the price of a cinema ticket, but will it look and sound like The Order? Of course not (I bring audio into the discussion as that is one element of the game besides graphics I have seen high praise for).

 

A lot of people on this forum praise Ryse for it's graphics, rightfully so, but you paid a good portion towards that. It's campaign is only around 6-7 hours (average, without exploring). Sure it has MP, but from my impressions it's not as if people went bananas over Ryse multiplayer as the next big thing that will take them away from COD/BF4. MP is only really good if it can last longer than a month, or a few months, before everyone goes back to the MP games that get played all year round.

 

And yeah I know you'll probably reply as usual saying "we have noted your opinion".

 

edit: some more completion times that no doubt included exploring to varying degrees

 

Updated list of GAFer first time completions, including the relevant difficulty levels.

 

OsirisBlack - 14 hours Hard

Theman2k - 12 hours Hard

Verendus - 10 hours Hard

Periniumlick - 10 hours Hard

Rapier - 9 hours Normal

ReNeGaDe124 - 9 hours Normal

Nbkt - 9 hours Normal

 

Average is 10 hours 43 minutes.

 

 

and apparently another remark from RAD

 

At an event in Milan, CTO Andrea Pessino finally answered in detail the topical question, asked by the audience.

 

According to Pessino, Ready at Dawn

[BajiRav]

[Vandalsquad]

It has been pretty much confirmed that (going by posts on GAF) that the 5+ hrs includes cut scenes and QTEs. The total gameplay is 90mins or so. That is crazy if true

 

I'm sure someone has to have just timed the cut scene time spent on this game, any numbers for just that not including game play? Is this ###### skip-able? 

[nosense]

I'm sure someone has to have just timed the cut scene time spent on this game, any numbers for just that not including game play? Is this ###### skip-able? 

The first play through the cutscene is not skippable.

[Guest]

It has been pretty much confirmed that (going by posts on GAF) that the 5+ hrs includes cut scenes and QTEs. The total gameplay is 90mins or so. That is crazy if true

 

That's the new gaming CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE right there!

[Guest]

 

and apparently another remark from RAD

 

 

Is that RAD remark supposed to be something positive?

[Doli]

I'm waiting for it to hit $20 used at Gamestop.

[Hedon]

 

You completely missed the point in that statement. It's not to compare gaming costs to cinema costs but to say inflating a games completion time just for the sake of making it longer doesn't always work out. Why do you think we get director's cuts of movies? Some content is not seen as meaningful enough to go into the theatrical production. My Dragon Age Inquisition playtime of 90 hours probably has about 60 hours of generic fetch quests (just saying, it's still one of my favourite games this generation). They work fine in an open world game, but a purposely linear title to focus on story/atmosphere?

 

Since you brought up a direct price comparison though, I'll say one thing as to why it's stupid to compare games to movies. How many millions of people can a movie bring in at cinemas worldwide? Lots. If a movie was possibly only going to get 500k-1.5m views to recoup the costs of production a cinema ticket would not cost $5. Completely different market sizes than games. 

 

For as much flak as the games potential length may be getting people buying it are also contributing towards what looks to be one hell of an engine graphically, that sure cost a pretty penny to make. Are you happy paying for graphics? Maybe, maybe not, but the devs comments ask why can't there be different experiences with games and that really is the main point. Sure an indie title or mobile game may cost the price of a cinema ticket, but will it look and sound like The Order? Of course not (I bring audio into the discussion as that is one element of the game besides graphics I have seen high praise for).

 

A lot of people on this forum praise Ryse for it's graphics, rightfully so, but you paid a good portion towards that. It's campaign is only around 6-7 hours (average, without exploring). Sure it has MP, but from my impressions it's not as if people went bananas over Ryse multiplayer as the next big thing that will take them away from COD/BF4. MP is only really good if it can last longer than a month, or a few months, before everyone goes back to the MP games that get played all year round.

 

And yeah I know you'll probably reply as usual saying "we have noted your opinion".

 

edit: some more completion times that no doubt included exploring to varying degrees

 

 

and apparently another remark from RAD

 

 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152324117&postcount=1511

 

 

Actually, I didn't miss the point of his PR statement at all. None of us did. In fact, the majority of us probably agree with his feedback. How could you not agree, it was just common sense. I only pointed out exactly what you are pointing out. That one cannot compare this to a movie (which is what he had done, not me). I just happened to catch his comment and added price to the equation to show that it's not a fair comparison. If it was a fair comparison, none of us would be spending $60 on most of the games out there today, but it is not apples to apples. But nobody would expect him to reply to the comments any differently. It's PR, and they need sales, so they will defend their game to the end (as would any normal business person, including myself).

 

You are quick to jump on people commenting on some of the things they dislike about the game, but yet you don't support them when they praise the game? I remember when people ragged on Heavy Rain for QTE's (which was my favorite PS3 last gen). And now people are ragging on The Order for being a QTE driven game, with minimal game play. Yet here I am (as well as many others) who plan on buying the game because we enjoy more story driven games, with QTE's and gameplay mixed between, with good graphics.

 

Is there any reason you felt a need to get defensive over a post (it's a PS4 game...I get it)? I know, I know...I will probably not see your reply to my post like usual. Pretty much used to it by now.

 

I don't mind that the game is done is 5-7 hours. I will be buying it anyway.

[Ironman273]

YouTube Leak Derails Launch Of Big PS4 Exclusive
Jason Schreier

 

On February 14, a YouTube account called PlayMeThrough uploaded a series of videos titled "The Order: 1886 Gameplay Walkthrough." The title was rather literal