AC once was decent but is now garbage, and what does hold merit in the formula the franchise established has been perfected in Ghost of Tsushima. I don’t know why anyone would be interested in this game when there is something far more competently executed available that appeals, mechanically and in general gameplay structure, to AC, yet without all the filler and worst design inclinations that Ubi insists upon infusing into their works to their inevitable detriment.
Though playing a black Samurai would be intriguing, and something I’d definitely be interested in seeing, but I doubt such a novelty could overcome my extreme dislike for Ubi’s monetization schemes masquerading as games….aka….the Assassin’s Creed series.
No thanks. Give me a real talented studio instead, and bring on Ghost of Tsushima II: Jin’s exile.
Like I have said before, Ghost of Tsushima is so ridiculously similar to AC that it is strange reading comments that paint it as notably different. I played Ghost of Tsushima immediately after finish AC: Origins.
I absolutely concede it’s similar. Again, there is merit in the formula that AC introduced, and that merit is to be found in execution. But nothing in GoT feels superfluous to me. Yes it’s formulaic, yes it’s repetitive, even generic to an extent, but it all serves a narrative arc and end. AC feels like filler, games solely designed at their cores to give excuse to play to try to push the player towards the embracement of monetizing their playtime.
I’ve never argued there’s anything necessarily wrong with AC‘s formula. What I take exception to in the comparison between GoT and AC, in that just because their mechanics and structure are similar, they service similar ends. They don’t, and Ghosts is a far better game because of it.
That is a very notable difference, but is found at the core of its design which is often why people can’t see it.
Valhalla is better than GoT. It is far more imaginative in gameplay and quest design.
Log in to comment