the order 1886 doesnt have muliple endings

#1 Edited by ewalthour (557 posts) -

http://gamingbolt.com/the-order-1886-will-have-one-ending-game-will-blow-away-players-with-seamless-filmic-integration

Yeah the game looks good but without multiplayer and now no branching story that will provide multiple endings so far isn't appealing to me. I will follow the game and still have interest but this isn't sounding good. The only thing that could give this game replay value is DLC or offline co op.

Heavy rain is an example of a game without multiplayer but there were tons of endings and your decisions throughout the game made a difference what you saw and didn't see even before the endings.

I am less optimistic about The Order being great but sounds more of a rental. Now if the game takes 30 hrs to finish then that is a another story. Yes length if game is a large factor in replay or just plain value to me. The days of a game without multiplayer or offline co op(which I think it doesn't have also) are long gone to warrant $60.

This could also be a case of developers revealing to much about the game in the sense of its value and game style way too soon. I am trying not to jump to conclusions.

#2 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2107 posts) -

sounds like rental material to me or at most bargain bin

#3 Posted by robdacool (21 posts) -

I'm beginning to care less and less about this game every single time I read articles about it, which is sad cause I initially really wanted it.

If there is only ONE ending, why should I play it twice?

#4 Posted by MarcRecon (5389 posts) -

I'm not shocked and I'm cool with it! I think they want to make a really strong SP story and just expand on it with DLC....which aint to cool!!! lol

#5 Edited by AJC3317 (2497 posts) -

i used to kinda like multiple endings but the more I think about it, the more I don't. there's no other form of media that offers multiple endings, unless you like choose your own adventure books. just tell ONE really solid story, and let me experience it

#6 Posted by MarcRecon (5389 posts) -

@AJC3317 said:

i used to kinda like multiple endings but the more I think about it, the more I don't. there's no other form of media that offers multiple endings, unless you like choose your own adventure books. just tell ONE really solid story, and let me experience it

Agreed, your either gonna like it or your not!!

#7 Posted by ewalthour (557 posts) -

http://gamingbolt.com/the-order-1886-interview-telling-a-strong-story-with-cg-quality-graphics

More info for the people. I am very Leary of a single player game with no info on

how long the game will be. Very good question in interview but bad response. Ok, let's recap. No multiplayer online and no multiple endings and believe no co op offline. Yes games can be very good with multiple endings if done right like someone dies if you don't save then the story completely changes at the end etc

#8 Posted by The_Golden_Age- (142 posts) -

It only has one ending? Good, that means they can focus on creating the best experience for that storyline. No online multiplayer? Fine by me, the only online multiplayer I've ever enjoyed is Killzone 2 and Starhawk. No co-op? Good, now gameplay doesn't have to be tailored to accommodate two or more people. Not 30 hours long? Good, this type of game would be savagely dragged out and become a total boring slog if it were that long. I'm a busy adult and I would rather have a focused experience that I can finish in around 10 hours or less. I still need to see more from a gameplay standpoint though. I'm not sure about how often they take control away from the player in order to be more cinematic. Right now it seems to be a lot, but maybe it's just the scenes that they wanted to show off so far. All in all it still has my attention.

#9 Edited by ewalthour (557 posts) -

@The_Golden_Age-: well you seem to be the type that dont care for high replay games. I will not pay $60 for a great 10 hrs then I am done IF THERE ARE NO INCENTIVES TO REPLAY. These are all replay value components. I am not saying a game needs to be 30 hrs but feel empty with a bunch of stuff to stretch the game out to justify its value. You tell me a $60 that is worth it for 6- 10 hrs where all the surprise is gone after first play through without all those extras such as co op,multiplayer etc? Case and point ..a game like beyond two souls with single player and 8 hrs max to play. How well did that game sell? Maybe the game had to much QTE events but heavy rain had alot too but high replay value with great story and multiple endings. Why would anyone be satisfied with a 8 hr game? Even with great story and great gameplay, and once game is over youre very unlikely to want to play again those type of games? Now maybe you are that type. I am not that type. I want great story, great gameplay with great dense GOOD content to provide high replay value to be considered a AAA game.

I just finished valiant heart that took me 8-10 hrs to replay with low replay value besides going back to a few scenes to replay. I am satisfied with valiant heart because it was only $14. Yes some gamers are very busy and may think they dont have time. Tell that to GTA 5 fans with that game taking 50 plus hrs just to finish story and side missions. That is called Hugh value and worth $60 plus. If rockstar sold the game for $80 w/o online or DLC it would still be worth it.

No one is telling busy gamers to finish a game immediately. If it takes you months to finish but you enjoy every minute then that is a great game. I am not saying a game can't be great if it's short but I will not buy it for $60 for dang sure.