PDA

View Full Version : Odyssey and the comparison to other RPGs



MnemonicSyntax
06-25-2018, 03:28 AM
NOTE: This thread is not about lore, or story lines or if modern day should go, or if dialog options are a bad idea or shields, but more from a mechanic point of view.

There are plenty of other threads that cover those topics already.

There has been a natural comparison to RPGs as of late with Assassin's Creed. When I went to Ubisoft, we had a discussion about what other games we play. I said that I don't really play any other games besides Assassin's Creed, though I did enjoy Watch_Dogs. On a personal level, Assassin's Creed has been with me throughout the last decade and despite it's downfalls (Juno's story moving to the comics for example) it's still a favorite of mine and I consider myself to be a huge fan of the entire franchise.

While playing Origins, I realized there was another recently released game that felt very much the same way in play style and carried over many RPG attributes, that being Breath of the Wild.

My wife is currently playing Breath of the Wild for the first time and I'm guiding her through it. It's been a great experience to essentially see the game again from the eyes of someone who has never played a single Zelda game. A fresh pair of eyes and a perspective filled with wonder.

There are a few minor differences between the two games. One was the underwater exploration, which is practically nonexistent in BOTW, while Origins has it in droves. Another difference is the breakable weapons. While apprehensive about it at first in BOTW, it gets to a point where you can become weaponless or us something you're not familiar with. The different weapon styles, while forced at times, enabled the player to try new and unique weapons, keeping combat at times, unique. While this could either way with being a pro or a con for Assassin's Creed, breakable weapons is not something I would want in Assassin's Creed unless it allowed for pick-up-and-use combat that the Ezio and Kenway trilogies had.

There's been another comparison to The Witcher 3. I've played it, in fact I own it, and I feel it's just... too much for it's own good. Unpopular opinion, I'm sure. It's just too vast (and I don't mean world-wise) and feels like a case of too many chefs in the kitchen, as the saying goes. From a combat standpoint, I think the Witcher does well enough. I've always been a fan of lock on and strafe sort of games, much like Assassin's Creed does. Some games in the AC series did it better, others not so much.

I've grown up with traditional RPGs, such as Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy is a great example of evolution of RPGs and how they've improved on an existing formula.

Going forward, if Assassin's Creed continues down this road while still keeping the elements that make it Assassin's Creed (viewpoints, stealth combat, etc.) then I'm very happy with the direction it's heading in.

As long as it doesn't get too big for it's own good ;)

quanzaizai
06-25-2018, 08:03 AM
For me the RPG in AC is not really good compare to other RPG title,it gets the job done but we dont have the feeling of freedom to build your own character due to lack of skill set and no atribute. Also the crafting system is very weak. Multiple choices doesn't make it a rpg game since action game or narrative driven game already have it.
To sum it up i would say its good enough but they can't say that they gonna go full indepth rpg this time.

MnemonicSyntax
06-25-2018, 04:57 PM
This is a good point. Where does the RPG comparison start or stop?

I've "role-played" these characters from day one with Altair. I purposefully make choices in my gameplay that I "role play" out.

I will say that I'm glad the crafting system, at least in Origins, is so... weak because I don't want to spend a bunch of time making stuff or hunting it down. It's enough that it fits in with gameplay and the role play aspect of it, but not too intrusive that it becomes more like filler or side quests.

Like the comparison I made with BOTW, it's a lot of similar gameplay between the two that feels fun and doesn't become too much of a grind.

bizantura
06-25-2018, 06:14 PM
What is an RPG? Any way you slice and dice it, it means different things for various individuals. I only play on PC so I can't say anything on other platform RPG's.
Personally for me, nothing compares to the Witcher 3. I tried AC:Origins because Bioware is on a dry spell or simply said goodbye to making RPG's in SP format and so are Bethesda Softworks and many other publishers.

I do think Ubisoft with the Assassin's Creed franchise is blatant copying all the good things from other publishers successful RPG's, what I don't consider a bad thing.
They are putting in "romances" in Odyssey but playing it very safe so I won't be bothering with the Swiss knife love formula in the upcoming AC game.
I don't like the more Indie oriented RPG's so I am glad Ubisoft is willing to make SP RPG's.
AC:Origins wasn't bad so I am looking forward to Odyssey which looks even more promising but I will miss Bioware's band of characters to roam around with in their artificial created worlds.

quanzaizai
06-25-2018, 06:32 PM
I wouldn't say ACO is a good RPG. but the RPG works and effective. on the other hand I think for a true RPG fan and they want an experience like skyrim or witcher they will be disapointed, so does for ACOD because they are almost the same.

MnemonicSyntax
06-25-2018, 08:07 PM
You would describe Origins as an "RPG-lite" as it were?

quanzaizai
06-25-2018, 08:11 PM
You would describe Origins as an "RPG-lite" as it were?

Yes, the same for Odyssey

cawatrooper9
06-25-2018, 08:58 PM
I'd probably put Origins into the same camp as something like Shadow of War- upgrade features and gear being the main driving RPG force behind it.

Odyssey just ever slightly more heavy, given dialogue options and slight character choice.

Kiroku
06-25-2018, 09:31 PM
For me there is a difference between developers that work on RPG titles since the beginning and developers making a transition between an action adventure game into an rpg title.

The gameplay elements in origins and odyssey may be the same but the concept of it is not just build thoroughly for AC which for me was the reason origins didnt feel like a fluid RPG.I hope with odyssey it goes further into those mechanics since many people already said that they worked on many aspects and made them better than in origins.

AnimusLover
06-26-2018, 12:39 AM
For me there is a difference between developers that work on RPG titles since the beginning and developers making a transition between an action adventure game into an rpg title.

The gameplay elements in origins and odyssey may be the same but the concept of it is not just build thoroughly for AC which for me was the reason origins didnt feel like a fluid RPG.I hope with odyssey it goes further into those mechanics since many people already said that they worked on many aspects and made them better than in origins.

Disagree completely. I do not believe that the lack of fluidity in the RPG elements lies within the concept of Assassin's Creed. The problem with AC of late is whilst the devs have lifted things from other successful RPGs including levelling, customisation, day/night cycle etc they consistently fail to incorporate the most important aspect of an open world RPG and that is discovery. RPGs like Witcher 3, BOTW and Skyrim are so different from one another but they all have one thing in common and that is how they enable the player to uncover the world. In these games you obtain quests via simply wandering through and spotting something or just talking to NPCs randomly on your travels. The world is set up in such a way that the player is encouraged to do this i.e. there is always something to see, always something in the distance off the beaten path that makes you go, "hey, what's that?" These games reward the player for their curiosity with new discoveries, stories and quests and even though the puppet strings are there guidng the player to these areas they are very difficult to see simply because exploration feels so natural.

The problem with Origins, for instance, is that the world outside of what the game is telling you is "important" is extremely empty. There is literally nothing to see, no reason to not use fast travel or leave your horse to wander on foot. It will take you 100 hours to complete (note, I said "complete" not "beat") but that does not mean there is 100 hours of content in the game - most of it is copied and pasted. By the time you've reached Faiyum you've seen everything the game has to offer but rather than cut it there it just keeps going... and going and going to the point that it becomes bloated and repetitive. You'll end up using fast travel more frequently than even the bigger RPGs because there's nothing inbetween the listed points of interests to encourage the player to travel naturally. Speaking of fast travel, whereas in Witcher 3 you discover fast travel points by riding through, in Origins the map has to tell the player where the synchronisation viewpoints are because if it doesn't you're never going to find any of the unique side quests - that is , of course, when the side quests aren't just outright on the map for no apparent reason anyway. Very poor world design. The world is too big for such little content.

There are question marks all over the map so that, for marketing purposes, it bares aesthetic resemblance to the Witcher 3 but the difference is in Witcher 3 you don't know what you're going to uncover when you get to those question marks. In Origins you know it's going to be one of 7 things copied and pasted: a resting place, a tomb puzzle, a fort, treasure, legendary animal, papyrus puzzle or elephant. These aren't mysteries, these are activities better suited to the collectibles tab in the memory sequence menu (remember that?)

Part of what makes a world feel real is uncovering it. The player isn't supposed to know the land right off the bat. By making Origins an open book from the start it makes it feel less like a believeable world and more like a sandbox laid out specifically for the player with a list of chores to do. The HUD and Senu are implemented aggressively to disguise how empty the world is, keeping the player focused on what's "important" whilst distracting from the fact that there is so very little inbetween.

That is why Assasin's Creed will never be a fluid RPG. It's not a lack of freedom and choice in the story or dialogue, it's a lack of choice in the world. Ubisoft doesn't understand the value of unravelling an open world naturally. They don't understand the fact that players can potentially miss quests simply because they never happened upon them is a good thing (https://youtu.be/tJHIJ6M8b-I?t=3m17s). It's the element of discovery that enables us to create our own stories off the beaten path.

MnemonicSyntax
06-26-2018, 01:02 AM
Disagree completely. I do not believe that the lack of fluidity in the RPG elements lies within the concept of Assassin's Creed. The problem with AC of late is whilst the devs have lifted things from other successful RPGs including levelling, customisation, day/night cycle etc they consistently fail to incorporate the most important aspect of an open world RPG and that is discovery. RPGs like Witcher 3, BOTW and Skyrim are so different from one another but they all have one thing in common and that is how they enable the player to uncover the world. In these games you obtain quests via simply wandering through and spotting something or just talking to NPCs randomly on your travels. The world is set up in such a way that the player is encouraged to do this i.e. there is always something to see, always something in the distance off the beaten path that makes you go, "hey, what's that?" These games reward the player for their curiosity with new discoveries, stories and quests and even though the puppet strings are there guidng the player to these areas they are very difficult to see simply because exploration feels so natural.

The problem with Origins, for instance, is that the world outside of what the game is telling you is "important" is extremely empty. There is literally nothing to see, no reason to not use fast travel or leave your horse to wander on foot. It will take you 100 hours to complete (note, I said "complete" not "beat") but that does not mean there is 100 hours of content in the game - most of it is copied and pasted. By the time you've reached Faiyum you've seen everything the game has to offer but rather than cut it there it just keeps going... and going and going to the point that it becomes bloated and repetitive. You'll end up using fast travel more frequently than even the bigger RPGs because there's nothing inbetween the listed points of interests to encourage the player to travel naturally. Speaking of fast travel, whereas in Witcher 3 you discover fast travel points by riding through, in Origins the map has to tell the player where the synchronisation viewpoints are because if it doesn't you're never going to find any of the unique side quests - that is , of course, when the side quests aren't just outright on the map for no apparent reason anyway. Very poor world design. The world is too big for such little content.

There are question marks all over the map so that, for marketing purposes, it bares aesthetic resemblance to the Witcher 3 but the difference is in Witcher 3 you don't know what you're going to uncover when you get to those question marks. In Origins you know it's going to be one of 7 things copied and pasted: a resting place, a tomb puzzle, a fort, treasure, legendary animal, papyrus puzzle or elephant. These aren't mysteries, these are activities better suited to the collectibles tab in the memory sequence menu (remember that?)

Part of what makes a world feel real is uncovering it. The player isn't supposed to know the land right off the bat. By making Origins an open book from the start it makes it feel less like a believeable world and more like a sandbox laid out specifically for the player with a list of chores to do. The HUD and Senu are implemented aggressively to disguise how empty the world is, keeping the player focused on what's "important" whilst distracting from the fact that there is so very little inbetween.

That is why Assasin's Creed will never be a fluid RPG. It's not a lack of freedom and choice in the story or dialogue, it's a lack of choice in the world. Ubisoft doesn't understand the value of unravelling an open world naturally. They don't understand the fact that players can potentially miss quests simply because they never happened upon them is a good thing. It's the element of discovery that enables us to create our own stories off the beaten path.

Having only played the Witcher 3 for a short time, (did the uh... Mad Baron mission or Red Baron? Something about his stillborn child that didn't have a name?) how does it offset the whole "7 repeated activities?"

Is it something new each and every time?

Black_Widow9
06-26-2018, 02:04 AM
Having only played the Witcher 3 for a short time, (did the uh... Mad Baron mission or Red Baron? Something about his stillborn child that didn't have a name?) how does it offset the whole "7 repeated activities?"

Is it something new each and every time?
Yeah, the world is filled with all kinds of different creatures and monsters at different levels and you never know they're going to appear until you hear the epic music.

There's also lots of potion crafting and hidden treasures besides collectibles and activities.

The Wicher 3 was my first Witcher game and I love it. The only time I felt things became tedious was because of my own completionist ideals. Not letting myself move forward with the story so I could grab all the stuff. This is getting more and more difficult with open world games for me because I want to explore and see it all.

AnimusLover
06-26-2018, 03:27 AM
Having only played the Witcher 3 for a short time, (did the uh... Mad Baron mission or Red Baron? Something about his stillborn child that didn't have a name?) how does it offset the whole "7 repeated activities?"

Is it something new each and every time?

Bloody Baron :)

That's exactly it. There's always something new to discover.

For one, side quests can take hours and I mean HOURS to do in the Witcher 3, and it's not just "go here and kill this" there is almost always a depper mystery behind it. There are objectives all over the place but as you're wandering the world you will discover quests and encounters inbetween that you can totally miss if you choose a different path on your journey. There's question marks (activities) like in Origins although the way these fill the map makes far more sense: Geralt has to go to the town notice boards which detail various events happening in the world that requires a Witcher's help (unlike Origins which has question marks appear on the map for no reason even when Bayek hasn't gone to these area...)

These question marks usually make up 1 of 3 potential activities: bandit camps, treasure and monster's nests. This seems repetitive at first however, a lot of these question marks contain items that are related to side quests or stuff that is just one piece of a quest puzzle or a cirme scene which then eventually leads to a new quest...
That's what Witcher 3 does best - it hides the real meat of the story under a seemingly shallow surface which means the player can easily miss the good stuff if they don't explore or look into it. Also, on the way to these question marks you may or may not encounter other unmarked quests which again are totally missable if you don't bother going in that direction. Basically, the Witcher 3 takes "it's not the destination, it's the journey" motto to the extreme and the question marks and other points of interests are just a guide to the hidden goods which are situated in-between.

There are also no mind numbing fetch quests. Even missions that start off seemingly as fetch quests always end up being long, sprawling stories that send Geralt on some epic hunt. For instance - and you may have encountered this on your journey to the Bloody Baron - there is an entire side story which lasts pretty much throughout the base game related to getting Witcher gear i.e. the best armour in the game. You need to craft this gear but only a Master Armourer or Master Weapon maker can do this. You meet one (should you decide to talk to this merchant) and they will agree to do it for you provided you get the schematic and parts. This seems like a simple fetch quest at first but you learn things about other Witchers and how they ended up losing the gear you're now collecting... and these areas where the loot is based also lead to even more side quests. Additionally, the end of the Witcher gear quest has a twist which I won't spoil...

Often in TW3 quests don't have a head or a tail i.e. they have several different ways of starting or finishing them. You don't necessarily have to start with the quest giver or even encounter the quest giver to complete the quest. So, if you go to a bandit camp that just so happens to contain a quest item that you picked up you'll never have to come back to this activity again. In contrast, Origins has loads of military bases and bandit camps which, like The Witcher 3, you can raid and murder as soon as you find them, it won't be sealed off. The problem is many of the main and side quests eventually lead to these military bases and bandit camps anyway so if you infiltrate and loot immediately upon discovery you'll just have to clear it out again. This is very poor game design. If Origins had more care in its quest layout then the target you need to assassinate or the item you need to steal would be in said military base or bandit camp from the start so that if you meet the quest giver later on you could actually inform them that you took care of that part of the quest already. This would not only make the world feel like it's operating with or without the player's involvement (and thus making it seem more believable) but it also avoids needless repetition.

People say Origins has no collectibles... it has MANY collectibles but it's (poorly) disguised. The Phylakes' Prey side quest, for instance, is one big collectible mission but because the devs put "side quest" on it people think it has substance. It's always the same: you have to go and kill a very high-levelled mercenary in different areas of the map (easily exploitable BTW) and get their keys. The equivalent to this in The Witcher 3 is the "Collect 'Em All!" side quest which requires the player to complete their Gwent card collection. This side quest is unabashedly a glorified collectible mission (the name of the quest bluntly tells the player to "collect them all" lol) but how you go about getting these cards is so deep and varied that it never becomes tiresome. For one, it's tied into a really fun mini game that's spread out over the course of the main game and it is super fun in itself. The cards are rare, powerful ones which you can use in the Gwent mini game so you're not just getting them for the sake of it, they are actually really badass cards. Lastly, you can get them by 1. playing and beating various merchants and NPCs for them 2.playing and beating an important character in a side quest. 3. buying them (rare) 4. stealing them (rarer) 5. asking for them as a reward for completing a quest (very rare). The way the player is required to collect the Gwent cards feel very natural and diverse so that it never becomes burdensome.

Honestly, try playing Origins with no HUD and you'll see what I mean when I say the world is empty and full of padding. There's literally nothing to do or discover once you've uncovered those 7 activities.
The addition of dialogue choices in Odyssey reminds me very much of Black Flag's naval combat - a cool feature that merely masks the core problems with the gameplay in this franchise.

quanzaizai
06-26-2018, 08:29 AM
The witcher 3 is more like a story driven game when you take the side quest for sometime no reward or fun gameplay but taking part in the world, live with characters and their story. the gameplay might seem repetitive but it's not gonna bother anyone anyway because of the quality of the story. Most of your action Always end up with the choice you have to think to make and a cutsence. Bloody barron side quest line is one of the best quest line in the game that really make you have to feel the characters, feel sorry for them and every choices is hard to make. The gameplay on the other hand interest and challenge you with boss fight- killing monster or gwent and RPG progression. AC franshise ofcourse gonna be more variety of gameplay since it's an action game, we have fighting, stealth, parkour, puzzle, in ACunity and syndicate we have investigation, in AC blackflag rogue odyssey we have ship. The witcher also somehow provide some of that gameplay but limited and handhold us to go with the story not really free like AC.

For me, ACO beats witcher 3 in the exploration aspect and the world is more alive and richer. But the witcher has the advantage of being a fantasy world so the exploration is really catchy for some people. ACO sticks to reality so most of what we explore we can already imagin it in our world already but it still entertain when you see it and that is a plus for me,

AnimusLover
06-26-2018, 02:04 PM
The witcher 3 is more like a story driven game when you take the side quest for sometime no reward or fun gameplay but taking part in the world, live with characters and their story.

The player actually does get rewards. Geralt is a Witcher so the very first thing he has to do is haggle for pay which in, itself, is yet another example of how CDPR makes something so simple and standard in gaming so interesting. You also get cool loot and XP. It could also be argued that the outcomes of these stories are rewarding in themselves.


the gameplay might seem repetitive but it's not gonna bother anyone anyway because of the quality of the story. Most of your action Always end up with the choice you have to think to make and a cutsence. Bloody barron side quest line is one of the best quest line in the game that really make you have to feel the characters, feel sorry for them and every choices is hard to make. The gameplay on the other hand interest and challenge you with boss fight- killing monster or gwent and RPG progression. AC franshise ofcourse gonna be more variety of gameplay since it's an action game, we have fighting, stealth, parkour, puzzle, in ACunity and syndicate we have investigation, in AC blackflag rogue odyssey we have ship. The witcher also somehow provide some of that gameplay but limited and handhold us to go with the story not really free like AC.

I agree that AC has more varied mechanics in its gameplay (stealth, parkour, puzzles etc) but how it utilises these mechanics is very uninspired i.e. jack-of-all-trades, master of none. Yeah, it's nice to have the choice to be able to stealth your way through things but doing it a thousand times in copied and pasted military bases is a waste. A unique mechanic alone is not enough to make the gameplay enjoyable; it's what you do with it that matters.

Yes, the Witcher 3 contains standard slice and dice swordplay but aside from how it masterfully melds its gameplay with stories and characters, there is a lot more to the combat than just whacking things. For instance, different monsters require different strategies, potions and oils to deal with which you only learn by either reading books (these books are rather inexplicit in whether they will provide this knowledge or not but you can usually get a clue from a book's title) or by discovering the beast (and thus learning its weaknesses). So even the combat itself is driven by discovery. This is, once again, where an RPG like Origins is lacking in its exploration.

So the combat in Witcher 3 never gets repetitive for me because learning about enemies’ strengths and weaknesses serves world building and constantly challenges the player and encourages an adoption of different fight styles (and thus the player doesn’t have to have a “build” because they are required to use various skills to defeat enemies anyway.) Again, it’s not about variety in mechanics, it’s about how it’s used. Origins wastes the potential of its various mechanics by not thinking outside the box.


For me, ACO beats witcher 3 in the exploration aspect and the world is more alive and richer. But the witcher has the advantage of being a fantasy world so the exploration is really catchy for some people. ACO sticks to reality so most of what we explore we can already imagin it in our world already but it still entertain when you see it and that is a plus for me,

I really don't think it being fantasy is necessarily advantageous. Assassin's Creed with its sci-fi elements has plenty of opportunities for "catchiness", more so because of the lore, but it's used so lazily that it's never reached its full potential.

quanzaizai
06-26-2018, 02:39 PM
I think AC reached the full potential of the world because they respect every detail of the real location. they just simply can't make it different because it was real. And also part of AC fan will complain alot just like ACOD when they implement more scifi fantasy stuff into the world and got the hate from many people ( you can check others thread and comment). to makeup for the unchangable of the world, I have to admire them for the research and detail they put in it so for me there are no game can be better than AC for the detail of the ancient world or world in the past.

about the gameplay there are 2 things that other game can't never defeat AC and these are parkour and naval.

If we compare to the witcher 3. it definitely a lost for ACO (can't say for ACOD) because when combin everything together everything in the witcher 3 is executed perfect (well it's called as game of the century for a reason) while ACO offer more things but the quality is not good as the witcher (still good and better than many games).





Kiroku
06-26-2018, 03:03 PM
Disagree completely. I do not believe that the lack of fluidity in the RPG elements lies within the concept of Assassin's Creed. The problem with AC of late is whilst the devs have lifted things from other successful RPGs including levelling, customisation, day/night cycle etc they consistently fail to incorporate the most important aspect of an open world RPG and that is discovery. RPGs like Witcher 3, BOTW and Skyrim are so different from one another but they all have one thing in common and that is how they enable the player to uncover the world. In these games you obtain quests via simply wandering through and spotting something or just talking to NPCs randomly on your travels. The world is set up in such a way that the player is encouraged to do this i.e. there is always something to see, always something in the distance off the beaten path that makes you go, "hey, what's that?" These games reward the player for their curiosity with new discoveries, stories and quests and even though the puppet strings are there guidng the player to these areas they are very difficult to see simply because exploration feels so natural.

The problem with Origins, for instance, is that the world outside of what the game is telling you is "important" is extremely empty. There is literally nothing to see, no reason to not use fast travel or leave your horse to wander on foot. It will take you 100 hours to complete (note, I said "complete" not "beat") but that does not mean there is 100 hours of content in the game - most of it is copied and pasted. By the time you've reached Faiyum you've seen everything the game has to offer but rather than cut it there it just keeps going... and going and going to the point that it becomes bloated and repetitive. You'll end up using fast travel more frequently than even the bigger RPGs because there's nothing inbetween the listed points of interests to encourage the player to travel naturally. Speaking of fast travel, whereas in Witcher 3 you discover fast travel points by riding through, in Origins the map has to tell the player where the synchronisation viewpoints are because if it doesn't you're never going to find any of the unique side quests - that is , of course, when the side quests aren't just outright on the map for no apparent reason anyway. Very poor world design. The world is too big for such little content.

There are question marks all over the map so that, for marketing purposes, it bares aesthetic resemblance to the Witcher 3 but the difference is in Witcher 3 you don't know what you're going to uncover when you get to those question marks. In Origins you know it's going to be one of 7 things copied and pasted: a resting place, a tomb puzzle, a fort, treasure, legendary animal, papyrus puzzle or elephant. These aren't mysteries, these are activities better suited to the collectibles tab in the memory sequence menu (remember that?)

Part of what makes a world feel real is uncovering it. The player isn't supposed to know the land right off the bat. By making Origins an open book from the start it makes it feel less like a believeable world and more like a sandbox laid out specifically for the player with a list of chores to do. The HUD and Senu are implemented aggressively to disguise how empty the world is, keeping the player focused on what's "important" whilst distracting from the fact that there is so very little inbetween.

That is why Assasin's Creed will never be a fluid RPG. It's not a lack of freedom and choice in the story or dialogue, it's a lack of choice in the world. Ubisoft doesn't understand the value of unravelling an open world naturally. They don't understand the fact that players can potentially miss quests simply because they never happened upon them is a good thing (https://youtu.be/tJHIJ6M8b-I?t=3m17s). It's the element of discovery that enables us to create our own stories off the beaten path.

I agree with your first point. I really never had the feeling to discover spots in AC origins and other ac games so far. As you said in witcher or skyrim you never know what awaits you. But I think we cant compare this to AC games since those games are made with so many different enemies and monsters etc. that makes it of course different from AC since you always face the same type of enemies or animal camps.

And even after playing for more like 400 hours witcher 3 I never went for all questionmarks in skellige since even those at some point always are the same. And I never finished skyrim aswell since most dungeons were copy pasted like the dwemer ruins and so on.

But yeah as I said before the lack of discovery is a good aspect. I was so stoked discovering the pyramids of giza until I found out that there is no special tomb with riddles or something. It wasnt as fascinating as I thought it would be. Still for me the combat system the whole economy system and the story telling is a major part what makes an RPG. If people can tell such interesting stories where you think something like "oh damn I have to know whats going on there" then you automatically want to discover the world it takes place in. But with Origins it was always saving person xy from a bandit camp or a fortress etc.

AnimusLover
06-26-2018, 04:05 PM
I think AC reached the full potential of the world because they respect every detail of the real location. they just simply can't make it different because it was real. And also part of AC fan will complain alot just like ACOD when they implement more scifi fantasy stuff into the world and got the hate from many people ( you can check others thread and comment). to makeup for the unchangable of the world, I have to admire them for the research and detail they put in it so for me there are no game can be better than AC for the detail of the ancient world or world in the past.

Realism and historical accuracy really has nothing to do with the lack of fluidity in the world. There is no doubt that Assassin's Creed is known for the level of authenticity in its historical settings but then again so is R*. Red Dead Redemption has virtually no sci-fi or fantasy elements but is far more discovery based than that of Origins.

Also, people don't like the sci-fi element in Odyssey because the story has not allowed for this. The MD and Isu has been relegated largely to the background since Black Flag. If they were more prominent in the last few games and if the animus, itself, was explored more prior to Odyssey then it would feel more like natural evolution and less like an excuse to be a Witcher clone... but I won't take this discussion any further because, as the OP said, this thread is not about story or modern day, we already have loads of threads dedicated to that. It's about how AC compares to other RPGs in terms of mechanics, and I don't believe realism vs fantasy affects the quality in this area based on the aformentioned examples.


about the gameplay there are 2 things that other game can't never defeat AC and these are parkour and naval.

I'm glad you brought this up :D because parkour and naval warfare are prime examples of how Ubisoft introduce cool new mechanics that are fun at first but quickly become stale because they either don't progress it or use it interesting ways. Let's focus on parkour: the parkour mechanic in AC1 was revolutionary and no third person game did it quite as well. It didn't matter that the main missions were repetitive because the story was linear anyway and aside from flag collectibles the world wasn't filled with repetitive side content. So in other words, the content in that game was fit for the small size of the world and the parkour mechanic was still so fresh that the cookie cutter gameplay could be forgiven. The idea of being able to "climb anything!" and "go anywhere!" was enough. Furthermore, climbing was also a craft, in itself, with puzzles based around it to test your skills. However, 9 games later and that novelty has worn off and Ubisoft knows it, that's why parkour now is just a means of getting around and nothing more. Assassin's Creed has become so apathetic to parkour that they've either made it easier (Syndicate/ rope launcher) or evaded it completely (Black Flag/naval traversal).


If we compare to the witcher 3. it definitely a lost for ACO (can't say for ACOD) because when combin everything together everything in the witcher 3 is executed perfect (well it's called as game of the century for a reason) while ACO offer more things but the quality is not good as the witcher (still good and better than many games).


I agree.

Although I wouldn't refer to it as a "loss" for AC because it is not a competition, and they're both great franchises for different reasons. I was comparing AC's RPG elements against Witcher 3 because Ubisoft are trying to copy but they don't get why TW3 is so popular. They think it is down to its rudimentary mechanics such as choice, combat, crafting etc and don't realise it's what CDPR does with these individual basic elements that make them more interesting than at first glance.

AnimusLover
06-26-2018, 05:09 PM
I agree with your first point. I really never had the feeling to discover spots in AC origins and other ac games so far. As you said in witcher or skyrim you never know what awaits you. But I think we cant compare this to AC games since those games are made with so many different enemies and monsters etc. that makes it of course different from AC since you always face the same type of enemies or animal camps.

It has nothing to do with enemy variety. Most of the discovery that I had in mind when talking about how good the Witcher 3 is with this aspect were actually human NPCs. The Novigrad side quests feature more human interactions than monsters and that's my favourite part.


And even after playing for more like 400 hours witcher 3 I never went for all questionmarks in skellige since even those at some point always are the same. And I never finished skyrim aswell since most dungeons were copy pasted like the dwemer ruins and so on.

The Skellige question marks are the worst ones mainly because you could tell they ran out of time. All the water based ones are useless and a pain to get to. I also agree about the dungeons in Skyrim however, as previously mentioned it was the discoveries in-between these question marks and repetitive activities i.e. the unmarked, hidden wonders where these games really shine. AC Origins doesn't have such lures - literally, everything there is to see is already laid out on the map before you ever get to it, they're all the same and getting to your objective by foot is pointless hence the need for fast travel.


But yeah as I said before the lack of discovery is a good aspect. I was so stoked discovering the pyramids of giza until I found out that there is no special tomb with riddles or something. It wasnt as fascinating as I thought it would be. Still for me the combat system the whole economy system and the story telling is a major part what makes an RPG. If people can tell such interesting stories where you think something like "oh damn I have to know whats going on there" then you automatically want to discover the world it takes place in. But with Origins it was always saving person xy from a bandit camp or a fortress etc.

Agreed. The tombs would have been a perfect opportunity to do some Isu side quests as well. What a waste.

quanzaizai
06-26-2018, 06:30 PM
I agree with your first point. I really never had the feeling to discover spots in AC origins and other ac games so far. As you said in witcher or skyrim you never know what awaits you. But I think we cant compare this to AC games since those games are made with so many different enemies and monsters etc. that makes it of course different from AC since you always face the same type of enemies or animal camps.

And even after playing for more like 400 hours witcher 3 I never went for all questionmarks in skellige since even those at some point always are the same. And I never finished skyrim aswell since most dungeons were copy pasted like the dwemer ruins and so on.

But yeah as I said before the lack of discovery is a good aspect. I was so stoked discovering the pyramids of giza until I found out that there is no special tomb with riddles or something. It wasnt as fascinating as I thought it would be. Still for me the combat system the whole economy system and the story telling is a major part what makes an RPG. If people can tell such interesting stories where you think something like "oh damn I have to know whats going on there" then you automatically want to discover the world it takes place in. But with Origins it was always saving person xy from a bandit camp or a fortress etc.

it's understandable for you to expect alot in the pyramid (me too as first) but after some research you should know that it is the actual real pyramid nowaday they made in the game. if you go to egypt and explore the pyramid its gonna be exact same. but luckily they did made some change for some tomb which are related too the first civ and they are really cool.

quanzaizai
06-26-2018, 06:41 PM
Although I wouldn't refer to it as a "loss" for AC because it is not a competition, and they're both great franchises for different reasons. I was comparing AC's RPG elements against Witcher 3 because Ubisoft are trying to copy but they don't get why TW3 is so popular. They think it is down to its rudimentary mechanics such as choice, combat, crafting etc and don't realise it's what CDPR does with these individual basic elements that make them more interesting than at first glance.
yeah witcher RPG element are really well connected together, and the system is deep. in ACOD its feel like AC franchise doesn't really need RPG at all but they still put it in for more fan and also it is cool anyway. Luckily that although what they did is not really deep and meaningful but somehow it fits the game and work really well (judged from ACO) so I can call it RPG-lite as the OP mention.

bizantura
06-26-2018, 06:48 PM
I will reserve judgement on AC Odyssey after I have played it to how RPGie it is from my point mv view in what an RPG constitutes.

Yes, Witcher 3 set the bar high but will CDPR maintain that in their upcoming Cyberpunk 2077. Isn't the yellow elephant in the room political correctness and the linguistic shenanigans that came out of it.
Witcher 3 did not contend with that at all and publishers based in the US certainly had to adhere to the new linguistic correctness and social changes in opinion of culture.

Basically, what I mean is that making RPG's momentarily can create very fast an explosive minefield, a minefield that Ubisoft avoided with AC Origins. Is there room for improvement since AC Origins, definitely. I hope Ubisoft has done that but either way I am not expecting a Witcher 3 quality not even from CDPR.

MnemonicSyntax
06-26-2018, 07:15 PM
I'm not gong to quote multiple people because it's a lot to get through. I'm just gong to speak my mind based on what I've read since my last post.

Potion crafting/herb picking/oils etc. was just not fun to me. It was tedious. And trying to figure out what worked best in combat situations when I couldn't even remember which sword did what to who was also another example of "too big for it's own good." There are times I would literally panic because this huge monster was coming at me and I didn't know what to do. While this seems like a good thing for exploration, Origins actually does something that I found similar that isn't even a "collectable."

I've started to replay Origins again and I've been doing more exploring of areas. Both on foot and with Senu. It's interesting to note that there are several "mini-stories" showing the "day in the life of..." people in Egypt who are doing their own thing. Apparently there are two guys who like to play a "Dare" game and you can find their notes and treasures all over the world (so far anyway) even at spots that don't have a question mark.

Another "side-story" that is interesting and doesn't "tick off any boxes" is a group of bandits called uh.. Lion's something. The name escapes me at the moment. They talk about leaving stuff they stole at the old dead tree and you end up actually finding it, if you look hard enough.

There is a side quest about a tanner that you must bring 2 gator eggs, 2 hyena ears and 2 vulture beaks. In his hometown, I stumbled across some oils that were scented and Bayek commented on taking them to the tanner. He then proceeded to give it to the tanner, which I thought was neat because in my first play-through I didn't do that.

A lot of my first play-through, I cleared areas to clear them for checking them off a list. Exploration of each area, even without a question mark, can yield some interesting side stories.

If I'm understanding this right, the two things that happen in the Witcher 3 was random monster attacks and potion crafting? Because isn't that repetitive? (Asking seriously here)

I just couldn't get into the Witcher. It was a drag. I felt very frustrated with everything they try to force feed you down your throat. If Ubisoft gets one thing right, it's tutorials.

I dunno. I liked exploration in Breath of the Wild and it had nothing of markers except to nudge you in the right direction. I feel like Origins did this right too, but only on my second play-through. In many ways it reminds me of Fallout 4 in that there's these side stories of people living in the world and what they did before the bombs fell. Breath of the Wild has a tracker that shows you where you've been and honestly, that's a great thing to have for my "gaming OCD." I'm completely with Widow in that the Witcher overwhelmed that sense of collect everything, find every area, but I think other parts of it overwhelmed me more. The combat, while good in the mechanics of locking on, strafing and such, much like a "Ocarina of Time" style of combat, in the Witcher was great, but there's so many options on how to handle a situation and different button controls and... it's just too much.

I could certainly deal with exploring more. BOTW did it in spades and I'm all for not doing the same 7 tasks over again, but I also feel like Origins has learned something and is a good balance.

I want to digress by saying I don't hate the Witcher. I've tried multiple times to get back into it, give it the ol' college try and I just can't. It's just not... fun. Maybe I like winning and I'm just a casual player after all. Which, for Assassin's Creed, I don't think I am. I've played since day 1, stuck around for the Juno plot and now I hear it's moved to the comics that I don't read. Blah.

Kiroku
06-26-2018, 08:18 PM
It has nothing to do with enemy variety. Most of the discovery that I had in mind when talking about how good the Witcher 3 is with this aspect were actually human NPCs. The Novigrad side quests feature more human interactions than monsters and that's my favourite part.



The Skellige question marks are the worst ones mainly because you could tell they ran out of time. All the water based ones are useless and a pain to get to. I also agree about the dungeons in Skyrim however, as previously mentioned it was the discoveries in-between these question marks and repetitive activities i.e. the unmarked, hidden wonders where these games really shine. AC Origins doesn't have such lures - literally, everything there is to see is already laid out on the map before you ever get to it, they're all the same and getting to your objective by foot is pointless hence the need for fast travel.



Agreed. The tombs would have been a perfect opportunity to do some Isu side quests as well. What a waste.

Oh you mean the side quests okay I didnt get you in the beginning then. But yeah true. As I said if they can tell stories in such an emotional way that people really want to know whats going on its so much more fun. After 50% of Origins the sidequests for me just felt like okay I should do them cuz of the exp. So I skipped the whole "bla bla" and rescued like 100 people from several camps. You can try doing NG+ in Origins and only play the main story btw. just to figure out how it would feel to only play story. Its ridiculous. But we have to say they just tried to go into this direction for the first time so yeah..

Yup skellige ate so much time sailing from spot to spot that at one point I was like okay fk off I dont need this. And I know what you mean. In the blood and wine dlc finding a bonfire with a sword under the bridge to the giant when searching for Syanna was a really cool Dark Souls easteregg.


it's understandable for you to expect alot in the pyramid (me too as first) but after some research you should know that it is the actual real pyramid nowaday they made in the game. if you go to egypt and explore the pyramid its gonna be exact same. but luckily they did made some change for some tomb which are related too the first civ and they are really cool.

It is somewhat understandable but as AnimusLover mentioned when quoting me they had a really good opportunity to make some quests around the pyramids regarding some fancy conspiracy stuff or isu quests to make them more interesting but well.. they didnt. Until today I dont even know what these "JUNO EVENTS" were everyone was talking about and I never saw them in the game..lol.

AnimusLover
07-08-2018, 07:12 PM
If I'm understanding this right, the two things that happen in the Witcher 3 was random monster attacks and potion crafting? Because isn't that repetitive? (Asking seriously here)

No, there are also unique side quests you can discover that don't involve monsters and each one of them is different. Even some of the monster encounters have a twist. For instance, there is a certain troll that Geralt meets who, depending on your decisions, you can end the situation amicably but the entire quest before the end is quite amusing. In fact, your decision to spare or kill monsters has an impact on another quest that was added post launch that I won't spoil...


I just couldn't get into the Witcher. It was a drag. I felt very frustrated with everything they try to force feed you down your throat. If Ubisoft gets one thing right, it's tutorials.

That's the problem with a lot of RPGs, especially Bethesda ones. Proper RPGs take about 25 hours in before you're truly comfortable with the systems because there is so much to learn. I would say I didn't really master all of the TW3's systems until my second playthrough. The key is to take your time. It's a game that's supposed to be long and approached with thought. It's not a binge game like Assassin's Creed and you're not supposed to be great right away. You will die a lot in the beginning and that's OK.


I want to digress by saying I don't hate the Witcher. I've tried multiple times to get back into it, give it the ol' college try and I just can't. It's just not... fun. Maybe I like winning and I'm just a casual player after all.

My advice would be to turn the difficulty down to the easy setting to give yourself time to get used to the combat and system without being constantly interrupted by deaths then when you've mastered these systems turn the difficulty up.

MnemonicSyntax
07-08-2018, 07:23 PM
Thanks for your response AnimusLover.

I have always started any new game with the easiest mode. One of the problems I think with me, is the font for the Witcher 3 is really difficult to read. I've looked into mods to fix that, but have found nothing concrete yet. Kinda hard for me to enjoy the lore if I can't read it!

One thing I learned recently in my play-through of Origins is that as a completionist, I hate not finishing an "area" before moving onto another one. For some reason, this did not carry over to BOTW.

For example, I get extremely frustrated when I get killed in the questline that occurs in southern Alexandria with the scholar and his mother. I see and do many things before heading that way but those enemies are always too tough for me at the time. Yet from a role-play standpoint, I'm finishing some other quest that dragged me to the docks and then I hear scholar boy's mother crying out for him and I... I can't ignore it from a role-play perspective because I'm a Medjay! I am Bayek of Siwa! Siwa's Medjay! (ad nauseam) so I gotta help her.

I'm considering giving Witcher 3 another go, this will be the fifth time. I'm going to take my time with it, but I also took my time with BOTW and found it really fun and it's pretty large too. I don't understand why I enjoyed BOTW and not the Witcher, because those comparisons are there, right?

Maybe I'm missing something. Probably.

AnimusLover
07-08-2018, 08:59 PM
Thanks for your response AnimusLover.

I have always started any new game with the easiest mode. One of the problems I think with me, is the font for the Witcher 3 is really difficult to read. I've looked into mods to fix that, but have found nothing concrete yet. Kinda hard for me to enjoy the lore if I can't read it!

One thing I learned recently in my play-through of Origins is that as a completionist, I hate not finishing an "area" before moving onto another one. For some reason, this did not carry over to BOTW.

For example, I get extremely frustrated when I get killed in the questline that occurs in southern Alexandria with the scholar and his mother. I see and do many things before heading that way but those enemies are always too tough for me at the time. Yet from a role-play standpoint, I'm finishing some other quest that dragged me to the docks and then I hear scholar boy's mother crying out for him and I... I can't ignore it from a role-play perspective because I'm a Medjay! I am Bayek of Siwa! Siwa's Medjay! (ad nauseam) so I gotta help her.

I'm considering giving Witcher 3 another go, this will be the fifth time. I'm going to take my time with it, but I also took my time with BOTW and found it really fun and it's pretty large too. I don't understand why I enjoyed BOTW and not the Witcher, because those comparisons are there, right?

Maybe I'm missing something. Probably.

Yeah, I find that the font of a lot of games is too small for my 50 inch TV these days.
Regarding your dislike of leaving an area before finishing it, I'd wager that it's because of the way Ubisoft set up their worlds - like a checklist. It's designed to make the player feel like they should complete their chores before moving on whereas other open world RPGs hide this very well. In discovery based RPGs like Fallout it's harder to get upset about not completing an area if you don't know what's actually in the area.

How far did you get with the Witcher 3 btw?

MnemonicSyntax
07-08-2018, 09:41 PM
I was on a uh... boat? It was some swamp area. I don't recall the name. I had finished the uh... Bloody Baron part with the stillborn child. It's been a while since I've played though.

AnimusLover
07-08-2018, 10:29 PM
I was on a uh... boat? It was some swamp area. I don't recall the name. I had finished the uh... Bloody Baron part with the stillborn child. It's been a while since I've played though.

Did you do the Novigrad missions with Triss, the criminal underworld and the Eternal Fire cult?

MnemonicSyntax
07-08-2018, 10:38 PM
Did you do the Novigrad missions with Triss, the criminal underworld and the Eternal Fire cult?

None of that sounds familiar so probably not.

AnimusLover
07-09-2018, 01:28 AM
None of that sounds familiar so probably not.

Ah, I see. imo you got out just before the game gets really good. I would encourage you to try again.
If you're not happy by the time you've finished the Novigrad main and side quests which includes the Triss quest line, Witch Hunters, Eternal Fire, Dijkstra, *****son etc then the game isn't not for you. I say that because this is where the story and characters really come into play and most of the enemies here are human (who are easier to deal with). Ignore the Witcher contracts and notice boards if you can as they will just overwhelm you. Just focus on side and main quests and only do other activities if you need to level up. Take your time in White Orchard - that's supposed to be the tutorial map. Accept that you won't be able to do everything as your level is not high enough and remember you can always travel back to complete them. There is no rush. This is a game that encourages you to take your time and if you plough through it it will be a nightmare because you won't be able to master the skills.

I was a bit like you at first - I didn't actually like the gameplay mechanics and it was the stories and charactes that kept me going. Second time round the gameplay wasn't so bad.

As for the swords, pick 2 swords and stick to them. Look at their perks, damage etc and focus on getting them the best they can be. The best gear in the game is the Witcher gear but much of this needs to be earned through getting the schematics which are easy to find if you do a certain quest in Velen as you approach Bloody Baron's castle.

With monsters, you can refer to the 'Beasts' in your quest log which tells you their weaknesses but you will only find their weaknesses out by killing them the first time or by reading a book.

Again, it takes time.

Don't worry about "builds". The Witcher is a game that wants players to be an all-rounder as different monsters require this style.

Also, upgrade your Quen sign to max which absorbs all damage. You will become unkillable.

Good luck!

quanzaizai
07-09-2018, 10:43 PM
Tips for anyone who wanna try out Witcher 3:
don't try to finish anything fast or skip scene; just sit back, relax, think about your choices and enjoy the cutscenes like a movie. The reward of a quest is the story itself.

quanzaizai
07-09-2018, 10:46 PM
Tips for anyone who wanna try out Witcher 3:
don't try to finish anything fast or skip scene just sit back, relax, think about your choices and enjoy the cutscenes like a movie. The reward of a quest is the story itself.

Rusty_Ham
07-10-2018, 09:11 PM
I see where you're coming from. However, I think Odyssey is very close to the (in a lot of senses) greatest RPG of this time:Witcher 3. Sure, it's only an opinion, but the game is brilliant and works perfectly as an RPG even without the hairstyle-choice, etc. And while the skill system might not be too crazy, it at least gives you a bit customization. I think you have every right to think it's not the best RPG ever, but I believe it works good enough to be considered as one of them.