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

I plan on getting AC: Odyssey at some point on a budget. RDR2 won't ever get that low, so I don't really plan on buying it.



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 just told you Brotherhood would have sold more than Redemption if it only had a sequel in 2018, and Red Dead Redemption 2 was a huge risk which Rockstar took as Red Dead Redemption sold 15 million which is not much higher than Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed 3 sold more than 15 million. Assassin's Creed was a bigger and more popular series of games, but Ubisoft didn't take the risk, which considering Assassin's Creed 3's sales would be less risky. We as consumers should reward companies who take such risks for our immersion, even if that company is as big as Rockstar.

If you don't agree with the above, atleast we should be able to compare games just as they are and not give a fuck about the behind the scenes, because its the final product which should matter to the consumer. If a game is lacking due to its lack of funding, that's ultimately the developer's headache and not ours.

Bristow9091 said:
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.

I'd argue that open world games are about the immersion and most of them don't have fun moment to moment gameplay.

The only exceptions are Batman Arkham games, Infamous games and Spiderman.

bananaking21 said:
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.

Yes, its a mastahpiece xD



GOWTLOZ said:
shikamaru317 said:

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 just told you Brotherhood would have sold more than Redemption if it only had a sequel in 2018, and Red Dead Redemption 2 was a huge risk which Rockstar took as Red Dead Redemption sold 15 million which is not much higher than Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed 3 sold more than 15 million. Assassin's Creed was a bigger and more popular series of games, but Ubisoft didn't take the risk, which considering Assassin's Creed 3's sales would be less risky. We as consumers should reward companies who take such risks for our immersion, even if that company is as big as Rockstar.

If you don't agree with the above, atleast we should be able to compare games just as they are and not give a fuck about the behind the scenes, because its the final product which should matter to the consumer. If a game is lacking due to its lack of funding, that's ultimately the developer's headache and not ours.

Yeah, but there is just no way that Ubisoft would ever give Assassin's Creed, their biggest selling series, an 8 year gap between releases. The best you can ever hope to see is an 2 year gap between AC games with 4 years of development per game, maybe $120m budget per game. Ubisoft is never going to risk more than that. Their bottom line depends on yearly and bi-yearly releases, it is the only thing that protected them from being bought out by Vivendi long ago. 



shikamaru317 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

I just told you Brotherhood would have sold more than Redemption if it only had a sequel in 2018, and Red Dead Redemption 2 was a huge risk which Rockstar took as Red Dead Redemption sold 15 million which is not much higher than Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed 3 sold more than 15 million. Assassin's Creed was a bigger and more popular series of games, but Ubisoft didn't take the risk, which considering Assassin's Creed 3's sales would be less risky. We as consumers should reward companies who take such risks for our immersion, even if that company is as big as Rockstar.

If you don't agree with the above, atleast we should be able to compare games just as they are and not give a fuck about the behind the scenes, because its the final product which should matter to the consumer. If a game is lacking due to its lack of funding, that's ultimately the developer's headache and not ours.

Yeah, but there is just no way that Ubisoft would ever give Assassin's Creed, their biggest selling series, an 8 year gap between releases. The best you can ever hope to see is an 2 year gap between AC games with 4 years of development per game, maybe $120m budget per game. Ubisoft is never going to risk more than that. Their bottom line depends on yearly and bi-yearly releases, it is the only thing that protected them from being bought out by Vivendi long ago. 

What I'm saying is budget should be no excuse for Assassin's Creed Odyssey lacking immersion. Compare two games on what they deliver and not what budget they had to deliver on various fronts.



pikashoe said:
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.

I never find linear missions to be a negative, and surely not in story driven games like rdr2 kinda is.

I agree on the gunplay yes, game could use its own VAT system like Fallout to improve it.



Around the Network
GOWTLOZ said:
shikamaru317 said:

Yeah, but there is just no way that Ubisoft would ever give Assassin's Creed, their biggest selling series, an 8 year gap between releases. The best you can ever hope to see is an 2 year gap between AC games with 4 years of development per game, maybe $120m budget per game. Ubisoft is never going to risk more than that. Their bottom line depends on yearly and bi-yearly releases, it is the only thing that protected them from being bought out by Vivendi long ago. 

What I'm saying is budget should be no excuse for Assassin's Creed Odyssey lacking immersion. Compare two games on what they deliver and not what budget they had to deliver on various fronts.

Indeed,the first Baldurs gate gives me more immersion than most of the assasins creed games combined.

Also kind of funny that Ubisoft is publishing South park games when everything in their own games looks to be so Political correct > Story.



My wife got me Odyssey for Christmas and I'm looking forward to playing it. Origins was very good and I've heard good things about Odyssey too.

That said, Red Dead Redemption 2 is simply levels above anything else I've ever played. I'm on chapter 6 right now with around 80 hours played and it's already my favorite game of all time. Such an immersive story and world with loads of quality content and stuff to do. I think the slow pace of the game compliments it perfectly.



GOWTLOZ said:
shikamaru317 said:

Yeah, but there is just no way that Ubisoft would ever give Assassin's Creed, their biggest selling series, an 8 year gap between releases. The best you can ever hope to see is an 2 year gap between AC games with 4 years of development per game, maybe $120m budget per game. Ubisoft is never going to risk more than that. Their bottom line depends on yearly and bi-yearly releases, it is the only thing that protected them from being bought out by Vivendi long ago. 

What I'm saying is budget should be no excuse for Assassin's Creed Odyssey lacking immersion. Compare two games on what they deliver and not what budget they had to deliver on various fronts.

And there is no excuse for RDR2 to have subpar gameplay, and missions more linear than naughty dog games. 



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.

Same here!!



PSN: Saugeen-Uwo     Feel free to add me (put Vg Chartz as MSG)!

Nintendo Network ID: Saugeen-Uwo

Me Getting the Big Boss Emblem!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8blJhM6PZ4

flashfire926 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

What I'm saying is budget should be no excuse for Assassin's Creed Odyssey lacking immersion. Compare two games on what they deliver and not what budget they had to deliver on various fronts.

And there is no excuse for RDR2 to have subpar gameplay, and missions more linear than naughty dog games

Not bad at all for a game to be linear, and i do not even think rdr2 has much of it and the part it does have is in favor of the story so for this game i am thankfull it has linearity.