shikamaru317 said:

In the end, RDR2 is a AAAA (aka AAA+) game, while AC Odyssey is a AAA game. The budget and man-hours that went into developing RDR2 are on a whole other level than the budget and man-hours spent on AC Odyssey.

Yes, I think that's a good way to put it.  RDR2 is AAAA.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Well that's the difference between a big budget game with a long development time and Assassin's Creed.

Yup.  It is nice to see what devs can accomolish when they have massive resources to work with. 

Scoobes said:
I'm doing exactly the same thing and I'd agree with everything you posted. I much prefer the setting of AC: Odyssey but RDR2 is just polished to a level way beyond AC that in nearly every objective way. The long load times, the semi-frequent bugs/slowdown and horse animation that looked fine in Origins that now looks clunky at best... they're all that bit more noticeable.

RDR2 was not perfect and Odyssey is still a great game, but you can really see where the extra time it took to develop RDR2 went.

Yes, you certainly can see it.  I wish we had a few more games like this (in terms of mega-budget, nearly unlimited time development cycles).  I imagine Rockstar will take it up yet another notch with GTA6, and that's great.  But, it would be good for gaming if they weren't just competing with themselves.