The Order: 1886 is easily one of this week's biggest releases. Perhaps more importantly, it kicks off what we hope is a promising year of PlayStation 4 exclusive blockbusters. However, there seems to be some skepticism surrounding Ready at Dawn's shooter and it has us worried that yet another PS4 exclusive might not live up to the hype.
Over the weekend, a playthrough of The Order: 1886 was uploaded to YouTube — cutscenes and all. The total of all the videos added up to about five hours and 30 minutes, reconfirming reports that the game could be completing in just a few hours despite carrying a $60 price tag.
Responding to the reports, Ready at Dawn CEO Ru Weerasuriya denied them, refusing to comment any further than simply calling them wrong.
"I know there are numbers out there," he told Eurogamer. "I know why the question comes up. I know numbers have been put out there that are actually not right. It's impossible to finish the game in that time, so we know the numbers are wrong."
"At the end of the day, we're not going to comment on it. We can't stop people from writing the things they do. And we're not going to jump at every single mistake that is made out there. Every time somebody has the wrong impression of something we made, or somebody writes the wrong thing about what we did, it would be a full-time job to be like, oh no, that's not right. We make games. We do what we do for the players. And, ultimately, that's where I want to leave it."
The Order: 1886 looked absolutely fabulous when we played it at PlayStation Experience, but I'm sure the notion that the game lasts just a few hours could turn a few off. While I personally don't mind shorter games, the fact that The Order: 1886 doesn't offer a multiplayer mode could diminish the replay value.
For me, though, with a game like The Order: 1886, which so heavily emphasizes story, I don't mind a shorter campaign. I hate when games don't know when to end. If a shorter game means a more impactful, tight-knit story, then I'm okay with that.
"Game length is important," Weerasuriya added. "Every game has to take its own time to tell its story. Some games can be short. Some games can be long. I still remember the first time I picked up Modern Warfare, I finished the campaign in about three-and-a-half or four hours. And it was fun because they made that campaign work for that because they had something else."
The difference is Modern Warfare has a multiplayer. Can Sony expect consumers to pay $60 for just a short single-player campaign?
Now the question is, would you sacrifice gameplay quality for quantity? Here's Weerasuriya's response.
"Gameplay length for me is so relative to quality. It's just like a movie. Just because a movie is three hours long, it doesn't make it better."
