New Details On The Order: 1886: “Interactive Cinematics”, ‘Dark’ Themed, ‘Brutal’ Melee Combat

The Order: 1886 is going to receive new previews, videos and screenshots tomorrow and it appears we have got our hands on one of such preview earlier than the expected date.

This preview is unfortunately published in french, but thanks to one particular user, we have got a good idea of what the preview talks about regarding the game.

First of all, the resolution is confirmed to be 1080p(Note: It is 1920×800 with 2:40:1 aspect ratio) and 30 fps, although this is old news now. Ready at Dawn are also going to add a grain effect in game to create a unique atmosphere. The weapons in The Order: 1886 are all based on the actual weapons from the year 1886, but they are heavily modified. During cinematics, we are able to control the player and interact with the game. The game will be quite dark, and might evoke a feel of survival horror. We can also use the “Termite” rifle to pull enemies from behind cover.

Here are details on the hand to hand combat, translated by that user.

 Hand to hand fights are pretty similar visually to the ones in The Last of Us. and are really brutal. fight scenes are contextual and with multiple choices depending on your surrounding. You have to look around your character with the camera during bullet time and select what you want to do.
The hand to hand fights won’t look the same ever. it uses some kind of linking system colbined with player reactivity.

NeoGAF user Shinobi602 also dropped some new details, that were passed on to him regarding the game. According to him, The Order: 1886 combat was described to him as feeling like you’re “fighting for every inch” like in Killzone 2. He also talks about the game being like a regular TPS albeit with the exploration aspect of The Last of Us mixed with the freshness of destruction physics, cover system and unique weapons, which all sound quite promising.

The Order: 1886 has yet to receive an official release date. It is going to get two new videos, a whole bunch of screenshots and new previews from the press tomorrow.

What do you think of this new details regarding The Order: 1886? Let us know in the comments below.

  • Guest

    lol are you the same guy as You are flat out wrong,
    and Forza was downgraded and it sill look better then any racing game out there

  • Bristow9091

    A message to everyone complaining about the resolution and comparing it to Ryse:

    Ryse is 900p, which is 1600×900, that’s 1,440,000 pixels onscreen…

    The Order is 1080p but is utilising black bars to make it look cinematic, meaning a drop from 1920×1080 to 1920×800, call that what you like, but it’s 1,536,000 pixels onscreen…

    What I’m saying is that The Order will look better than Ryse graphically AND be displayed at a higher resolution, despite having black bars…

  • Rosendo Campos

    Resolution isn’t everything all of a sudden right?

    • Sobekflakmonkey

      1920×800 is like a step down from 1920×1080….its a lot higher than you think.

    • NinoBr0wn

      Might want to comprehend what is actually at work here with the resolution. It’s not just random numbers.

      • Rosendo Campos

        that what i been saying its more then resolution, but all people could talk about is 1080p

        • Kamille

          if this game were on Xbone the resolution would most likely be much lower and that is the point of the 1080p talk. The Xbone is weak.

          • Rosendo Campos

            not everything is about resolution look at this game its a perfect example 800p way better then call of duty at 1080p

    • You are flat out wrong

      The PS4’s power isn’t infinite. The devs have chosen graphical fidelity over resolution. Point here is: The Order could never run on the Xbone. Ever.

      • Rosendo Campos

        ya that what the ryse dev said yet everyone was not so happy with there decision

        • You are flat out wrong

          Point is Ryse could have run better on the PS4. The Order couldn’t on the Bone. Xbone is underpowered dogshit. Deal with it. 🙂

          • Rosendo Campos

            lol congratulation you know what you win nothing!!! will see when Quantum break come out and smashes this game

          • You are flat out wrong

            Yeah, I’m looking forward to seeing if QB’s downgrades are as bad as Ryse’s or Forza 5’s.

            i2(.)minus(.)com/jNYYOnxU3X5qC(.)png

          • Rosendo Campos

            yet Ryse is better looking then Killzone

          • You are flat out wrong

            There’s those Xdrone prescription glasses again!

          • Rosendo Campos

            lol these glasses look pass all the BS on the internet

          • You are flat out wrong

            Then they probably hate having to filter all your shit comments.

          • Rosendo Campos

            The only shit comments i see are yours. How are you even useing the computer you should be in the toiled with all the shit you spew out. I bet your one of those people who cant appreciate a good game . lol your one funny man or women or thing? I’m done arguing feel free to comment back but i will not answer.

          • You are flat out wrong

            Poor little Xbot. Totally ruined.

    • vcarvega

      If any of the game running at 720Pp looked as good as The Order, there would be less fuss over it. Aside from that though, 1900 x 800 is FAR superior to the last been resolutions coming out of the xbone.

      • Rosendo Campos

        lol i remember everybody making fun of 900p ryse if they only new to lower down the resolution to 800p nobody would have said anyrthing

        • vcarvega

          First of all, due to the aspect ratio, The Order is still technically 1080p. Ryse ran at a resolution of 1600 x 900 which is literally 900p.

          That aside, Ryse did still receive a lot of praise for its visuals.

          • Rosendo Campos

            ya i barley found that out

    • ImonadrugcalledCharlieSheen

      Well its confirmed 1080p, so…………..

  • jakdripr

    Hmmmm, a regular TPS except with cool weapons and exploration? I’m not sure how I feel about this. If he means its as linear as TLoU then I’m starting to get worried. When they said no MP I wasn’t worried because I assumed it would be an open world game. A linear SP TPS sounds more like a rental than a purchase.

    Of course, this is all speculative, we’ll know more tomorrow.

    • Spencer

      Not every game needs to be open world. That wouldn’t even work for a game like this.

      • jakdripr

        But every game does need to have value for money. Two ways we know of doing this is to either make the game open world or give it multiplayer, neither of which this game will have. Like I said, I don’t know enough to come to a conclusion about this game, however I am starting to get worried they might have put all their resources into making a beautiful game that can be beaten in a weekend.

        • Semyon

          Half Life 2 doesn’t agree with you 🙂

          • jakdripr

            This is working under the assumption I bought half life 2. I didn’t, at least not until it was packaged in the orange box and I knew I’d still have something to do after beating the campaign.

        • Sobekflakmonkey

          if it’s 8-12 hours I’m honestly cool with that, MP doesn’t mean a whole to me personally, TLOU had an amazing single player, I played through it once, loved it, and that was all I needed, I played the MP a bit, it was good, but not nearly as good as my experience playing the singleplayer…don’t really care if The Order is open world, doesn’t need to be, at least this way they can have a proper cinematic story.

          • jakdripr

            And if that’s how you feel then more power to you, me on the other hand, I want video games that last. I cannot justify shelling out $60s for a game I beat in 8-12 hours and never play again. There has to be some type of replayability involved.

          • datdude

            How does multiplayer add replay value for you? I never understand some folks. Multiplayer is rinse and repeat gameplay. You do the same damn thing over and over and over and over again in perpetuity. And that excites you? Grinding away like a dummy hour after hour simply to achieve some perk, attachment, or level that should have been available from the get go? No thanks. Tremendous waste of time, and quite boring to boot. Without a story to advance gameplay, you might as well be playing whac a mole, it’s the same mechanics with the same repetition.

        • NinoBr0wn

          So are you saying The Last Of Us wouldn’t be worth the same price without multiplayer? I don’t know what made you *assume* The Order was open world, but it’s like there’s am agenda against linear single player games in recent years, as if there’s all of a sudden something wrong with it. Many people would rather have the developer make the game they envisioned, without multiplayer just for the hell of it, which ultimately would take away from both modes.

          • jakdripr

            It’s funny you mention TLoU because I 100% believe that if it didn’t have a multiplayer(or some sort of replayability) it wouldn’t be worth the price. I burrowed it from a friend, beat it and sent it right back cuz I had no interest in the MP. Bayonetta is linear and SP but I’ve gotten over 50 hours from it because it has replayability. Same XCOM enemy unknown, all I want is game that gives me a reason to keep playing after the 8-12 hour campaign is done.

            More importantly though your focusing on only one aspect of what I said. I never said the game needed either MP or to be open world, I just want some goddamn value for my money. I honestly don’t understand why this is causing such a ruckus, heaven forbid a man wants a game he can play for more than one weekend.

          • NinoBr0wn

            I mentioned The Last Of Us because you did. I didn’t just bring it up for no reason. You said if it’s as linear as The Last Of Us, then you’re worried. And that’s the whole basis of what I said. It’s only been in very recent times that you see certain crowds all over the new complaining about linearity in games or replay value, and it’s all because of the rise of multiplayer, almost as if that universally makes games better or ‘worth’ more. Replayability is 100% subjective. You can play through a game as many times as you want, if you find the experience good enough.

          • jakdripr

            That’s not necessarily true, I’ve always valued a game that gives me value for money(replayability is just another one of the ways games provide that), even before I got into online MP. I skipped out on a number of games even last generation because I felt I’d beat them and then they’d start collecting dust and one of the most disappointing aspects of fable 1 was that it was short and also didn’t lend itself well to multiple playthroughs. I rarely ever buy games, so when I do I usually want them to last.

            And I definitely see where you’re coming from with that last statement, however I still don’t agree with it. A game needs to give me a reason to playthrough it’s linear story a second time. If I already know exactly how the game is going to play out, and it doesn’t present me with choices that affect the ending, then it had better give me something else to convince me.

            Be it an awesome combat system(ala ninja gaiden) a slew of unlockables(ala bayonetta) or just high scores to beat(hotline miami). If it’s just beat this game again, period, like enslaved then no thanks.

        • jb223

          Hang on, so the only ways to give a game “value” are to make it an open world or cram in unnecessary multiplayer? How about just presenting a unique and compelling full experience w/ a proper playtime? Not every game needs to be open world, and in all honesty, more often than not open world is less valuable visually than a linear one. I would rather visit a variety of unique locations & setpieces than be confined to one area that never really changes or differs. There are very few devs that can make open world games even worth finishing, hell even Rockstar themselves have put out games that were a total chore to complete (I’m looking at you GTA IV) and stories suffer from being confined to one location & the limitations w/in open world developing 99% of the time. I’d rather play a game that demands me to play to completion, that compels me to actually think about the characters & story, that presents memorable scenes that jump out anytime you try to remember what video games can be. Multiplayer means nothing to me unless its couch co op and I’m experiencing it w/ a flesh & blood human being next to me. Is my definition of “value” somehow less valuable than yours? This is a situation where everyone would be better left to at least see proper gameplay before tearing it down or dismissing decisions made by a proven & competent developer. We have put this weird set of bulletpoints on what makes next gen instead of allowing the developers themselves to actually SHOW us what next gen is. The Sherlock Holmes-ian melee system sounds very innovative and could end up amazing, the weaponry is bound to be very creative at the very least, and the game is also seemingly presenting an evolution of cinematic constraints on gameplay, what isn’t unique or valuable about that, and why should a game that compels you to finish it as quickly as humanly possible be considered less valuable than those present cookie cutter games of tag w/ 12 year olds?

          • jakdripr

            I’m sorry, I’m not reading all of that so you’ll have to excuse me if I overlook a point you made. However, I never said the only ways to give value was to have MP or be open world, I said those were two of the possible ways, but everyone seems so ready to jump on my ass in defence of a game we don’t actually know anything about that they just jump to this conclusion. I’ve said this in response to every one here, if you enjoy 8-12 hour games and think they’re worth $60 more power to you, I on the other hand do not and last time I checked it was my money and I was legally allowed to spend it on whatever the hell I chose. I did not buy bioshock, infinite, or TLoU because they were games I knew I’d beat in under 15 hours and probably never play again. I am not okay with this, if you are, then by all means enjoy yourself. I on the other hand am not.

            And did you not read the last sentence of my post? Here ill quote it again because you obviously either didn’t read it or didn’t comprehend it “Like I said, I don’t know enough to come to a conclusion about this game….” meaning, I am not writing the game off, however this post has not filled me with confidence. Or am I not allowed to comment on the information they shared with us? So your whole comment on wait and see is completely irrelevant because I already said I was going to wait and see.

          • jb223

            I wasn’t jumping on your ass, and definitely not in defense of this game in particular, just commenting on the general trend of people equating things like half assed mp & open world elements as somehow better or more praiseworthy than a rock solid game of any other genre. I personally value a game on the experience it presents me, not the amount of time I sink into it or how many times I go back to it. You are more than welcome to whatever opinions you choose. As far as trying to insult me for not being able to comprehend your incredible grasp on the english language, just realize that in the same sentences you are claiming to be reserving judgment, you are essentially judging the title for not being more of whatever it is you personally want in a game. I don’t have any problem w/ games doing different things for different folks, but there is no “correct” way to make a game or to assign value to said game. You mentioned 2 instances as if there were only so many others, but games can’t be constrained to previous ones if the industry ever wants to move forward. I personally would rather give quality devs the benefit of a doubt unless it’s a game not geared towards my tastes, in which case I ignore it completely until informed opinions tempt me otherwise.

          • jakdripr

            You are correct, and I apologize if I came at you with hostility, I was just getting irritated by all the messages being thrown in my direction. You do have a point, I was still going to give them the benefit of the doubt and I am still anxiously looking forward to seeing what they have to show tomorrow. With that said I am already skeptical about this game as all we’ve heard so far is how good it looks and not how good it plays, so this article compounded that skepticism.

            I do hope the developer proves me wrong, I’m always down for awesome new IPs.

            P.S. I wasn’t trying to insult you, was just surprised you seemed to have either missed or misunderstood that part of my post.

          • jb223

            I definitely get your trepidation towards the game, seems like these days games get endlessly hyped & rarely ever live up to it. As a singleplayer kind of dude I’m looking forward to the game, but you are probably right to be a bit leery. I’m reading things about framerate drops in the preview & some other possible technical issues, but hopefully that stuff is all down to it being early yet still. Totally with you in wanting these new ips to succeed, if we don’t get good quality new games at the start of a new console cycle we probably never will, this is the time for devs to step up & make this gen all about solid playing & looking experiences, so hopefully that will all work itself out.

          • vcarvega

            People are jumping down your throat because you’re part of what’s wrong with main stream gaming. Not every game needs multiplayer or an open world. Most of the top games from the last two generations were single player only experiences. There is still plenty of room for developers to be as creative as they like without forcing modes into game simply to cater to your tastes. The game will sell millions with our without your purchase… If it’s not your type of game, simply don’t buy it.

        • datdude

          Plenty of people enjoy games like Bioshock, God of War, Metal Gear, etc. etc. and don’t mind no multiplayer. Stop bleating like a sheep about the lack of multiplayer. The fact is, many of us vastly prefer great single player experiences such as these, and their financial success as well as critical success speak directly to that fact.

        • ImonadrugcalledCharlieSheen

          Utter nonsense, think about all the non-open world games, and games that dont have MP at all, that give you plenty of value for money. Those things are not a requirment for a fantastic game, nor a requirement for value.

  • AlwaysRight

    Grain effect and “interactive cinematics”……great