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

VAMatt said: 
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.

Resources and time. I mean AC:Origins and Odyssey are impressive games. But how long were they developed for? Its seems like Origins was thrown together in a couple years while Syndicate was being worked on. Meanwhile Odyssey came the year after.

RDR2 was probably being worked on just after GTA5 launched.

I feel Ubisoft has very talented people that have to put out content quickly and they do a good job for what its worth.



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)

Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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. 

You're right. But there is no reason Ubisoft can't put the same resources in Assassin's Creed as Rockstar did in Red Dead Redemption 2. If Ubisoft stuck to do something similar with the same time and money Odyssey would have been the game to follow Brotherhood, which sold over 10 million and would have sold as well as Red Dead Redemption if it didn't have so many sequels since then as it has 8 games between Odyssey and Brotherhood.

We should not make excuses for these publishers. They charge the same $70 for their games and are hugely successful so they should be held in the same regards when it comes to expected quality. I appreciate Rockstar for investing in their product instead of having games made in production lines. I enjoyed Odyssey but it felt really dated compared to other games I played this year, it was also very bloated and they even reused the soundtrack from Assassin's Creed 2. Stuff like that really puts me off and I bought Odyssey at a discounted price and still think its among the worst games I played this year. Its only better than Far Cry 5 and Octopath Traveller.



I haven't played ac odyssey but a lot of aspects of rdr2 felt dated to me. The ridiculously linear missions and how repetitive the missions were. The gunplay is just so brain dead. Also chapter 5 was just plain bad to me. While game excels in so many areas it falls flat in a few as well.



shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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. 

well the horse has 4 legs, the game has 4 As. that explains it.



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


GOWTLOZ said:
shikamaru317 said:

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. 

You're right. But there is no reason Ubisoft can't put the same resources in Assassin's Creed as Rockstar did in Red Dead Redemption 2. If Ubisoft stuck to do something similar with the same time and money Odyssey would have been the game to follow Brotherhood, which sold over 10 million and would have sold as well as Red Dead Redemption if it didn't have so many sequels since then as it has 8 games between Odyssey and Brotherhood.

We should not make excuses for these publishers. They charge the same $70 for their games and are hugely successful so they should be held in the same regards when it comes to expected quality. I appreciate Rockstar for investing in their product instead of having games made in production lines. I enjoyed Odyssey but it felt really dated compared to other games I played this year, it was also very bloated and they even reused the soundtrack from Assassin's Creed 2. Stuff like that really puts me off and I bought Odyssey at a discounted price and still think its among the worst games I played this year. Its only better than Far Cry 5 and Octopath Traveller.

I don't really think that Assassin's Creed as a series could be profitable if the games had the budget and man hours that Rockstar games do. GTA V had a $250m development + marketing budget and it is rumored that RDR2's budget was even higher. We don't know the budget for AC Odyssey, but the most recent Assassin's Creed budget we do know, Assassin's Creed 2, was $24m development budget alone (the marketing budget is unknown), while Ubisoft's 2014 released Watch Dogs had a $68m development + marketing  budget, so it is likely that the budget for all of Ubisoft's recent AAA's like AC Origins, AC Odyssey, and Far Cry 5, were under $100m. That is a big gap in budget. In order to break even on a $250m budget you need to sell like 6m copies at full price, then you an start making a profit on discount sales. AC games, even at the height of the series popularity, don't really sell enough to make a budget that high viable for Ubisoft. While the higher budget could boost reviews, there is no guarantee that higher reviews would result in higher sales (4, Origins, and Odyssey are some of the highest reviewed in the series, and they still didn't sell as well as 3 did).

Could Ubisoft afford to boost the budget and man-hours for AC some? Yes, with the budget that AC Odyssey likely had, it probably broke even within a few weeks of release, which means that all of it's legs will be profit, and the game has micro-transactions as well which results in even more profit. Ubisoft could probably afford to boost the AC budget by around 30-40%, and give each AC team 4 years to make a game instead of 3 (Origins is the only AC game in the series to get 4 years of development as far as we know). Anything more than that though would be a huge risk. Take-Two was only willing to throw a GTA V tier budget behind RDR2, when they first game only sold 14m lifetime, because Rockstar's GTA V was a massive success, Take-Two was banking on the increased popularity of the Rockstar name boosting the sales of RDR2, and it paid off for them. 



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

You're right. But there is no reason Ubisoft can't put the same resources in Assassin's Creed as Rockstar did in Red Dead Redemption 2. If Ubisoft stuck to do something similar with the same time and money Odyssey would have been the game to follow Brotherhood, which sold over 10 million and would have sold as well as Red Dead Redemption if it didn't have so many sequels since then as it has 8 games between Odyssey and Brotherhood.

We should not make excuses for these publishers. They charge the same $70 for their games and are hugely successful so they should be held in the same regards when it comes to expected quality. I appreciate Rockstar for investing in their product instead of having games made in production lines. I enjoyed Odyssey but it felt really dated compared to other games I played this year, it was also very bloated and they even reused the soundtrack from Assassin's Creed 2. Stuff like that really puts me off and I bought Odyssey at a discounted price and still think its among the worst games I played this year. Its only better than Far Cry 5 and Octopath Traveller.

I don't really think that Assassin's Creed as a series could be profitable if the games had the budget and man hours that Rockstar games do. GTA V had a $250m development + marketing budget and it is rumored that RDR2's budget was even higher. We don't know the budget for AC Odyssey, but the most recent Assassin's Creed budget we do know, Assassin's Creed 2, was $24m development budget alone (the marketing budget is unknown), while Ubisoft's 2014 released Watch Dogs had a $68m development + marketing  budget, so it is likely that the budget for all of Ubisoft's recent AAA's like AC Origins, AC Odyssey, and Far Cry 5, were under $100m. That is a big gap in budget. In order to break even on a $250m budget you need to sell like 6m copies at full price, then you an start making a profit on discount sales. AC games, even at the height of the series popularity, don't really sell enough to make a budget that high viable for Ubisoft. While the higher budget could boost reviews, there is no guarantee that higher reviews would result in higher sales (4, Origins, and Odyssey are some of the highest reviewed in the series, and they still didn't sell as well as 3 did).

Could Ubisoft afford to boost the budget and man-hours for AC some? Yes, with the budget that AC Odyssey likely had, it probably broke even within a few weeks of release, which means that all of it's legs will be profit, and the game has micro-transactions as well which results in even more profit. Ubisoft could probably afford to boost the AC budget by around 30-40%, and give each AC team 4 years to make a game instead of 3 (Origins is the only AC game in the series to get 4 years of development as far as we know). Anything more than that though would be a huge risk. Take-Two was only willing to throw a GTA V tier budget behind RDR2, when they first game only sold 14m lifetime, because Rockstar's GTA V was a massive success, Take-Two was banking on the increased popularity of the Rockstar name boosting the sales of RDR2, and it paid off for them. 

I agree that there probably isn't much room in the market for 5 plus year development cycles and $200m+ budget games.  But, there certainly is room for more than just Rockstar. A few of these other guys could throw some big time and money behind a game here and there.  It would be nice to see what somebody else could do.

With that said, other developers do sometimes claim  to be doing this kind of thing. One of the best recent examples I can think of is Destiny.  We heard talk of massive budget there.  The product delivered certainly wasn't on a Rockstar level. But, I will credit Destiny for polish. The game did not have a bunch of bugs, and the gameplay generally felt great. There are other problems with the title, some of which may have been a product of Activision and Bungie not really understanding how to make something on the scale they talked about.

Excuse me for taking the comment off-topic there a little bit. I'm kind of typing out my thoughts here. As I work through this comment here I'm starting to think that maybe some other developers and publishers have tried to do the Rockstar thing. I'm not sure really. But, certainly nobody has been able to pull it off like Rockstar and Take Two.  Hopefully, somebody else illl compete on that level some day.



See, I sort of feel otherwise. I've not played Odyssey yet but I've played plenty of other open world games in my time, and playing Red Dead Redemption 2 actually makes me appreciate the others some more.

The reason for me is that RDR2 delves a little too deep into the realms of realism for my liking. Everything seems so slow and tedious, even things as simple as walking/running, switching weapons, or riding a horse, they've "added weight" to it all to make it feel more realistic (Also the horse riding and shooting actually feels a step down from the original), but in turn these design choices take away so much of the fun I could be having with the game. Don't get me wrong, the world, everything and everyone in it, is amazing, it's an insanely immersive game... but due to them putting so much work into realism and such, it's just... not very fun for me to play, and I appreciate many other open world games a lot more thanks to it.

Also I despise the survival-lite elements in the game, I hate stuff like that, lol.



Yeah I'm still playing red dead 2 and I ain't touching any open world game after it. It's just so damn good.



Quite the opposite for me actually. RDR2 made me appreciate Odyssey more. RDR2 has very sluggish movement, and the combat feels WORSE than GTA 5. With a mission design that feels out of date in 2018. I'm not really a rabid fan of rockstar anymore like I was previously.

Just take a look at this:

I'm also not really that big of the fan of the realistic systems that have been added. For example, why is hunting way more complicated than it needs to be?



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

man I still just don't have any motivation to pick this game up ever again. I get tempted to play then I start thinking about how slow everything is and play something else