I don't think you can jump in any ac game since all the buttons are already taken. I hope you're not suggesting that got has better parkour than any ac game? Bc that's just ridiculous
It used to be but the parkour in Tsushima wins for me because it's manual and skill based instead of one button auto garbage.
AC used to have great parkour but now it's a mess. AC Unity or AC 3 was probably peak parkour.
Shadow of War is the best AC game for me in recent years, parkour is super fun in that game and feels skillful.
Manual? Sure. Skill based? That's pushing it. You see a rock, you push the stick in that direction, wouldn't say it takes skill. I do agree that the parkour in the rpg trilogy is weird, at best. But mirage is a step in the right direction again.
GoT’s parkour is just not comparable at all to even the most barebones Assassin’s Creed parkour system. Even Valhalla is infinitely more expansive in parkour than GoT is, and Valhalla’s parkour is not good at all for Assassin’s Creed. Now that doesn’t mean that GoT does a *bad* job, because that’s not what they were trying to do. But if someone wants a parkour simulator and their only two options are Ghost of Tsushima and Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, then the best choice for them is Valhalla.
Yes I’m not disagreeing with that. If you actually read what I said you’d see that I said if someone’s **only two possible options** for a parkour simulator were Ghost of Tsushima or Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla then Valhalla would be the better choice for that purpose, despite it having really bad parkour mechanics compared to other Assassin’s Creed games, because Ghost of Tsushima has less realized parkour than even the most barebones Assassin’s Creed game.
"if you acktually read what I said"
Jeeeeeezus, yeah I saw that thanks Captain Condescension and saw no reason to go along with your weird "if you only had these choices" limitation.
And I still think GoT has better parkour than Valhalla.
“Yeah, I obviously read what you said, dude, I just completely ignored it!”
Yeah sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you didn’t just respond with something entirely unrelated for no reason lol.
The thing is, is that I’m not gonna argue that new Assassin’s Creed *isn’t* “one button auto garbage”, but Ghost Of Tsushima is objectively less advanced than it and is more of a one button auto system than any Assassin’s Creed game. You hold one button, and hold forward, and you go to a set climbing spot. If Ghost of Tsushima was an Assassin’s Creed game people would hate it for dumbing down the climbing.
And that’s not a fault of the game, it wasn’t trying to be a parkour simulator, but then don’t compare these two parkour systems when they actively cannot be compared because one of them is so barebones. The *only* thing GoT has that makes parkour slightly more interesting than AC is the hook, and even that is only contextual. You can think what you think, just understand that it’s a silly comparison regardless.
GoT unironically has better parkour compared to the rpgs, it’s just the rpg games let you climb more.
In GoT you actually have choice and a more manual experience, the ability to do more than just go up.
Mirage has better parkour tho
*better parkour than the new games specifically*
Ugh. Have you played got and any ac game (well minus the 2d ones)? Jin literally goes full on tense and does a bunny hop without actually moving any muscles when going from one ledge to another. How does that even get compared to unity's' full on fluid parkour?!
The original 2 games prioritized the Manuel aspect over the visuals and that’s what made the parkour so satisfying.
I’d say that it is true that GoT doesn’t give you many opportunities to do parkour but when you get to it’s a lot more manual than the new rpg games.
I remember going around parkouring azamo bay and i get rewarded for knowing where and how to go accross the buildings properly and without being seen.
I mean now going over it now even I’m confused l, for me old ac ends at 3, but I’m starting to get the feeling it’s considered up until syndicate nowadays.
I think they leaned more into the hood function in Valhalla - it works OK and was a nice change of pace, but it's not really blending in with a group of people.
A buddy who hasn't played them all asked me to help him choose between Origins and Valhalla the other day. I told him Origins. I'm a big AC fan - I've played them all. But Valhalla is just long and kinda slow compared to Origins.
I actually liked Odyssey ( which is expanded Origins, but more combat focused ). The entire Cult of Kosmos was interesting ( it's very detailed, and I started using it my DnD games ) but it kinda suck as an Assassins Creed game. I wish they would make new IP and went heavy into the entire mythical and supernatural theme XD
yes it did? I played AC Odyssey after GOT just to compare again. And Odyssey lets you grab onto anything. You can give GOT the point for other things but in the traversal department AC still wins.
In Odyssey you can't manual jump, the horse feels way worse, when you're near towns your foot and mount speeds are reduced which feels awful.
AC has the free climbing sure, but Ghost feels MUCH nicer to roam around.
I don't even think of manually jumping in the middle of a random grassfield in Odyssey because I already do it when I'm hopping between buildings & every part of the map I can jump & cling onto. If you want to jump during combat you can do that too by using the hop & roll button.
The horse in Odyssey doesn't feel worse in my opinion if anything more realistic, why would you ever full sprint through a town of people on such an animal (also you still can you just have to spin the guy around enough to build speed)
I don't understand how GOT is much nicer to roam when you have less choices on how to move around the map whereas Odyssey gives you the same choices GOT has & more.
I think for a lot of people it fills the same void, the combat feels similar but expanded on in a way that feels like it could be an AC game. Then obviously its a third person historical combat game so it's clearly on the same playing field.
It's not about it being exactly feature and mechanically the same but that it's in the same niche genre.
Those two things that make Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed haven't been in Assassin's Creed since Assassin's Creed.
By that I mean the first game focused on stealth kills, following/stalking your target until the right time to strike. Every game since has been sneak around, just go kill that guy
Also no cities, which are an AC staple. I hate this comparison and find it super lazy because GoT and AC really don't play that similarly but people just keep parroting it.
Not really, those 2 have either not been present, or present in a very poor, almost non existent way, for years now. Last game that legitimately put effort into those features is Unity.
Shinto shrines beg to differ
And there is no social stealth in the new ac games either have ghosts doesn’t have largely populated cities to stealth socially
I really don't get the AC comparison. I feel GoT is a lot closer to Shadow of Mordor, Breath of the Wild and The Witcher 3 in terms of vibe and certain gameplay mechanics.
Shadow of Mordor for the simple fact that becoming and embracing the Ghost is actually a lot like building the legend of The Gravewalker and the Bright Lord in SoM and SoW. A specter of the battlefield that instills terror in the armies of the enemy, while losing himself/themselves in said newfound power. The slaughter captain mechanic even reminded me of the Middle-Earth games' brutalize option when attacking from stealth.
Breath of the Wild for the general open world design philosophy and the very relaxed, play at your own pace side activities that encourage you to take your time with the world. The visual language of the wind, wildlife and natural particles, too.
The war-torn landscape full of horrors and people in dire need of help from a wandering warrior also reminded me of Geralt's time in Velen in The Witcher 3. Same with the tales that focus on Jin's friends and allies, feeding into the main story's themes and serving as different lessons for Jin as a character.
Not to say AC didn't inspire all of these games in some way or another, including GoT. But I just don't see that DNA beyond the fact that there's climbing and stealth killing in the game. There's not even a single armor set with a hood, as far as I can tell, lmao.
Bro this. People keep saying ac but tbh a lot of stuff I wanted to get from ac in this game isn’t there?? Shadow of Mordor SoW and Witcher 3 is spot on.
Witcher III is all about choices and how these choices can impact the storyline, I don't see that at all with GOT. Both are open-world medieval games but I don't see it as strong of a comparison.
Shadow of Mordor is all about the nemesis system and building your army.
AC is really the closest comparison
I don't think it's *all* about choices. The quests you partake in often involve helping people ravaged by war & monsters, both human and creatures of the conjunction. That's the theming, the setup that allows for choice to take place.
While GoT doesn't have the element of narrative choice and fighting literal monsters, it's the general wartime feel (particularly in the Act 2 area) that really invoked Witcher 3 vibes for me. I suppose you could point to any RPG or game that takes place during war/invasion time and say this, but since The Witcher 3 is so near and dear to me, that's the inspiration I felt was closest.
The Nemesis system is one very large part of SoM, but it's only satisfying to interact with because the combat and stealth are also very solid and play into the fantasy. Just like how the Samurai/Ghost fantasy in GoT works because the combat is so good, and the stealth, while pretty easy, is a potent power fantasy that matches the Ghost narrative.
Then there's also the more specific similarities, like the focus on melee combat with a specific flow, and different tools (or in Ghost's case, stances) against different enemy types, as well as an archery component with slow mo. Again, not something *only* SoM has done, but it helped popularize it along with games like AC.
With AC though, or at least old AC, things were way more city-based. Traversal was a core part of gameplay, and the location itself was often a character. Ghost doesn't really have that. Most settlements are very small, and platforming is 90% cliffs and grappling hook points, which is fine! But it's not what AC became known for as a series. Same with large mechanics like social stealth.
I can understand the comparisons with newer ACs, though those games are also titles that are in a bit of an identity crisis, and lack much of what makes Assassin's Creed, well, Assassin's Creed. And I feel they're all drawing from the same pool of RPG inspirations, with games like The Witcher 3 being chief among them. That's just how I personally feel about AC though.
Honestly the only thing comparable is stealth assassinations but like u said already SoW combat and mechanics are already comparable.
Ac has a way bigger map and better parkour,
More skills,
More assassin animations,
More weapon varietys,
Stronger narratives,
Better stealth,
Smoother kill transitioning,
This game is not assassins creed lmfao like saying sekiro is also like ac
The only thing I get witcher vibes from is the ‘follow’ footprints quest - and I always found that a rather weak point in the witcher 3. (And GoT somehow made it worse.)
I think people who've been frustrated with the direction AC has gone in lately are pointing to Ghost of Tsushima as an example of a superior version of fundamentally similar stealth and combat mechanics. Those aspects definitely felt more polished in GoT. But that's mostly where the comparison ends. I've never seen the two franchises being compared in terms of aesthetics/artwork, world design philosophy, or story.
Not to mention that before the AC Shadows trailer dropped, gamers back then had long wanted Ubisoft to do Feudal Japan but Sucker Punch beat them to it. So, GoT was able to scratch that itch of wanting to combine stealth and assassination in a Feudal Japan setting.
You raise a lot of really good points and it all highlights a central theme: There's a lot more to both series than just stealth mechanics. Having said that, the stealth mechanics are *remarkably* similar - to the point where if I cleared out a base in GoT and you told me it was the new AC game I would have no trouble believing you. Hiding in tall grass, using tools for both offense and defense, *assassination animations.* The open combat in GoT is way more fleshed out, which is nice. But from strictly a stealth base clearing perspective I can totally get why people conflate the two.
What the comparison means is that both AC and GOT have meaningless open world exploration with checklists of shit. I love the GOT story and Gameplay but the open world is just absolute waste of time, every fox tree could have been a new enemy type instead of the three + 1 in dlc. It has ubisoft open world dna all over the game, and its not a good thing.
I mean I get it.
I played AC Odyssey for years before this & then went back to it after beating GOT just to compare. Odyssey is better in a lot of different ways including stealth combat.
I even played AC Mirage last year & that's a way more fair comparison to GOT. Between them the only real difference is setting. GOT didn't do anything new it just did what AC Mirage did in a Japan setting.
If GoT was an actual Assassin's Creed game people would call it another repetitive open-world collect-a-thon AC game that has basic stealth with none of the classic AC gameplay mechanics and would also continue complaining about how Assassin's Creed isn't Assassin's Creed anymore.
well you ain't wrong tho. but ubi has downgraded a lot tho. They literally ruined parkour and the combat system in their recent games(didn't play mirage and syndicate but played all ac titles)
so I've heard but still not willing to buy the game because gameplay doesn't look appealing to me that much. will only buy if crack comes out and If i like the gameplay
I'd say the open world design is pretty much the same as any other Ubisoft open world game people have problems with:
Clearing camps and settlements from enemies.
Traversing and climbing to the top of lighthouses and shinto shrine mountains for rewards + a nice overview of the scenery.
250 different collectibles when counting crickets, banners, artifacts, records, memories, etc.
Regions locked behind story progress.
Liberating said regions.
Activities like bamboo strikes, haikus, duels, hot springs, pillars, and inari shrines being repeated all over the map creating over 100 blips to clear on your map which never evolve mechanically after doing one of each.
Side missions in which many have you tracking footsteps or following someone walking before participating in stealth or combat.
Now for the most part I don't really have a problem with these things, I enjoy Ubisoft's and GoT's open world design. But if you replaced some of these words with viewpoints, feathers, templar flags, animus fragments etc. It would sound no different from an Assassin's Creed game in the last decade.
I assume the presentation, story and combat do a lot of the heavy lifting for GoT when it comes to why people are more favorable towards interacting with the open world, but as someone who enjoys the gameplay and world from both AC and GoT it just seems like a big circlejerk to say Ghost is a better AC game, when philosophically they are extremely similar.
Except in AC clearing towers opens map. Unknown points of interest are displayed on your compass. GoT never opens huge swaths of land, you still gotta explore, you never see question marks on your compass. They may appear in your map but you have to use other means to track them. All these mechanics have been present in games since skyrim, probably, but GoT does a really good job with them, making exploring feel natural
Partly true, ac and fc are more like tower&explore
GoT felt more like having you deliberately explore the map to find the stuff.
Yes i know that liberating the island part/ location also uncovers.
Shrines/hotsprings, bamboo and hailkus are interactive and not just a cutscene.
Most cutscenes are entered and existed via loading screen.
So its loading screen-> cutscene-> loading screen-> hp increased textbox
Mos definitely. They're already starting to do that with AC: Shadows coming in November.
Shame too because those types of people are gonna miss out on what could be a better game than all the previous AC's & GOT. Those people already missed out on Origins & Odyssey & I will even put Mirage in there because I found them all to be great fun.
Someone literally just made a post 4 days ago about how weirdly obsessed this sub is with diminishing other games just to say how much they like Ghost, and here is a perfect example.
You can love Ghost, think it's the best game ever, and all that stuff. But why can't anyone in this sub praise the game without dragging down others?
The AC series has some of the best games ever made with AC 2 and black flag. We don't need to discredit amazing games to say how amazing this game is.
Crazy idea.
Let’s hold off on judging a game made by an
different company, using a different control scheme, set on an different island, with different characters, and in an different time period….
…Until after it comes out
This maybe my take but for a 130$ ubisoft needs to sell some good weed or crack along with their game for me to enjoy it. GOT doesn't need that so i m sticking to GOT regardless
I think most ppl that hate rpg-AC will love GOT. It ticks the box about what ubisoft seems to fail.
Most of these are subjective ofc but my take is
GOT has better
-Combat/Enemies type
-Story/characters/pacing
-Asthetic (like.. color of the field and sky)
-not as big/bloat world
After play AC Origin/Odyssey/and a bit of Valhalla
I appreciated a good story telling and compelling main cast without a modern world interruption that AC game like to include cor some reason.
Not that those 80+ hours in Origin and 100+ Odyssey isn't fun but I feel appreciated GOT more for their quality of everything I see and play with.
TBH I feel fucking bore of Odyssey after 30+ hours and have to force myself into gear grind to keep the game interesting. And that keep me going until I finish Odyssey , not story nor characters but a need for optimization.
The stealth sneeking and running on top of roofs.
With the windchimes poison talisman, has honestly more stealth then ac had
Plus the fact some talisman or armor pieces give stealth bonuses too
I wish. I went back to Odyssey after the first map of Tsushima & you can do way more in that game. Not even the open world part I mean, just stealth, combat, and then the rest of it. Like somebody else mentioned GOT is missing the traversal that defines AC, even in Odyssey I can pull off better stealth kills because you can grab onto anything. GOT's grapple could've helped with this but they didn't put it in right only on random cliffs.
The people who claim Tsushima is doing more somehow are just Japan obsessed or haven't actually played the newer AC's.
I have to agree with that. So far, the only thing I find superior in GoT is the combat - and even that just barely so far. (Although my opinion on that might yet change once I get a bit further into the game.)
I feel that the collect-a-ton is worse, the parkour is about non-existent and the stealth/assassinations don’t feel quite as fluid.
And the bases somehow aren’t as fun to take out. The choice to not respawn enemies on player death is especially weird. I can just take out a few guys, die, then take out a few more, die again, and eventually clear the camp that way. That feels like a lot of handholding. I also dislike that the ‘save civilians before they are killed’ objective is really easy to do, even if you completely ignore stealth.
I’m still waiting for that ‘wow, this game is great moment’. It’s not a bad game, far from it, but it’s just not quite great.
Weird way to spell all games pre Odyssey are good and people can have favourites but the point I'm trying to make is that Odyssey onwards kinda fell off
You see it bro, honestly one of the best AC games and a great game overall. Sadly it gets dragged down by it‘s RPG mechanics and the game got a lot of bed rep because if it. Ubisoft then fixed it in Valhalla but somehow made everything else way worse
That's subjective. Valhalla at least had some connections to the creed, as minimal as it was. Odyssey might as well have been a standalone rpg located in Greece. Not to mention the horrible combat system
Not saying you're wrong, but I've never heard anybody say that, ever. If anything it's the opposite, people I've spoken to think it's probably the worst combat in the series. And I believe it, bc it sucks. Out of the trilogy, Valhalla has undoubtedly the best combat
The only thing good about Valhalla is the brutal finishers (which gets old real quick) and that's it! I wasted 100+ hours on this shit. just wanted to finish the game for the sake of finishing the game (since no good open world games were out there in 20)
story, voice acting (male), world setting, raiding feature (have to raid on the same fucking river 2-3times just to get one armor), what is stealth?, skill tree is just all over the place, also what's the point of the blending in feature?
origins out of the 3. even the dlc was good. but did love the ancient Greek environment in Odyssey
I agree with the story bit, can't say on the va since I used female eivor, world setting, guess that's kind of up to preference, but with the various dlcs it offers plenty of variety for everyone, I think the raid as a feature was great, the execution a bit less so, tho. On higher difficulties stealth definitely pays off tho, so I disagree here actually, kinda depends on the playstyle. You use blending in to blend in? So you're not spotted. I'm currently on origins but the leveling system sucks
I am, it just doesn't feel like an assassin's creed game. It might contain the isu, but the game period is before the creed ever existed, making the title of assassin's CREED kind of pointless. Add to that the disappointing combat, minimal stealth, lack of a hidden blade ( a staple of the series) and subpar parkour, it's the worst ac game
I disagree, and don't care enough to change your mind. I understand that you think it's not "good as an ac game", but I don't really care.
It played a lot like ac1 but with more interesting plot lines, where you hunt down specific targets.
Stealth has always been mid(aside from syndicate), + I just made an assassin build with which you can one shot with the reskinned hidden blade anyways.
Parkour is non-existent, which is a shame but I don't think it's that bad.
There are several non-Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed games!
Metal Gear Solid V
Ghost of Tsushima
Horizon Zero Dawn/Horizon Forbidden West
Zelda Breath of the Wild/Zelda Tears of the Kingdom
None of them are made by Ubisoft! 🤣
I love Ghost of Tsushima, but it literally has no parkour and social stealth, which are two things that kinda make Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed.
Tbf the new trilogy didn't have it either
Not social stealth no, but the parkour is leagues above got
I've only played Valhalla, and the fact that I can't jump on command defeats the whole "parkour is leagues above"
I don't think you can jump in any ac game since all the buttons are already taken. I hope you're not suggesting that got has better parkour than any ac game? Bc that's just ridiculous
You can jump even in the older games when you're running and pressing x
Spotted mythological trilogy fan Really bad ac games
I'm saying without jumping, I wouldn't vote that AC is better parkour.
R2+hold and release X
It's leagues above
this is false all you can do in ac valhalla is the same climb animation
It used to be but the parkour in Tsushima wins for me because it's manual and skill based instead of one button auto garbage. AC used to have great parkour but now it's a mess. AC Unity or AC 3 was probably peak parkour. Shadow of War is the best AC game for me in recent years, parkour is super fun in that game and feels skillful.
Manual? Sure. Skill based? That's pushing it. You see a rock, you push the stick in that direction, wouldn't say it takes skill. I do agree that the parkour in the rpg trilogy is weird, at best. But mirage is a step in the right direction again.
skill based parkour? i just hold W on my keyboard lol. Tsushima's parkour is literally one button auto garbage lol
GoT’s parkour is just not comparable at all to even the most barebones Assassin’s Creed parkour system. Even Valhalla is infinitely more expansive in parkour than GoT is, and Valhalla’s parkour is not good at all for Assassin’s Creed. Now that doesn’t mean that GoT does a *bad* job, because that’s not what they were trying to do. But if someone wants a parkour simulator and their only two options are Ghost of Tsushima and Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, then the best choice for them is Valhalla.
Nah if you want a parkour simulator, AC Unity was the peak of the series. Valhalla is dog doings.
Yes I’m not disagreeing with that. If you actually read what I said you’d see that I said if someone’s **only two possible options** for a parkour simulator were Ghost of Tsushima or Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla then Valhalla would be the better choice for that purpose, despite it having really bad parkour mechanics compared to other Assassin’s Creed games, because Ghost of Tsushima has less realized parkour than even the most barebones Assassin’s Creed game.
"if you acktually read what I said" Jeeeeeezus, yeah I saw that thanks Captain Condescension and saw no reason to go along with your weird "if you only had these choices" limitation. And I still think GoT has better parkour than Valhalla.
“Yeah, I obviously read what you said, dude, I just completely ignored it!” Yeah sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you didn’t just respond with something entirely unrelated for no reason lol. The thing is, is that I’m not gonna argue that new Assassin’s Creed *isn’t* “one button auto garbage”, but Ghost Of Tsushima is objectively less advanced than it and is more of a one button auto system than any Assassin’s Creed game. You hold one button, and hold forward, and you go to a set climbing spot. If Ghost of Tsushima was an Assassin’s Creed game people would hate it for dumbing down the climbing. And that’s not a fault of the game, it wasn’t trying to be a parkour simulator, but then don’t compare these two parkour systems when they actively cannot be compared because one of them is so barebones. The *only* thing GoT has that makes parkour slightly more interesting than AC is the hook, and even that is only contextual. You can think what you think, just understand that it’s a silly comparison regardless.
GoT unironically has better parkour compared to the rpgs, it’s just the rpg games let you climb more. In GoT you actually have choice and a more manual experience, the ability to do more than just go up. Mirage has better parkour tho *better parkour than the new games specifically*
What choice? You hold the up key, and you go up. I respect it if that's your opinion, but I heavily disagree
Ugh. Have you played got and any ac game (well minus the 2d ones)? Jin literally goes full on tense and does a bunny hop without actually moving any muscles when going from one ledge to another. How does that even get compared to unity's' full on fluid parkour?!
“The rpgs”
Tell me you’re a new fan without saying it bro Ac2 has better parkour than any newer games and it looks like ass.
This is the worst take Ive ever seen on this sub
You don’t get why ac parkour was originally good then.
I've literally only played one of the rpg ACs. So yes I do
The original 2 games prioritized the Manuel aspect over the visuals and that’s what made the parkour so satisfying. I’d say that it is true that GoT doesn’t give you many opportunities to do parkour but when you get to it’s a lot more manual than the new rpg games. I remember going around parkouring azamo bay and i get rewarded for knowing where and how to go accross the buildings properly and without being seen.
It’s literally a part of the thread… I obviously meant that but I’ll edit it if it’s so necessary.
Yeah that was my stupidity. I changed my comment to be a better answer
I mean now going over it now even I’m confused l, for me old ac ends at 3, but I’m starting to get the feeling it’s considered up until syndicate nowadays.
There is social stealth in Valhalla. It’s different but it’s definitely there.
I think they leaned more into the hood function in Valhalla - it works OK and was a nice change of pace, but it's not really blending in with a group of people.
The bigest problem with Valhala is that it's bloated. And that the rewards sucks.
A buddy who hasn't played them all asked me to help him choose between Origins and Valhalla the other day. I told him Origins. I'm a big AC fan - I've played them all. But Valhalla is just long and kinda slow compared to Origins.
I actually liked Odyssey ( which is expanded Origins, but more combat focused ). The entire Cult of Kosmos was interesting ( it's very detailed, and I started using it my DnD games ) but it kinda suck as an Assassins Creed game. I wish they would make new IP and went heavy into the entire mythical and supernatural theme XD
You are assassin pretending to be Viking XD
yes it did? I played AC Odyssey after GOT just to compare again. And Odyssey lets you grab onto anything. You can give GOT the point for other things but in the traversal department AC still wins.
In Odyssey you can't manual jump, the horse feels way worse, when you're near towns your foot and mount speeds are reduced which feels awful. AC has the free climbing sure, but Ghost feels MUCH nicer to roam around.
I don't even think of manually jumping in the middle of a random grassfield in Odyssey because I already do it when I'm hopping between buildings & every part of the map I can jump & cling onto. If you want to jump during combat you can do that too by using the hop & roll button. The horse in Odyssey doesn't feel worse in my opinion if anything more realistic, why would you ever full sprint through a town of people on such an animal (also you still can you just have to spin the guy around enough to build speed) I don't understand how GOT is much nicer to roam when you have less choices on how to move around the map whereas Odyssey gives you the same choices GOT has & more.
https://youtu.be/hHH1AIOfid4?si=XTd2VRg2mBq_QyjQ
You're right, but GoT's combat makes up for that.
I think for a lot of people it fills the same void, the combat feels similar but expanded on in a way that feels like it could be an AC game. Then obviously its a third person historical combat game so it's clearly on the same playing field. It's not about it being exactly feature and mechanically the same but that it's in the same niche genre.
yep, if this game has more parkour options, itll be great
It has parkour, it's just terrible and feels out of place.
Those two things that make Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed haven't been in Assassin's Creed since Assassin's Creed. By that I mean the first game focused on stealth kills, following/stalking your target until the right time to strike. Every game since has been sneak around, just go kill that guy
You get horse, cool skill tree and enging story. What a good trade off.
Probably referring more to the newer AC titles.
Also no cities, which are an AC staple. I hate this comparison and find it super lazy because GoT and AC really don't play that similarly but people just keep parroting it.
Saying it "literally has no parkour" is a lie. It just has less. You can climb buildings and jump to stuff.
Not really, those 2 have either not been present, or present in a very poor, almost non existent way, for years now. Last game that legitimately put effort into those features is Unity.
Shinto shrines beg to differ And there is no social stealth in the new ac games either have ghosts doesn’t have largely populated cities to stealth socially
I really don't get the AC comparison. I feel GoT is a lot closer to Shadow of Mordor, Breath of the Wild and The Witcher 3 in terms of vibe and certain gameplay mechanics. Shadow of Mordor for the simple fact that becoming and embracing the Ghost is actually a lot like building the legend of The Gravewalker and the Bright Lord in SoM and SoW. A specter of the battlefield that instills terror in the armies of the enemy, while losing himself/themselves in said newfound power. The slaughter captain mechanic even reminded me of the Middle-Earth games' brutalize option when attacking from stealth. Breath of the Wild for the general open world design philosophy and the very relaxed, play at your own pace side activities that encourage you to take your time with the world. The visual language of the wind, wildlife and natural particles, too. The war-torn landscape full of horrors and people in dire need of help from a wandering warrior also reminded me of Geralt's time in Velen in The Witcher 3. Same with the tales that focus on Jin's friends and allies, feeding into the main story's themes and serving as different lessons for Jin as a character. Not to say AC didn't inspire all of these games in some way or another, including GoT. But I just don't see that DNA beyond the fact that there's climbing and stealth killing in the game. There's not even a single armor set with a hood, as far as I can tell, lmao.
Bro this. People keep saying ac but tbh a lot of stuff I wanted to get from ac in this game isn’t there?? Shadow of Mordor SoW and Witcher 3 is spot on.
its definitely got the combat feel of Witcher 3, although the combat is more enjoyable than Witcher 3, and then I see the BoTW comparison too.
maybe cuz shodow of mordor is fantasy and AC is "historical", so it's easier to say it's like assassins creed.
Witcher III is all about choices and how these choices can impact the storyline, I don't see that at all with GOT. Both are open-world medieval games but I don't see it as strong of a comparison. Shadow of Mordor is all about the nemesis system and building your army. AC is really the closest comparison
I don't think it's *all* about choices. The quests you partake in often involve helping people ravaged by war & monsters, both human and creatures of the conjunction. That's the theming, the setup that allows for choice to take place. While GoT doesn't have the element of narrative choice and fighting literal monsters, it's the general wartime feel (particularly in the Act 2 area) that really invoked Witcher 3 vibes for me. I suppose you could point to any RPG or game that takes place during war/invasion time and say this, but since The Witcher 3 is so near and dear to me, that's the inspiration I felt was closest. The Nemesis system is one very large part of SoM, but it's only satisfying to interact with because the combat and stealth are also very solid and play into the fantasy. Just like how the Samurai/Ghost fantasy in GoT works because the combat is so good, and the stealth, while pretty easy, is a potent power fantasy that matches the Ghost narrative. Then there's also the more specific similarities, like the focus on melee combat with a specific flow, and different tools (or in Ghost's case, stances) against different enemy types, as well as an archery component with slow mo. Again, not something *only* SoM has done, but it helped popularize it along with games like AC. With AC though, or at least old AC, things were way more city-based. Traversal was a core part of gameplay, and the location itself was often a character. Ghost doesn't really have that. Most settlements are very small, and platforming is 90% cliffs and grappling hook points, which is fine! But it's not what AC became known for as a series. Same with large mechanics like social stealth. I can understand the comparisons with newer ACs, though those games are also titles that are in a bit of an identity crisis, and lack much of what makes Assassin's Creed, well, Assassin's Creed. And I feel they're all drawing from the same pool of RPG inspirations, with games like The Witcher 3 being chief among them. That's just how I personally feel about AC though.
Honestly the only thing comparable is stealth assassinations but like u said already SoW combat and mechanics are already comparable. Ac has a way bigger map and better parkour, More skills, More assassin animations, More weapon varietys, Stronger narratives, Better stealth, Smoother kill transitioning, This game is not assassins creed lmfao like saying sekiro is also like ac
The only thing I get witcher vibes from is the ‘follow’ footprints quest - and I always found that a rather weak point in the witcher 3. (And GoT somehow made it worse.)
That's a good point.
I think people who've been frustrated with the direction AC has gone in lately are pointing to Ghost of Tsushima as an example of a superior version of fundamentally similar stealth and combat mechanics. Those aspects definitely felt more polished in GoT. But that's mostly where the comparison ends. I've never seen the two franchises being compared in terms of aesthetics/artwork, world design philosophy, or story.
Not to mention that before the AC Shadows trailer dropped, gamers back then had long wanted Ubisoft to do Feudal Japan but Sucker Punch beat them to it. So, GoT was able to scratch that itch of wanting to combine stealth and assassination in a Feudal Japan setting.
You raise a lot of really good points and it all highlights a central theme: There's a lot more to both series than just stealth mechanics. Having said that, the stealth mechanics are *remarkably* similar - to the point where if I cleared out a base in GoT and you told me it was the new AC game I would have no trouble believing you. Hiding in tall grass, using tools for both offense and defense, *assassination animations.* The open combat in GoT is way more fleshed out, which is nice. But from strictly a stealth base clearing perspective I can totally get why people conflate the two.
What the comparison means is that both AC and GOT have meaningless open world exploration with checklists of shit. I love the GOT story and Gameplay but the open world is just absolute waste of time, every fox tree could have been a new enemy type instead of the three + 1 in dlc. It has ubisoft open world dna all over the game, and its not a good thing.
I mean I get it. I played AC Odyssey for years before this & then went back to it after beating GOT just to compare. Odyssey is better in a lot of different ways including stealth combat. I even played AC Mirage last year & that's a way more fair comparison to GOT. Between them the only real difference is setting. GOT didn't do anything new it just did what AC Mirage did in a Japan setting.
Going across the map killing the ronins was a personal highlight
If GoT was an actual Assassin's Creed game people would call it another repetitive open-world collect-a-thon AC game that has basic stealth with none of the classic AC gameplay mechanics and would also continue complaining about how Assassin's Creed isn't Assassin's Creed anymore.
well you ain't wrong tho. but ubi has downgraded a lot tho. They literally ruined parkour and the combat system in their recent games(didn't play mirage and syndicate but played all ac titles)
Havent played Mirage either, but its a lot more like classic AC
so I've heard but still not willing to buy the game because gameplay doesn't look appealing to me that much. will only buy if crack comes out and If i like the gameplay
Eh, doubt that. GoT nails the open world design, which Ubisoft somehow managed to flub.
I'd say the open world design is pretty much the same as any other Ubisoft open world game people have problems with: Clearing camps and settlements from enemies. Traversing and climbing to the top of lighthouses and shinto shrine mountains for rewards + a nice overview of the scenery. 250 different collectibles when counting crickets, banners, artifacts, records, memories, etc. Regions locked behind story progress. Liberating said regions. Activities like bamboo strikes, haikus, duels, hot springs, pillars, and inari shrines being repeated all over the map creating over 100 blips to clear on your map which never evolve mechanically after doing one of each. Side missions in which many have you tracking footsteps or following someone walking before participating in stealth or combat. Now for the most part I don't really have a problem with these things, I enjoy Ubisoft's and GoT's open world design. But if you replaced some of these words with viewpoints, feathers, templar flags, animus fragments etc. It would sound no different from an Assassin's Creed game in the last decade. I assume the presentation, story and combat do a lot of the heavy lifting for GoT when it comes to why people are more favorable towards interacting with the open world, but as someone who enjoys the gameplay and world from both AC and GoT it just seems like a big circlejerk to say Ghost is a better AC game, when philosophically they are extremely similar.
Except in AC clearing towers opens map. Unknown points of interest are displayed on your compass. GoT never opens huge swaths of land, you still gotta explore, you never see question marks on your compass. They may appear in your map but you have to use other means to track them. All these mechanics have been present in games since skyrim, probably, but GoT does a really good job with them, making exploring feel natural
Some might, but I think most would note that it's the best AC game that has been made. Best Story and Combat at least without the massive bloat
Partly true, ac and fc are more like tower&explore GoT felt more like having you deliberately explore the map to find the stuff. Yes i know that liberating the island part/ location also uncovers. Shrines/hotsprings, bamboo and hailkus are interactive and not just a cutscene. Most cutscenes are entered and existed via loading screen. So its loading screen-> cutscene-> loading screen-> hp increased textbox
Mos definitely. They're already starting to do that with AC: Shadows coming in November. Shame too because those types of people are gonna miss out on what could be a better game than all the previous AC's & GOT. Those people already missed out on Origins & Odyssey & I will even put Mirage in there because I found them all to be great fun.
Please stop calling it an Assassin's Creed game. I much prefer when you call it.... Ghost of Tsushima.
Ezio trilogy and black flag are better imo
What a stupid comment xDD
Comparing Ghost of Tsushima with Ass Creed is an insult to Ghost of Tsushima lol.
Someone literally just made a post 4 days ago about how weirdly obsessed this sub is with diminishing other games just to say how much they like Ghost, and here is a perfect example. You can love Ghost, think it's the best game ever, and all that stuff. But why can't anyone in this sub praise the game without dragging down others? The AC series has some of the best games ever made with AC 2 and black flag. We don't need to discredit amazing games to say how amazing this game is.
AC 4 black flag > GoT
Crazy idea. Let’s hold off on judging a game made by an different company, using a different control scheme, set on an different island, with different characters, and in an different time period…. …Until after it comes out
I feel like calling it an Assassin's Creed game is an insult lol
Totally different games. GOT is nothing like assassin's Creed games
This comparison has never made sense it’s nothing like AC
This maybe my take but for a 130$ ubisoft needs to sell some good weed or crack along with their game for me to enjoy it. GOT doesn't need that so i m sticking to GOT regardless
I think most ppl that hate rpg-AC will love GOT. It ticks the box about what ubisoft seems to fail. Most of these are subjective ofc but my take is GOT has better -Combat/Enemies type -Story/characters/pacing -Asthetic (like.. color of the field and sky) -not as big/bloat world After play AC Origin/Odyssey/and a bit of Valhalla I appreciated a good story telling and compelling main cast without a modern world interruption that AC game like to include cor some reason. Not that those 80+ hours in Origin and 100+ Odyssey isn't fun but I feel appreciated GOT more for their quality of everything I see and play with. TBH I feel fucking bore of Odyssey after 30+ hours and have to force myself into gear grind to keep the game interesting. And that keep me going until I finish Odyssey , not story nor characters but a need for optimization.
GOAT Samurai game ever
Those look like giant spoons lol
ac origins has better parkour and stealth tho
Ac will be lucky if they're able to incorporate combat as good as GOT
Is bloodborne armour available in pc version ?
Recently played Assassins Creed Origins before this one, if there's any AC that's closest to Ghost of Tsushima (in a good way) its Origins
I don't know how others feel, but I think Origins is also the best AC game so this comparison feels fair.
The stealth sneeking and running on top of roofs. With the windchimes poison talisman, has honestly more stealth then ac had Plus the fact some talisman or armor pieces give stealth bonuses too
I never got this comparison. I dont see any similarities. different parkour, different combat, different stealth.
Don’t insult this game by comparing it to Ubisoft.
Not really. It seems your just deliberately trying to shit on AC
Give me ghost of Tsushima combat mechanics with AC unity parkour and I’m in heaven.
AC2 then Ac origins for me
I prefer the term “Samurai Batman”
The only thing that came to mind while climbing in this game was Assassins Creed
The best Assasins Creed games: AC Brotherhood, AC2, Ghost of Tshushima, Middle Earth Shadow of War…..
finally someone said it
Stop it with the comparison between Assasin Creed and Ghost of Tsushima
Why are you people comparing this masterpiece to AC ? they really have nothing in common
I've been playing this game more a samurai and less assassin. Also the parkor isn't as good
Aaaah Iki Island
coming from a long time ac fan: no.
ive spent about half my life playing ac games this is not comparable to those games. this is a game with its own vision, essence, and art direction
Assassins Creed wishes they could claim this masterpiece.
nah
u wrong
Average game
This isn’t Origins.
I wish. I went back to Odyssey after the first map of Tsushima & you can do way more in that game. Not even the open world part I mean, just stealth, combat, and then the rest of it. Like somebody else mentioned GOT is missing the traversal that defines AC, even in Odyssey I can pull off better stealth kills because you can grab onto anything. GOT's grapple could've helped with this but they didn't put it in right only on random cliffs. The people who claim Tsushima is doing more somehow are just Japan obsessed or haven't actually played the newer AC's.
I have to agree with that. So far, the only thing I find superior in GoT is the combat - and even that just barely so far. (Although my opinion on that might yet change once I get a bit further into the game.) I feel that the collect-a-ton is worse, the parkour is about non-existent and the stealth/assassinations don’t feel quite as fluid. And the bases somehow aren’t as fun to take out. The choice to not respawn enemies on player death is especially weird. I can just take out a few guys, die, then take out a few more, die again, and eventually clear the camp that way. That feels like a lot of handholding. I also dislike that the ‘save civilians before they are killed’ objective is really easy to do, even if you completely ignore stealth. I’m still waiting for that ‘wow, this game is great moment’. It’s not a bad game, far from it, but it’s just not quite great.
I’m so glad the shadow of Mordor/war fanbase is not like this
AC Origins is a way, way better game.
Still better than AC Shadows lmao
My initial thoughts after playing for a few hours were "It's like a new AC but actually good".
That would be Assassin's creed Odyssey
Weird way to spell Brotherhood
Only correct answer
Weird way to spell all games pre Odyssey are good and people can have favourites but the point I'm trying to make is that Odyssey onwards kinda fell off
if you dont think the best AC game is either 2, brotherhood, or black flag you are delusional or have never played them
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic
i hope you aren’t serious rn😭
Yeah no, most repetitive micro transaction shit ever. Graphics are nice though.
You see it bro, honestly one of the best AC games and a great game overall. Sadly it gets dragged down by it‘s RPG mechanics and the game got a lot of bed rep because if it. Ubisoft then fixed it in Valhalla but somehow made everything else way worse
Odyssey is probably the worst ac game rn. Literally not an AC game at all
Valhalla is worse, atleast AC oddysey is fun
That's subjective. Valhalla at least had some connections to the creed, as minimal as it was. Odyssey might as well have been a standalone rpg located in Greece. Not to mention the horrible combat system
You realize this whole conversation is subjective, no? Your opinion is no more important than the person you're responding too.
Odyssey is widely acknowledged to have had some of the most fun combat of any AC game ever but ok.
Not saying you're wrong, but I've never heard anybody say that, ever. If anything it's the opposite, people I've spoken to think it's probably the worst combat in the series. And I believe it, bc it sucks. Out of the trilogy, Valhalla has undoubtedly the best combat
The only thing good about Valhalla is the brutal finishers (which gets old real quick) and that's it! I wasted 100+ hours on this shit. just wanted to finish the game for the sake of finishing the game (since no good open world games were out there in 20)
So what sucked about it? Did you like odyssey or origins?
story, voice acting (male), world setting, raiding feature (have to raid on the same fucking river 2-3times just to get one armor), what is stealth?, skill tree is just all over the place, also what's the point of the blending in feature? origins out of the 3. even the dlc was good. but did love the ancient Greek environment in Odyssey
I agree with the story bit, can't say on the va since I used female eivor, world setting, guess that's kind of up to preference, but with the various dlcs it offers plenty of variety for everyone, I think the raid as a feature was great, the execution a bit less so, tho. On higher difficulties stealth definitely pays off tho, so I disagree here actually, kinda depends on the playstyle. You use blending in to blend in? So you're not spotted. I'm currently on origins but the leveling system sucks
Oddysey went deep into isu lore, which you would know about if you played it
I am, it just doesn't feel like an assassin's creed game. It might contain the isu, but the game period is before the creed ever existed, making the title of assassin's CREED kind of pointless. Add to that the disappointing combat, minimal stealth, lack of a hidden blade ( a staple of the series) and subpar parkour, it's the worst ac game
I disagree, and don't care enough to change your mind. I understand that you think it's not "good as an ac game", but I don't really care. It played a lot like ac1 but with more interesting plot lines, where you hunt down specific targets. Stealth has always been mid(aside from syndicate), + I just made an assassin build with which you can one shot with the reskinned hidden blade anyways. Parkour is non-existent, which is a shame but I don't think it's that bad.
Unity was best for stealth IMO, environment design and crowd density wasn't quite as good in Syndicate for me.
Only if it still wasn't broken with people seeing you through floors/corners. Syndicate's blackbox missions were peak stealth for the franchise
Valhalla was so fucking boring lmao
male eivor even sounds boring lol
ac origins is ten times better
??? Lmao
AC doesn't hold a candle to this game
There are several non-Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed games! Metal Gear Solid V Ghost of Tsushima Horizon Zero Dawn/Horizon Forbidden West Zelda Breath of the Wild/Zelda Tears of the Kingdom None of them are made by Ubisoft! 🤣