Forums - Gaming Discussion - Play Assassin's Creed Odyssey makes me appreciate RDR2 a whole lot more

I played RDR2 from shortly after launch, and finished it about a week ago. I completed all of the main story and epilogue, and a good chunk of the side content.  I thought the game was excellent in just about every way.

A few days ago, I picked up Assassin's Creed Odyssey. I was never a huge fan of that series, but I had a lot of fun with last year's Origins.  I heard mostly good things about this year's game as well, so I figured I'd give it a shot.  After playing for a few days, I'd say that the game is pretty good. It's a whole lot like last year's Origins, and that's fine.  I'm pretty sure I'll play it through.

The thing is, within just a few hours of playtime, I started noticing many ways in which the game compares unfavorably to Red Dead Redemption 2. This is not to say that there's anything wrong with Odyssey.  Rather it is to point out just how good RDR2 is.

One of the first and most obvious things that I noticed was the extremely long load times. Assassin's Creed seems like it's always loading, and always making me wait while it does so. Red Dead almost never made me feel that way.  Both are very large, open world games. But, one of them, through game design choices, technical expertise, or both, makes me wait a whole lot less. That's something I can see and appreciate easily in a modern video game. (I played both on PS4 Pro)

Then there's the horse.  This one is so uneven it's not funny. The animations, the sounds, and just everything about the horse in Red Dead Redemption 2 is so much better. In fact, using your horse in Red Dead is so good that it makes the lack of a good fast travel system almost irrelevant.  Contrast that with Odyssey's inferior looking, and incredibly inferior sounding horseback experience.  It's like comparing $200 hiking boots with dollar store flip flops.

The list really goes on and on.  Graphics and audio are the two themes that runs through everything when comparing these two games. But it doesn't stop there. Red Dead is superior in almost every way. 

As I said, the point of this post is not to belittle Assassin's Creed. In my time with it so far, it seems like a good game. I'm glad I have the opportunity to play it.  But, man, Red Dead Redemption 2 sure is a great game. And comparing it to other top tier titles just makes it that much more obvious.  Maybe I should have given open world, action/adventure games a little break after RDR2.....

 



Around the Network

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.



Playing AC this week, wouldn't even touch RDR 2.



I haven't played RDR2 but it's good to hear that they've improved the horse riding experience from RDR. Riding a horse in RDR sucked so much. It was frustrating and annoying and part of the reason I dropped the game and never went back. Another part of dropping the game was the terrible gunplay, though I've heard that isn't all that good in RDR2.



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.

Budget and time spent does not always dictate quality. There are ways to make a better AAA than Red Dead without spending nearly as much time on the game. 



Zelda fans are the worst 

Around the Network
pokoko said:
I haven't played RDR2 but it's good to hear that they've improved the horse riding experience from RDR. Riding a horse in RDR sucked so much. It was frustrating and annoying and part of the reason I dropped the game and never went back. Another part of dropping the game was the terrible gunplay, though I've heard that isn't all that good in RDR2.

The horseback riding experience is much, much better than the first game. Gunplay is definitely improved, but there is still room for improvement. All in all though, I'd say it's within the acceptable range for the type of game that it is.



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



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
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.

Budget and time spent does not always dictate quality. There are ways to make a better AAA than Red Dead without spending nearly as much time on the game. 

True, but alot of things that make RDR2 better than AC Odyssey are things that are directly a result of the higher budget and higher man-hours. For instance the horse riding, the level of realism that went into the horses in RDR2 in terms of level of detail and animation quality are directly a result of RDR2 being a AAAA/AAA+ rather than a AAA, they probably had a whole team dedicated to the horses that worked on nothing but the horses for at least a year, AC Odyssey just couldn't compete against RDR2 in terms of horses due to the fact that Rockstar had the budget to throw alot more man-hours into the development of the horses than Ubisoft had. Another for instance would be the much greater variety of flavor dialogue, that comes down to Rockstar spending the money to hire a voice cast of over 1000 actors to provide tons of flavor dialogue for the many NPC's you encounter while exploring the open world. In the end, RDR2 having better graphics than AC Odyssey largely comes down to Rockstar throwing more man-hours behind the development of the latest iteration of the Rage engine than Ubisoft was willing to throw into the development of the latest iteration of their Anvil Next engine, it's rumored that the whole first year of development was spent upgrading the RAGE engine for current gen consoles with ongoing improvements throughout the rest of the development. 

Now of course there are things like writing that are better in RDR2 which don't really have anything to do with the increased budget and man-hours, Rockstar just picked a better lead writer for RDR2 than Ubisoft picked for AC Odyssey. 



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.



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.