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

Mummelmann said:
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.

Honestly, Spider-Man kind of had an open world design problem as well. I hated how you opened up new side content as the main story progressed. I'm the kind of gamer that likes to clear the map as I go, completing all side content in a district before moving on to the next. Spider-Man didn't allow that however, it forced to you to revisit already cleared Districts to do new side content, which resulted in alot of backtracking and extra world traversal. 



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Mummelmann said:
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.

Honestly, Spider-Man kind of had an open world design problem as well. I hated how you opened up new side content as the main story progressed. I'm the kind of gamer that likes to clear the map as I go, completing all side content in a district before moving on to the next. Spider-Man didn't allow that however, it forced to you to revisit already cleared Districts to do new side content, which resulted in alot of backtracking and extra world traversal. 

Some of the side content is too boring, or frustrating to bother with (like the awful Drone challenges), so I don't do it all. Fast travel is unlocked fairly early on though, I unlocked all the police stations from the beginning so I had fast travel points all over all the time from the beginning (when it's unlocked) so this wasn't really an issue for me. The main two factors for me compared to AC and RDR2 is that traversal is actually great fun in Spider-Man, and the world isn't anywhere near as large, making it less of a hassle even if one tires of it. It has weaknesses as well, of course, the most glaring being the lack of variation within the game world itself, which sort of stands to reason since it's the same inner city the whole time.

RDR2 also sports some fairly underwhelming combat for me, the parts I enjoyed the most in fights was actually tighter quarters interior shootouts in 1st person mode. Overall, I've enjoyed all three games immensely, but in my opinion, what should be the hallmark strength of the genre has instead become a weakness in the case of AC and RDR2. AC also had a straight up ridiculous amount of vantage points to unlock, to the point where it just becomes too boring and uninspiring.



I do not really get people when they say traversing rdr2's world was a problem because i personally used the fasttravel map and stagecoaches so i never had real troubles with travelling for a long time.
If people did not bother to find out those options when they were so clear then i do not really know what is to blame,the game itself or the players that have gotten used to be reminded of everything they can do 1000 times over.



Immersiveunreality said:
I do not really get people when they say traversing rdr2's world was a problem because i personally used the fasttravel map and stagecoaches so i never had real troubles with travelling for a long time.
If people did not bother to find out those options when they were so clear then i do not really know what is to blame,the game itself or the players that have gotten used to be reminded of everything they can do 1000 times over.

I never took a stagecoach ride, and only used the fast travel map a few times. I mostly traversed the world  in Red Dead Redemption 2 on horseback in cinematic mode.  I feel like this really allowed me to enjoy the beautiful scenery in the game, which added to my overall employment. 



GOWTLOZ said:
pikashoe said:

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.

You can have structure in a mission and still have options on how you go about that mission within that structure. In rdr2 they tell you exactly how to do the mission and if you take one step out of line you are punished with a fail screen. Turning off the mini map makes many missions impossible. There is a mission where u have to park a stage coach in a secluded area. But rather than letting you do this yourself you have to park it in a specific area that is only visible on the mini map. This level of linearity in an open world game is not acceptable. 

It gets old because I don't want to be forced to do it every time. I want the option to get where I need to go quicker sometimes. Like in botw sometimes I will travel from one side of the map to the other because I want to, but if I want to get somewhere quicker I also have GOOD fast travel options to do that. I never said I did everything in 50 hours I said that after 50 hours being forced to travel in this way gets boring. A lot of the side quests are repetitive and are just glorified fetch quests. I'm not saying your way of playing is wrong I just think the game could be way more accommodating of differing play styles. 

I recommend watching nakeyjackey's video on red dead 2 or reading Mark Brown's writeup on it. They put it in much better words than I do.



Around the Network
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.

I don't even like DS, but there is a big gap between DS high difficult and specialized gameplay and the 2 element gameplay of RDR2, shooting is so easy and traversing very boring with the horse ridding quite broken if you ever mounted a horse that since you have no challenge at all even on the hardest it is more of walking around and fell the story than really playing.

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.

 

Mummelmann said:
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.

I do agree, to big of a map with missions occuring at opposite sides of the map. Spider-Man it felt amazing to go one place to another during all the time and nothing was ever very far because NY is really small.



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

I've gotta say, I find the range of views expressed in this thread, regarding the relative quality and enjoyability of RDR2, very interesting. I'm not sure that I've seen this level of divergence of opinions on a mega-hit game like this before.