PlayStation Community Thread

[Raven]

Lack of multiplayer was one of the main complaints people had with the first. I feel they'd be taking way more of a risk if they tried to keep the sequel single player only again. That didn't exactly work out too well the first time.

Yeah. Even before reviews people disliked it not having a multiplayer component. I especially didn't like how Isabella's character turned out. You've been fighting alongside the man you love for centuries. You should know his character inside and out. Yet at the first miniscule hint of romantic rivalry, which didn't exist, you throw him to the wolves and act like HE is the bumb? Even the new guy believed in him while hardly knowing him compared to you. There just wasn't enough there to justify anyone going from zero to crustard like that so quickly.

[Legend]

Lack of multiplayer was one of the main complaints people had with the first. I feel they'd be taking way more of a risk if they tried to keep the sequel single player only again. That didn't exactly work out too well the first time.

People praised it for not having MP at first. This was back when it felt like every game had tacked on multiplayer. It wasn't until the disappointing launch that complaints about MP started, at least as far as I remember.

I think they should just add coop.  Not every game needs a useless multiplayer.

Online coop would certainly be a better option.

[DerNebel]

People praised it for not having MP at first. This was back when it felt like every game had tacked on multiplayer. It wasn't until the disappointing launch that complaints about MP started, at least as far as I remember.

There were both types, there was the group praising them for putting their focus on making a great campaign instead of splitting up their resources, but I distinctly remember there always also being the people that thought it was a ridiculous that a third person shooter like this came without any multiplayer component at all.

After the game was out one group completely quieted down or shifted their view and the general opinion was basically "How can they deliver a campaign like that and then not even have multiplayer?"

A well-thought-out MP is absolutely crucial for a sequel to the Order to be successful imo.

[the-pi-guy]

People praised it for not having MP at first. This was back when it felt like every game had tacked on multiplayer. It wasn't until the disappointing launch that complaints about MP started, at least as far as I remember.Online coop would certainly be a better option.

That.  

Multiplayer would ruin an Order sequel imo. That'd take a lot of money to develop and it'd come straight out of the campaign's budget. It's not like this is a proven franchise worth the risk of fully funding both.

Disagree.  
Gameplay is really good.  A multiplayer would be very solid.  Think Uncharted MP with unique guns.  
The campaign on the original did have some problems, but overall it was pretty good.  The single player, I think just needs to make the story more interactive.  Instead of using cutscenes/QTEs, it could utilize a lot more of the story in real time.  
That would really be the big thing that I'd like to see added.  

[nnodley]

The good thing is that RAD had The Orders' game engine already built.  So they should be able to focus solely on improving on what they have instead of having to build and tweak a game engine for years or however long they had worked on it.  Though they can improve on it, but shouldn't take as much to do.

[Legend]

If the potential sequel has a ~20 hour long campaign, then I think it'd be ok without any form of multiplayer.

Adding mp could help cover up another disappointing campaign, but multiplayer is just so risky imo. You guys are looking at this and assuming the MP will be great, but most likely it'd be average. RAD has no recent MP experience and multiplayer shooters are extremely fickle. Realistically you can either have a great campaign and no MP or a mediocre campaign and mediocre MP.

[DerNebel]

If the potential sequel has a ~20 hour long campaign, then I think it'd be ok without any form of multiplayer.

Adding mp could help cover up another disappointing campaign, but multiplayer is just so risky imo. You guys are looking at this and assuming the MP will be great, but most likely it'd be average. RAD has no recent MP experience and multiplayer shooters are extremely fickle. Realistically you can either have a great campaign and no MP or a mediocre campaign and mediocre MP.

I'm not expecting a great campaign no matter if they include MP or not. I'd rather have them go a different route and try include a meaningful multiplayer instead of going all in on the campaign again. Also just to be super pedantic, RAD is actually currently developing a multiplayer game: Deformers.  

[Legend]

I'm not expecting a great campaign no matter if they include MP or not. I'd rather have them go a different route and try include a meaningful multiplayer instead of going all in on the campaign again. Also just to be super pedantic, RAD is actually currently developing a multiplayer game: Deformers.  

A yes deformers. Perfect example of why I'm skeptical a publisher wants to fully fund a sequel to Order  

So you want something different. Would you be open to a $40 multiplayer only game?

[DerNebel]

A yes deformers. Perfect example of why I'm skeptical a publisher wants to fully fund a sequel to Order  

So you want something different. Would you be open to a $40 multiplayer only game?

I'm not sure I want or at least care for a sequel to The Order 1886 at all, I never played the original, only watched it on Youtube after all the negative impressions came out and left anything but impressed. I'm looking at this purely from a perspective of market success and imo a sequel to The Order has the best chances on the market if it delivers the full package. In that vein I feel a MP only sequel would also be complete misstep.

The Order 1887 would need to have a true masterpiece of a campaign for it to be able to stand on its own after the first one being such a "flop" imo, the first game just kind of tainted the franchise.

Also I just found the video the article is based on and maybe I'm misinterpreting this but to me this doesn't really sound like a The Order sequel has been greenlt by Sony after all.

The question starts at 12:15

In other news: 10/10 best game of 2016...fudge me

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=de&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.gameblog.fr/tests/2591-persona-5-ps3-ps4&usg=ALkJrhhhEGdKtK9N4f9BDyNyrNNAsK4mAQ

[kitler53]

I think they should just add coop.  Not every game needs a useless multiplayer.

this.  10,000% this. 

team death match mp is done to death and i don't think the order would fit will in this dynamic.  the gameplay was on the slow side and the mp fanatics would have nothing of that. 

online co-op however is woahfully under served.  put co-op into the campain and then have another mode that just pits your team against hordes of lycan.  i'd play the shame out of that.

[Aura7541]

this.  10,000% this.  

team death match mp is done to death and i don't think the order would fit will in this dynamic.  the gameplay was on the slow side and the mp fanatics would have nothing of that.  

online co-op however is woahfully under served.  put co-op into the campain and then have another mode that just pits your team against hordes of lycan.  i'd play the shame out of that.

It also adds replay value that 1886 solely lacked.

[DerNebel]

PS Plus games have been revealed

[Aura7541]

Nioh's Game Director: The Game Will Take 70 Hours on Average, No Plans for PC Release Currently

That's a lot of time

[darkknightkryta]

Nioh's Game Director: The Game Will Take 70 Hours on Average, No Plans for PC Release Currently

That's a lot of time

O_O

[Legend]

PS Plus games have been revealed

Not a bad month!