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

I bought ASO on steam for 50% off(still is I think) started playing yesterday.. 4 hours in and I'm just now about to leave the first Island :)
RDR2? naa Ive seen enough of it in Twitch enought to know I won't like that gameplay.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
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.

Open world games should have more options in how to get to the end of a mission. It isn't going to hurt the story if I have a few options on how I go about doing things. Not every mission in the game even contributes heavily to the story.

Another issue I had with the game was the horse riding. So much of my play time particularly in the late game was holding down x while on my horse and watching my phone while I wait to get to the next marker. That alone is a massive issue and completely shatters immersion in the game. I have never played a game where I can look away from the screen for large periods of time with little consequence.



pikashoe said:
Immersiveunreality said:

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.

Open world games should have more options in how to get to the end of a mission. It isn't going to hurt the story if I have a few options on how I go about doing things. Not every mission in the game even contributes heavily to the story.

Another issue I had with the game was the horse riding. So much of my play time particularly in the late game was holding down x while on my horse and watching my phone while I wait to get to the next marker. That alone is a massive issue and completely shatters immersion in the game. I have never played a game where I can look away from the screen for large periods of time with little consequence.

For that I used to mark the map, double press x, hold x, enter cinematic mode and then just use the phone or talk while waiting (sometimes over 5 min).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
pikashoe said:

Open world games should have more options in how to get to the end of a mission. It isn't going to hurt the story if I have a few options on how I go about doing things. Not every mission in the game even contributes heavily to the story.

Another issue I had with the game was the horse riding. So much of my play time particularly in the late game was holding down x while on my horse and watching my phone while I wait to get to the next marker. That alone is a massive issue and completely shatters immersion in the game. I have never played a game where I can look away from the screen for large periods of time with little consequence.

For that I used to mark the map, double press x, hold x, enter cinematic mode and then just use the phone or talk while waiting (sometimes over 5 min).

That's exactly what I did. I know quite a few other people who did the same.



pikashoe said:
DonFerrari said:

For that I used to mark the map, double press x, hold x, enter cinematic mode and then just use the phone or talk while waiting (sometimes over 5 min).

That's exactly what I did. I know quite a few other people who did the same.

Good.. because it took me several hours on the game to figure out that as long as it was map marked or story related I could stop pressing X when into the cinematic mode. I thought only direction control was enabled at first.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
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. 

Gunplay is subpar, but the horse riding and simulation elements are A1. These are part of gameplay, not just the gunplay.

The missions are paced well due to their linearity, I'd rather have that than another Far Cry game where you do whatever the fuck you want because it gets old.

DonFerrari said:
KiigelHeart said:

Eh.. RDR2 is at most a walking simulator? Now I've heard it all.. care to elaborate at all?

I thought horse riding is quite good, I haven't even used fast travel much because of it. It's only a handful of times I've crashed into something but it usually leads to some funny moments. I like it that you can switch to cinematic camera and just hold A while enjoying a conversation or a song while riding. 

 

edit. And thanks for not touching the final quarter and the epilogue. Some of us haven't finished it yet :P

The gameplay on the game is very soft, even on the hardest difficult I like died once every 3h or so (mostly when doing careless exploration, as the map is so big sometimes you would be like 5min without doing nothing, so I put in cinematic mode and was watching a little the screen and sometimes looking the phone - you know we shouldn't use phone while driving... then I would be ambushed, jaguar would hunt me and the like). But during real gameplay setting I had I think a single death in the whole game.

On the horse itself there were a case where a very funny event occurred with a couch driver being shot to death outside the screen and I got run over by the cart out of nowhere. The when I gone to inspect the driver was full of arrows like a porcupine (didn't saw the killers though).

The horse was stubborn in some areas, like when you try to do some mountain exploration, take some time to change direction, terrible to go in the middle of the woods (AI will auto aim trees sometimes, and with the dumper on the control response it's quite hard to manually deviate from then while running).

So when the game have two gameplay elements, which is shooting and walking around (foot or horse) and shooting is very very very easy, then the game turns into a walk around to enjoy the story (which I did dearly until the end portion). I have played it full in like 1 or 2 weeks. That is why I "classified" as walking simulator.

Without giving spoilers, but since this game is set not much before RDR1, the end of RDR2 will lead to RDR1 events. So some things that could have been done a lot better (in my opinion) were like targeted to keep coherence.

Difficulty of a game dictates its genre? What are you saying man, you make absolutely no sense.

RDR2 is literally anything but a walking simulator, imagine you had to walk around the map collecting pieces with characters talking. That would have been a very different game. You are full of hyperbole my man.

Not every game has to be Dark Souls, get off your horse (pun intended). Red Dead Redemption has plenty of gunplay and survival simulation aspects.

pikashoe said:
Immersiveunreality said:

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.

Open world games should have more options in how to get to the end of a mission. It isn't going to hurt the story if I have a few options on how I go about doing things. Not every mission in the game even contributes heavily to the story.

Another issue I had with the game was the horse riding. So much of my play time particularly in the late game was holding down x while on my horse and watching my phone while I wait to get to the next marker. That alone is a massive issue and completely shatters immersion in the game. I have never played a game where I can look away from the screen for large periods of time with little consequence.

Yeah, you just described Far Cry games. The do as you please approach to mission design gets old really quick.

Horse riding in cinematic mode is a choice, I prefer to ride horse while taking in the beautiful scenery like I do when travelling somewhere. Its the most immersive game I've ever played and I've played a fuck ton of them.



I thought the horseriding in this game was very good if you kept attention and i have no problem with that .



GOWTLOZ said:
flashfire926 said:

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

Gunplay is subpar, but the horse riding and simulation elements are A1. These are part of gameplay, not just the gunplay.

The missions are paced well due to their linearity, I'd rather have that than another Far Cry game where you do whatever the fuck you want because it gets old.

DonFerrari said:

The gameplay on the game is very soft, even on the hardest difficult I like died once every 3h or so (mostly when doing careless exploration, as the map is so big sometimes you would be like 5min without doing nothing, so I put in cinematic mode and was watching a little the screen and sometimes looking the phone - you know we shouldn't use phone while driving... then I would be ambushed, jaguar would hunt me and the like). But during real gameplay setting I had I think a single death in the whole game.

On the horse itself there were a case where a very funny event occurred with a couch driver being shot to death outside the screen and I got run over by the cart out of nowhere. The when I gone to inspect the driver was full of arrows like a porcupine (didn't saw the killers though).

The horse was stubborn in some areas, like when you try to do some mountain exploration, take some time to change direction, terrible to go in the middle of the woods (AI will auto aim trees sometimes, and with the dumper on the control response it's quite hard to manually deviate from then while running).

So when the game have two gameplay elements, which is shooting and walking around (foot or horse) and shooting is very very very easy, then the game turns into a walk around to enjoy the story (which I did dearly until the end portion). I have played it full in like 1 or 2 weeks. That is why I "classified" as walking simulator.

Without giving spoilers, but since this game is set not much before RDR1, the end of RDR2 will lead to RDR1 events. So some things that could have been done a lot better (in my opinion) were like targeted to keep coherence.

Difficulty of a game dictates its genre? What are you saying man, you make absolutely no sense.

RDR2 is literally anything but a walking simulator, imagine you had to walk around the map collecting pieces with characters talking. That would have been a very different game. You are full of hyperbole my man.

Not every game has to be Dark Souls, get off your horse (pun intended). Red Dead Redemption has plenty of gunplay and survival simulation aspects.

pikashoe said:

Open world games should have more options in how to get to the end of a mission. It isn't going to hurt the story if I have a few options on how I go about doing things. Not every mission in the game even contributes heavily to the story.

Another issue I had with the game was the horse riding. So much of my play time particularly in the late game was holding down x while on my horse and watching my phone while I wait to get to the next marker. That alone is a massive issue and completely shatters immersion in the game. I have never played a game where I can look away from the screen for large periods of time with little consequence.

Yeah, you just described Far Cry games. The do as you please approach to mission design gets old really quick.

Horse riding in cinematic mode is a choice, I prefer to ride horse while taking in the beautiful scenery like I do when travelling somewhere. Its the most immersive game I've ever played and I've played a fuck ton of them.

Your saying having options on how to do a mission gets old compared to having to do a mission in an extremely limited way. The missions in this game make me feel like I'm being treated like child because there is absolutely no thought needed to get through them. You just follow the dot on the map and auto lock everything to death. Most of the time you are told exactly what to do and if ypu try to do anything your own way it is just a failscreen. This just is not acceptable  in an open world game in 2018.

The scenery was great but after 50 hours it gets old. And getting around the world just isn't very fun.



pikashoe said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Gunplay is subpar, but the horse riding and simulation elements are A1. These are part of gameplay, not just the gunplay.

The missions are paced well due to their linearity, I'd rather have that than another Far Cry game where you do whatever the fuck you want because it gets old.

Difficulty of a game dictates its genre? What are you saying man, you make absolutely no sense.

RDR2 is literally anything but a walking simulator, imagine you had to walk around the map collecting pieces with characters talking. That would have been a very different game. You are full of hyperbole my man.

Not every game has to be Dark Souls, get off your horse (pun intended). Red Dead Redemption has plenty of gunplay and survival simulation aspects.

Yeah, you just described Far Cry games. The do as you please approach to mission design gets old really quick.

Horse riding in cinematic mode is a choice, I prefer to ride horse while taking in the beautiful scenery like I do when travelling somewhere. Its the most immersive game I've ever played and I've played a fuck ton of them.

Your saying having options on how to do a mission gets old compared to having to do a mission in an extremely limited way. The missions in this game make me feel like I'm being treated like child because there is absolutely no thought needed to get through them. You just follow the dot on the map and auto lock everything to death. Most of the time you are told exactly what to do and if ypu try to do anything your own way it is just a failscreen. This just is not acceptable  in an open world game in 2018.

The scenery was great but after 50 hours it gets old. And getting around the world just isn't very fun.

Having options on ways to do a mission sounds fun on paper, but rarely do games do that well in open world environments. You can also turn off the minimap for more immersion.

If it gets old for you that's down to taste. I find it beautiful no matter how many times I go to a place. The time of day is different as well so it adds variety. Also no way you explored the entire map and did the side quests in 50 hours. I'm 120 hours in and there is still stuff to do and the side quests are so engaging I want to do more of them, not like Assassin's Creed.



Playing AC: Odyssey and RDR2 has made me appreciate Spider-Man more, to be honest. Both AC and RDR2 have a common issue for me; traversing the world becomes a chore and loses its charms after some time, which is of course a problem in a big open world game.