I’m replaying The Order 1886 right now mainly to see how the visuals hold up today and holy fuck it’s still one of the nicest looking games around imo. Sure it could be higher resolution and 60fps but for a game made by developers who were used to fucking PSP development as a PS4 launch window game it’s absolutely astonishing looking.
I really can’t imagine what they would have done with PS5 hardware when they created The Order on an almost mobile phone level CPU and a sub 2 TERAFLOP GPU.
I know there was a lot of controversy at the time over the game (especially it’s length) but I have to say as a linear, cinematic, third person shooter I can’t see much wrong with it outside of maybe an overuse of QTE’s and the few annoying as fuck insta fail stealth sections. It’s a solid 7.5/10 for me and an amazing base for a sequel to improve upon. A shame we’ll never see it
So how did they do it? Art direction, giving themselves more headroom by reducing the number of rendered pixels by 40+% versus other 1920x1080 first party games, the shorter length meaning more time per asset / section or were they just focused on pushing the visual envelope as far as possible?
Another question to make my ramblings worthwhile… Would you guys take shorter games (say 6-8 hour linear games versus something like 25 hour semi open World games like God of War or 40 hour open World games like Horizon) if it meant the visual envelope continued to be really pushed like the early PS4 games such as Killzone, Second Son, The Order, Driveclub and Uncharted 4?
I’m obviously already aware the average person would take a 30-40 hour game over a prettier 8 hour one for value for money. There’s something to be said for playing something like The Order though and just admiring it’s pushing of the medium if only in a visual sense. I would watch Avatar 2 for the same reasons.