News Article

The Order: 1886 Will Be a Single Player Only Affair, Says Ready at Dawn

Posted by Kell Andersen

One is the loneliest number

As we reported yesterday, there's been a wealth of rumours floating around the Internet in regards to upcoming PlayStation 4 exclusive The Order: 1886. There is definitely something brewing over at developer Ready at Dawn, and we suspect that there'll be a truckload more details to pore over in the coming weeks.

With that said, we're hoping that the title's four characters weren't leading you to believe that it would boast a Left 4 Dead-esque co-op multiplayer mode, as studio co-founder Andreas Pessino has confirmed on Twitter that such a feature does not exist, stating: "No multiplayer, it is a single player, third-person action adventure game."

When asked for a reason for this absence, the executive stressed that the team's main focus was to create a strong single player experience. "Better to do one thing well than a whole bunch half-assed," he continued. "We are trying to make a single player experience that you will enjoy." It seems that you'll be protecting the monarchy all on your lonesome, then. Do you think that the lack of multiplayer is a missed opportunity, or do you prefer to play alone? Let us know in the comments section below.

[via twitter.com, twitter.com]

Sponsored links by Taboola

More Stories

User Comments (39)

get2sammybAdmin

#1

get2sammyb said:

I'm a touch relieved, to be honest. The way the trailer was shot I thought for sure that this was going to be a four-player multiplayer affair. RAD has always been great at good plots — it made Kratos interesting, for example — so I'm really excited to see where this goes.

FullbringIchigo

#2

FullbringIchigo said:

good I'm sick of games having a tacked on multiplayer mode (looking at you God of War)

as the great sage yahtzee once said "a game must be able to stand up on single player alone"

Epic

#5

Epic said:

To tell the truth,
I was expecting some Steampunk 4 Player Co-Op action similar to Left 4 Dead after watching the trailer, but it looks like I was wrong.

DrJoeystein

#6

DrJoeystein said:

Although I admire the direction they're taking, I can't help but feel a bit let down that they aren't giving this a multiplayer mode. It does seem like a missed opportunity to me because the game looks like it would be a blast to play with friends, but if they're dropping it for the sake of the single-player, so be it.

fullyilly

#8

fullyilly said:

'create a strong single player experience' may just be the single best thing I've heard this week. I'm one of a dying breed that just loves a solid, deep single player experience. My anticipation for this title just doubled!

Great news.

rykkchii

#9

rykkchii said:

I'm with u fullyilly. I keep trying to socialise thru my games but always end up back on single player games. they are dying out sadly

BornOfEvil

#10

BornOfEvil said:

I was hoping for co-op or multiplayer, so I'm a little disappointed by this because now 2 games I'm really excited for - the other being Second Son - are confirmed to be singleplayer only.

I hate people as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I don't like being challenged by strong opponents online. Unfortunately, it seems like multiplayer is hard to find unless you're a fighter or first person shooter, anything else gets accused of being "tacked-on".

@FullbringIchigo GOW's multiplayer is great, if not for the fact that I don't have internet,II'd be destroying my enemies in the name of Hades.

ReigningSemtex

#11

ReigningSemtex said:

Good news really, I think if the game is a success and they are hoping to make a sequel then maybe lay the ground work for multiplayer for the sequel (kind of like what naughty dog did with uncharted).

Let's face it we all remember the tomb raider multiplayer and not for good reasons that game should have stayed single player and from what ready at dawn is saying so should this.

N711

#12

N711 said:

umm no real news I thought they said that a while ago.. I m all for single player experience for the Order but also cant wait to see what MMO games like the Division are like.

DoublezZ01

#14

DoublezZ01 said:

Not knowing if it had multiplayer I was gonna be sized if it did. ... but I'm actually glad to hear its single player onlytsar! !!! Glad second son won't be alone in this category! =) hope this has pre order add on bonuses aswell!

Scollurio

#16

Scollurio said:

I seriously don't gets that a game needs to be single player to deliver an awesome story experience. It's 2014, I really thought this is one first foray into "coop campaign with still awesome story" territory. Obviously I was wrong. Not to be too harsh but this is off my radar now.

Volmun

#17

Volmun said:

Shame i was hopeing for some good 4p co-op ohwell still going to enjoy the game.

GooRoo

#18

GooRoo said:

Excellent. Means there won't be any multiplayer trophies, either. :) Glad to hear it's third person, too...I prefer that to FPS. The game just moved up towards the top of my buy list. :)

Reverend_Skeeve

#19

Reverend_Skeeve said:

Excellent. I hate this apparent "every game has to have a mp, even if it kills us and the gamers"-trend.

There's some games in which I enjoy to play online, but at the end of the day, I'll take a good and cinematic single player campaign over a tacked on multiplayer anytime.

And, as @GooRoo said, this luckily also means no mp-trophies, which are a thing I like even less than a bad/generic multiplayer.

Gamer83

#20

Gamer83 said:

As somebody who really doesn't care much for multiplayer- especially tacked on garbage like what was in Tomb Raider- this is good news. It's caused a blow-up on youtube though and people are p*ssed that it's only 30 frames per second. I actually can't say I disagree with the argument about frames per second. There's really no reason for games on these consoles not be running a consistent 60 fps.

Tony_342

#21

Tony_342 said:

I agree with most people here - I consider this very good news. Not having multi-player at all in order to focus entirely on the single-player campaign (or as I like to call it - "The Game") is the option I would choose every time. I often forget that games like God of War: Ascension, Uncharted, and The Last of Us even have multi-player modes, as I have never touched them. I'd rather play through the game again for the thousandth time than mess with online multi-player.

Shellybird27

#22

Shellybird27 said:

about the 30 FPS issue, it's hilarious that if they wouldn't have said anything, no one would have noticed or cared. But since they say it's not '60 FPS' all hell breaks loose. Who cares anyway? Other than PC elitists.

Shellybird27

#23

Shellybird27 said:

But onto this, this game has now risen up to Second son level for me! Thank the gods, that Dev's are realizing how useless multiplayer is!! Co-op would have been cool, i agree. But to say, "it's off your radar" is ridiculous.

Gamer83

#24

Gamer83 said:

@Shellybird27

People who can tell the difference care. I definitely noticed a massive step up in performance in Tomb Raider. 60 fps makes a difference and if the console is capable of handling it, all games should run at that. I'm going to guess the new consoles just simply aren't capable of handling it in the more graphically intensive games created specifically for the now current-gen. And while that's disappointing to think about, it's still better than the other possibility which would be that developers are lazy and incompetent.

JaxonH

#25

JaxonH said:

Thank you. So sick of the over-focus on multiplayer. I'm actually very relieved. One of my biggest fears when I purchased the PS4 was that gaming was heading into a persistent-online culture, where single-player ordeals were all but a thing of the past. It's nice to see I was wrong.

Gamer83

#26

Gamer83 said:

@JaxonH

Still probably the way they're heading, sadly. That's why I appreciate when we get a game like The Order, or inFamous, or the W- and J-RPGs that have a heavy single player focus and don't require being online. Enjoy them while they last, because they won't be around beyond 2016.

JaxonH

#27

JaxonH said:

@Gamer83

Idk, I think as long as there's still demand for offline campaigns, developers will create a product to fill that void. Unfortunately, the "online single player campaign" may prove to serve as a backdoor DRM substitute (like Destiny). I hope that never happens, because I won't partake of any such thing. I'm very interested in Destiny, but I won't be buying the game due to the forced-online. I don't mind voluntary online- that's fine, as long as I'm not paying a subscription to use it...

Shellybird27

#28

Shellybird27 said:

@Gamer83 can see your point, but i disagree. Everyone loves to complain about the gaming industry, but if you choose to ignore the bad(like me), were in the golden years of gaming!

Gamer83

#29

Gamer83 said:

@Shellybird27

It's important to look at the good but it's most important to look at, and complain about, the bad. If people didn't, MS never would've had to change some X1 policies.

Gamer83

#30

Gamer83 said:

@JaxonH

Yeah, I don't like what Bungie is doing with the single player for Destiny. I might still buy the game but only if it's absolutely mind-blowing and even then I don't feel totally comfortable supporting that kind of venture. I haven't cancelled my pre-order yet because I know the guys at GameStop and having worked there in the past know the bs they deal with, but depending on what gets announced at E3, I may very well shift my Destiny pre-order to a game that will offer offline single player.

N711

#31

N711 said:

@Shellybird27 I agree I m a bit fed up with everyone moaning on every site. IGN comments is just so ridiculous now... Im actually glad to hear confirmation of what I thought : Single player only and focusing on graphics.

AeroZeppelin

#32

AeroZeppelin said:

@Gamer83 it is important to look at and ccomplain about the bad but it is most important to seek out the good You focus too much on the bad and the negative (witch is why i disagree with most of yor opinions) there is much more positive and good if you look for it and not focus too much on the bad and the negative and people complaining is not the maine reason MS change there policies the maine reason was money they realized that if they didn't change there policies they would lose lots of money nobody would have brought the Xbox one

Gamer83

#33

Gamer83 said:

@DaftPlayStation

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking, about, people complained and voted with their wallets and MS had to change. You can focus on the good, but if you turn a blind eye to the bad, which happens to often, you'll eventually end up with consoles that need constant internet connections, which is BS.

Jaz007

#34

Jaz007 said:

That's good to hear. And to the people dissapointed about no Co-Op, remember this opens up options for being away from your teammate, a teammate dying etc. Things like that are harder to do whith a good co-op experience.

artemisthemp

#36

artemisthemp said:

I am kinda sad since, I like games like Dead Island, where you can play the SIngple player with friends.

Oh well better than all resources goes to pointless PvP MP

cherrypoppa

#37

cherrypoppa said:

This is good news, I enjoy co-op but there are other games coming that will fill that void. If RAD wants a second order game they should focus on the story/single player.

Kai202

#38

Kai202 said:

I like this. I think it's great that their focusing on making an awesome single player experience instead of putting time into a half made multiplayer just for the cash.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...