Sony allegedly turned down a sequel to PlayStation 4 game The Order: 1886 due to its poor critical reception, the co-founder of developer Ready at Dawn has said.
I don’t know that it needs more than one prescribed way to play, it just needs to be “good”. I know that’s a vague term though. But a short, cinematic well executed game sounds pretty appealing to me to be honest. But maybe I’ve just been playing too many lengthy CRPGs lately. I find myself longing for something short and sweet.
By modern standards, Halo 1-3 are short games, but there’s a lot of freedom and reason to improvise in any given combat encounter, and the reputation of The Order was that it didn’t offer anything like that.
Even games that are purely quick-time events like Until Dawn seem popular enough, and there’s not much open-endedness or freedom in that gameplay design, you just execute the prompts. I haven’t played The Order 1866 myself, but I’d wager the problem was that it wasn’t fun to play, not that it was short and prescriptive in its gameplay.
Given your Halo reference I thought the discussion was mainly about gameplay freedom and not story branching. Maybe Hellblade 1 is a better example. It’s extremely short, completely linear and fully prescriptive - there is really only one way to play it and no customization. Yet many people find it compelling and worthwhile. I just don’t think the reason 1866 failed was that it was over prescriptive. I think it was just not a very fun game.
I’d go to bat less for Hellblade at this point, and so would the market, but as a point in Hellblade’s favor, it was using the medium to its advantage to tell a story and evoke a feeling in a way that people hadn’t seen before, and I think The Order was known for just looking good and doing what other cover shooters had done. Now that Hellblade’s been done before, the sequel doesn’t seem to be garnering similar success either.
I played Hellblade last year and found it a worthwhile experience. There was some hype for the sequal, but from what I garner it largely threw away what made the original interesting and compelling narratively, so I have heard most people who liked the first game dislike the second. It looks stunning though.
I don’t know that it needs more than one prescribed way to play, it just needs to be “good”. I know that’s a vague term though. But a short, cinematic well executed game sounds pretty appealing to me to be honest. But maybe I’ve just been playing too many lengthy CRPGs lately. I find myself longing for something short and sweet.
By modern standards, Halo 1-3 are short games, but there’s a lot of freedom and reason to improvise in any given combat encounter, and the reputation of The Order was that it didn’t offer anything like that.
Even games that are purely quick-time events like Until Dawn seem popular enough, and there’s not much open-endedness or freedom in that gameplay design, you just execute the prompts. I haven’t played The Order 1866 myself, but I’d wager the problem was that it wasn’t fun to play, not that it was short and prescriptive in its gameplay.
Until Dawn has branches on branches on branches based on your decisions and how well you react, so I wouldn’t say that supports that argument.
Given your Halo reference I thought the discussion was mainly about gameplay freedom and not story branching. Maybe Hellblade 1 is a better example. It’s extremely short, completely linear and fully prescriptive - there is really only one way to play it and no customization. Yet many people find it compelling and worthwhile. I just don’t think the reason 1866 failed was that it was over prescriptive. I think it was just not a very fun game.
I’d go to bat less for Hellblade at this point, and so would the market, but as a point in Hellblade’s favor, it was using the medium to its advantage to tell a story and evoke a feeling in a way that people hadn’t seen before, and I think The Order was known for just looking good and doing what other cover shooters had done. Now that Hellblade’s been done before, the sequel doesn’t seem to be garnering similar success either.
I played Hellblade last year and found it a worthwhile experience. There was some hype for the sequal, but from what I garner it largely threw away what made the original interesting and compelling narratively, so I have heard most people who liked the first game dislike the second. It looks stunning though.
It was not fun to play. The mechanics were sluggish and stilted. The story was good enough and at the time it was a gorgeous game.