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.
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.