There are games that end on a cliffhanger, only to ensure that the promised sequel never appears. The Order: 1886 is one of those tragic examples. Released in 2015 as a PlayStation 4 exclusive, it was one of the most ambitious games of its time – a cinematic experience with stunning graphics, an alternate history set in Victorian London, and a secret brotherhood fighting werewolves. Yet despite its cinematic presentation, the franchise faded into obscurity.
What went wrong
It was clear shortly after the release: The Order: 1886 It divided players. While the graphics and atmosphere were praised, it was heavily criticized for its short playtime, linear gameplay, and heavy reliance on quick-time events. Many saw the game more as a tech demo for the PS4 than a full-fledged gaming experience. Furthermore, the marketing suggested far greater freedom of play than the finished product ultimately offered.
Ready At Dawn co-founder Andrea Pessino has commented on the now-closed studio's failed attempt to produce a sequel to The Order: 1886 to develop. In an interview with FromMax Pessino explained that it was not the sales figures, but the reviews that were decisive for Sony's decision against a sequel. "Sony is a very proud group, and rightly so. If the critical reception had only been in the 70s, we would have had the sequel, I'm convinced of that. Just a few more points and it would have been okay."
A franchise with untapped potential
This is especially disappointing because the game laid such promising foundations. The dark steampunk setting, the epic lore, and the unresolved story threads would have provided a perfect starting point for a sequel. The game's ending hinted that the protagonist, Sir Galahad, still had a score to settle with the Brotherhood. A sequel could have addressed the shortcomings of the first installment and expanded upon them. The Order could become a true cult franchise.
Another problem was the tight development time. According to Pessino, many of the more subtle narrative elements were cut to meet the deadline. "We needed at least another year, but we didn't get it, so we thought: cut, cut, cut."
2018 would have been a realistic release window for the sequel, which would even have included a multiplayer mode. However, Pessino denied a fan theory that the game was supposed to be set in 1986. Despite the ambitious ideas, The Order: 1886 Ultimately, a one-off experiment with no sequel.
Is there still hope?
In a time when more and more games are getting a late second chance (Alan wake 2, DeadSpace Remake), the hope remains that The Order: 1886 It might return after all. Sony still owns the rights, but without the original developer It will be difficult. Perhaps the title will make a comeback one day – but until then, it remains The Order: 1886 A prime example of a failed but promising game series.
A fantastic game from start to finish. If they had included some resource/survival management (like in Resident Evil), the game would have had real potential. The only real flaw is the 21:9 aspect ratio and the 30fps frame rate, which could easily be fixed with a remaster.
Every piece of garbage gets remasters or remakes, even things like Until Dawn, but The Order, Resistance, Killzone 2+3, Infamous, etc. are all left untouched.
Sony doesn't want to make money... at least not from good games.
Better to belatedly chase after dreams of live services and beat the open-world formula to death… Plus, superhero games, but only Spider-Man, since they don't have any other licenses xD
There's nothing left for the players...
Considering how drawn-out games are these days, consisting almost entirely of fetch quests where you have to do the same repetitive tasks, with the same copy-and-pasted enemies, and playtimes of 30, 50 hours or more (like the last God of War, Ragnarok), it's sad and incomprehensible that such a great game as The Order didn't sell better or receive better reviews back then. As I mentioned, one criticism from GamePro at the time was that it was impossible to distinguish between gameplay and cutscenes.
In God of War, the Sepbe argument was suddenly listed as a positive example; that says it all.
The game was simply damn good from beginning to end; the cliffhanger at the end was unfortunately a bit frustrating, but also brilliant because it offered a glimpse of what could have come next, and that was just damn well staged!
I had a blast with the game from beginning to end and a really great time; I was a little sad when it was over. It's a shame that such awesome ideas won't be continued, especially with today's technology, when everything could have looked even better and been presented in an even more amazing way (without the open world, without the thousands of side missions, without the 50 or 100 hours of gameplay)...
I'd rather invest the money in a Concorde or buy a Bungir! XD
Yes, I see it like you do. You can compare it to The Last of Us, where you also run from one cutscene to the next after clearing the area. And The Last of Us is considered a masterpiece by the press in terms of gameplay; I don't see it that way.
100%... The Order was too boring and too straightforward, but with The Last of Us, it's suddenly cool and cinematic. It feels like everything is just a gamble these days, or rather, they create hype and then it's clear from the start that the game has to be good, since it's from the Uncharted team and The Last of Us Part I was so good. Going into it neutral is absolutely impossible!! People swallow it and then buy it. It's all politics again; Naughty Dog are the "good guys," and Druckmann can get away with anything, even though he ruined the studio.
It was the same with the violence debate back then. With Detroit: Become Human, a huge fuss was made, people wanted to boycott it and cornered Quantic Dream (the developer). Then with The Last of Us Part II (around the same time), there was this much more intense and inhumane violence, where they just kept going, but it was totally okay because it was Naughty Dog… Part 1 was just so great… and everything was rubber-stamped.
The gameplay is simply flat and the mechanics are catastrophic. But hey, 10/10
There's a reason why PC gamers ignore PlayStation titles. They're not trying to justify it because they don't have to. They're just a few games among many. For PlayStation-only users, it's the main event, and they have to celebrate it.
I'm definitely not going to buy a PS6, Sony is delivering zero... the PS5 generation was a complete disappointment.
It had fantastic visuals and atmosphere. Unfortunately, the gameplay lacked variety and became more tedious than fun from the middle to the end. Those who claim it was great from start to finish haven't actually played it and have only watched gameplay videos.
Awesome game, amazing graphics, and back then it was simply mind-blowing. It was fun, exciting, the setting was fantastic, and it looked so damn cool! That was next generation! Unfortunately, then along came those super-intelligent reviewers, like the ones at GameStar, who felt the need to list as a negative point that it wasn't clear when a cutscene was playing and when it was actually gameplay. They actually dared to list something like that as a negative point! After that, it all started with Sony's wannabe "cinematic" games, and everything became drama, drama, drama. Instead of the Last of Us Part II remake, the remake of the remake, Until Dawn remake, etc., I would have much preferred a Resistance game, a sequel to The Order, a really, really great new In Famous on the PS5... Sony could deliver such amazing games. Instead, they only cared about Uncharted/The Last of Us, Horizon, God of War, and let everything else rot.
Resistance is so good, people are begging for Bloodborne 2, The Order has so much potential, and Infamous is better than Spider-Man, especially more creative and fun….
A pity…
A sequel is needed to at least finish the story. I thought the game was great and worth the money.