Login | Signup

The Order: 1886 will have "no multiplayer" whatsoever, which is fine by us

Author:
Jonathan Lester
Category:
News
Tags:
multiplayer, PS4, PS4 games, Ready at Dawn

The Order: 1886 will have "no multiplayer" whatsoever, which is fine by us

PS4 owners are hungry for details about Ready At Dawn's mysterious steampunk shooter The Order: 1866, which has mercilessly teased us with its neo-Victorian London setting and "filmic" gunplay over the last few months. The launch trailer and banners showed small teams of operatives picking their way through the smoggy streets, but the developers have now spoken out to confirm that the game will not feature multiplayer in any capacity.

Oh, and it will run at 30FPS, in case you're interested.

Ready At Dawn co-founder Andrea Pessino delivered the news on Twitter in no uncertain terms. "No multiplayer, it is a single player, third person action adventure game." Case closed.

"Better to do one thing well than a whole bunch half-assed. We are trying to make a single-player experience you will enjoy," he replied to an irate fan who wasn't keen on spending a premium price for a singleplayer-only game. "If we are going to succeed or not will be up to you to decide."

...okay.

Good on you.

In all honesty, I'm personally sick and tired of developers shoehorning inappropriate, unpolished and unnecessary multiplayer components into their games at the behest of their publishers (Spec Ops: The Line, and Stranglehold are two notable examples). If Ready At Dawn are focused on creating a superbly crafted singleplayer experience, then all power to them.

Mind you, as someone who also believes that publishers should be realistic and equitable with their RRPs, I wouldn't hate to see a little markdown. And, erm, local co-op.

Performance junkies might be interested to know that Ready At Dawn are aiming for a target of 30 frames per second at 1080p. “Currently we do not aim [for] 60 frames per second," studio boss Ru Weerasuriya informed Play3. "In a first person shooter that [surely] makes sense. Also fighting games are undoubtedly predestined for 60 frames.

“But for us, the cinematic experience is in the foreground [basically focus] – presented in full HD 1080p. In favor of spectacular effects and the highest resolution we restrict ourselves to a fluid 30 frames per second.” Again, fine by us, but I daresay that many will beg to differ.

You can read more details about The Order's gameplay and setting through the links, and we'll keep you up to date with the latest. How important is multiplayer to you, and how much do you spend on singleplayer-only games?

Add a comment8 comments
gmdlogan  Feb. 6, 2014 at 16:10

I'm really looking forward to this. If its a huge game, it won't bother me one bit. Online co-op would've been good.

Yukes  Feb. 6, 2014 at 18:10

How much would I pay for a single-player only game? Exactly the same as for one that had multiplayer, based on quality alone. Quality includes a good length though in my book, but that's a well-trodden debate.

Quietus  Feb. 6, 2014 at 19:03

"confirm that the game will feature not feature"

So, which is it, Jon?:D

I completely agree with the developrs here, with it being better to do something well than do what so many have done, and try to tack either of them on, and end up with a poor game. Despite the naysayers, single player games done well can clearly sell. Skyrim screams out as an example.

JonLester  Feb. 6, 2014 at 20:05

@Quietus: To feature or not to feature: that is the question. :3 Ta.

Otherwise, yes, agreed. Long live SP.

@Yukes: Sounds reasonable to us - for me personally, quality and quantity are both important in terms of overall value. Though they're both relative. Better to buy a tiny diamond than a swimming pool full of sewage!

Actually, perhaps I'll rephrase that as "how much do you spend on singleplayer-only games?" Might flow better.

Last edited by JonLester, Feb. 6, 2014 at 20:07
gmdlogan  Feb. 6, 2014 at 20:08

My fave games for years have been single player games. Assassins Creed being all about the offline capabilities.



Just redo me Assassins Creed 2 in full hd and playable, unlike the PS3 version!

Yukes  Feb. 6, 2014 at 22:31

Haha no Jon it's getting worse now! "...and how much do you spend on a single-player only games?"

Slightly more on topic, I'm very excited about The Order. I love a good action/adventure shooter in third person. Two of my favourite underrated gems from two generations ago and last generation (Freedom Fighters and Binary Domain) more or less come under this category, although Binary Domain certainly has more shooter less adventure.

Oh Freedom Fighters, how I miss you...

teddy1590  Feb. 6, 2014 at 23:16

Haha no Jon it's getting worse now! "...and how much do you spend on a single-player only games?"

Slightly more on topic, I'm very excited about The Order. I love a good action/adventure shooter in third person. Two of my favourite underrated gems from two generations ago and last generation (Freedom Fighters and Binary Domain) more or less come under this category, although Binary Domain certainly has more shooter less adventure.

Oh Freedom Fighters, how I miss you...


I will never fathom how it didn't do well enough to become a series. If IO did two year dev cycles, with Freedom Fighters and Hitman releasing a new game every two years, I would be ecstatic. Freedom Fighters is one of the few games I still power up the PS2 to play on occasion.

JonLester  Feb. 7, 2014 at 11:07

@Yukes: "Haha no Jon it's getting worse now!"

No... NOOOOOOOOOO...*headdesk*

I think everything's just sorted now. :D And yes, Freedom Fighters was pretty cool.

@teddy1590: It would have been better than Kane & Lynch.

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.