Ubisoft has surpassed Rockstar as king of open world games

  • 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Edited by Celtic_34 (1209 posts) -

I think if anything AC, Watchdogs, and Far Cry show more consistency. Yeah AC3 was a step back but AC IV really got the series on teh right track. I don't know. I just find their games more consistently appealing. I also actually enjoyed sleeping dogs more than GTA in a lot of ways. The gameplay to me was just more fun. Yes GTA still has random things you can do like throwing grenades at the golf course which you can't really do in other games and pedestrians react in funny ways especialy in GTA V, but while GTA is adding these stupid mini games, AC IV is adding a more conistent world and game that's more addictive to play imo. I feel like Watch Dogs will be the same way. GTA is a fun game to mess around with but it's story is really not that appealing to a lot of people. Red Dead was probably the most consistant game Rockstar came up with last gen. People say they want uncharted in an open world. Ubisoft has basically delivered that or pirates of the carribean with AC IV imo.... I think the fact it actually has combat and different styles of it and exploration tied around an appealing set of characters and story is a plus in and of itself.

None of these games are the end all be all but as far as a huge open world adventure games go with action and fun gameplay, upgrades a working economy, mixed with story and exploration I think Ubisoft has the best balance. IT's at least nice to see there is a choice between rockstar, ubisoft, some of these superhero games and games like Skyrim and FAllout. Square is also doing some interesting things too. We need more detective games imo like LA Noire with better gameplay more mature story and adventure elements but not sure that will ever happen. In the meantime I'm enjoying ubisoft's games the most.

I think as of right now ACIV is the best game ever created and might be more a long time. I've had the most enjoyment with it. It's addictive, immersive and fun to play. It's pirates for god's sake. Watch Dogs is coming. Will Rockstar ever release agent? Who knows.

Ubisoft doesn't get teh same hype but I think they are on that same level and have surpassed Rockstar in a lot of ways.

#52 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

@ MBirdy88

You mean, you mean like Yoga, scuba diving, golf, 50 other side quests that lose their appeal in less than 60 seconds ?

What food is more stuff to do if its boring as f#ck ?

Typical Rockstar quantity over quality design philosophy. Got news for you princess, more=/= better.

#53 Edited by Vatusus (4224 posts) -

@ Vatusus

Skyrim and COD are also highly rated. Not exactly Reliable.

Using common sense too much for ya ? You gona rely on other peoples oppinion.

To be honest with you they both suck, mostly because people like you go "ooooooh aaaaaaah" just driving great distances to do shallow crap, and repeat. As if it would kill them to add a puzzle or two. This whole total freedom thing is not without its flaws.

wtf? I used scores because those are the only facts one can present. Everything else will always be subjective. I, in fact, used my own opinions on the games to back up my claims. learn2read before making stupid claims

#54 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

@ Vatusus

Sorry, can't respect a man who can't form his own oppinion.

And know, it will always be Subjective. Not once you nail down how people are easily won over by the stupidest of things. I can objectively say GTA has the most optional side content in any game, its also the shallowest.

#55 Posted by cooolio (428 posts) -

I think if anything AC, Watchdogs, and Far Cry show more consistency. Yeah AC3 was a step back but AC IV really got the series on teh right track. I don't know. I just find their games more consistently appealing. I also actually enjoyed sleeping dogs more than GTA in a lot of ways. The gameplay to me was just more fun. Yes GTA still has random things you can do like throwing grenades at the golf course which you can't really do in other games and pedestrians react in funny ways especialy in GTA V, but while GTA is adding these stupid mini games, AC IV is adding a more conistent world and game that's more addictive to play imo. I feel like Watch Dogs will be the same way. GTA is a fun game to mess around with but it's story is really not that appealing to a lot of people. Red Dead was probably the most consistant game Rockstar came up with last gen. People say they want uncharted in an open world. Ubisoft has basically delivered that or pirates of the carribean with AC IV imo.... I think the fact it actually has combat and different styles of it and exploration tied around an appealing set of characters and story is a plus in and of itself.

None of these games are the end all be all but as far as a huge open world adventure games go with action and fun gameplay, upgrades a working economy, mixed with story and exploration I think Ubisoft has the best balance. IT's at least nice to see there is a choice between rockstar, ubisoft, some of these superhero games and games like Skyrim and FAllout. Square is also doing some interesting things too. We need more detective games imo like LA Noire with better gameplay more mature story and adventure elements but not sure that will ever happen. In the meantime I'm enjoying ubisoft's games the most.

I think as of right now ACIV is the best game ever created and might be more a long time. I've had the most enjoyment with it. It's addictive, immersive and fun to play. It's pirates for god's sake. Watch Dogs is coming. Will Rockstar ever release agent? Who knows.

Ubisoft doesn't get teh same hype but I think they are on that same level and have surpassed Rockstar in a lot of ways.

I am glad that you feel that way. However, I do not agree at all. I find it to be a pretty cool open world due to the pirate theme, but due to the fact it has the Assassin' Creed style storyline. there is really no interaction with NPC outside of acting crazy in front of them. I am pretty sure that Watch Dogs will be the best of Ubisoft's open world games, but in my opinion, all of Ubisoft's games have the same problem that a lot of open world games have and that is making you feel like someone who is not a part of the world. Besides, I strongly dislike how AC4 thrives off of the pirate stuff and does not refine any of its old elements of gameplay.

But like I said earlier, TW3 is going to out do anything that Ubisoft has done so far and even Watch Dogs. Dragon Age Inquisition will be on another level too, but only time will tell.

#56 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

Onething I hate about Rockstar Games is the really really bad scripting, you have to chase down a character either in a car or on foot and that will not receive damage until a certain point, you'l notice this alot in specific car chases, where several things may happen: You'l never get close enough.

The Car your chasing can make sharp turns and accelerate in ways you cannot.

their cars can plow right throw other cars as if it were a tank.

I hate this type of scripting.

#57 Posted by sukraj (21604 posts) -

I prefer Rockstar GTA V and the only other Ubisoft game I liked was Far Cry 3.

#58 Edited by l34052 (3062 posts) -

I would rather play a R* open world game like the gta series than anythin from ubisoft

#59 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6587 posts) -

I thought AC4 was the worst game in the series, with the exception of maybe AC1. I loved the game at first, then I really liked it, then I thought "well, it's still better than AC3 and Revelations", but now I just hate it. I can't bring myself to finish it. It's a whole lot like an Elder Scrolls game in that regard.

#60 Edited by freedomfreak (38152 posts) -

Shame the main missions still feel like doing the usual sidestuff. And I still don't get how Ubisoft believes eavesdropping missions are interesting. The game is filled with them.

Matters little in the grand scheme where Saints Row IV reigns supreme though

#61 Edited by Bigboi500 (28804 posts) -

GTA missions aren't exactly filled with fresh goodness either. Go here and pick up a package of drugs, drop it off there, then get ambushed by drug lords and pew pew your way out of it, which is usually followed by a vehicular chase scene. Rinse, repeat.

#62 Posted by happyduds77 (1367 posts) -

Not even close. GTA V is the king of open world gmes, and I have yet to see a game that surpasses it.

#63 Edited by vashkey (33666 posts) -

Don't kid yourself, Assassin's Creed IV isn't even the best Assassin's Creed game, let alone the best open world game.

#64 Edited by Celtic_34 (1209 posts) -

I agree these games aren't that good or interesting. I mainly made this thread because i'm trying to find games that are worth sinking time in. The assassin's creed series i like because it seems to find a good balance of fun. But it's still not that well done and feels like oblivion in ways but not as good. These worlds don't really give you a ton to interact with. You have actitivities in GTA which are boring. LA Noire has this huge open world and you can do absoltuely nothing in it. Bethesda gives you this whole world to interact with but a lot of it seems aimless and lacks some of that fun factor. it gets boring.

Ubisoft kind of throws these games out there though. They are buggy as heck and just not that high quality.

I wish these games were more focused in ways and didn't insult my intelligence.

#65 Posted by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

I dunno. I just replayed AC4 and I do think it's a very good open world game. I like the combiniation of bombastic ship combat and sandboxy stealth gameplay. Many of the missions are fairly open to how you approach them. I have some problems like how some the gameplay is kind of lackluster and overall the game is just way too easy. Overall though I feel like AC4 is a much more fun and unique game than GTAV, which is just kind tedious. I don't think GTA can match the best elements of AC4's world (naval combat, plantations, naval forts). The only thing you can do is to drive various vehicles and try to break into a military facility. I also don't think that the core gameplay of GTA is that great either.

So yeah overall AC4 is def a better game than GTA 5 imo.

My biggest issues with Ubisoft's OW design are:

  • Lack of challenge
  • Lots of really generic/junky content (all the pointless collectibles and the mini-missions attached to them).
  • Core mechanics that aren't really there yet.

I happen to like those "pointless" collectibles. Sometimes I don't really feel like doing a mission , but I just want to randomly run around the world , yet still feel like i'm doing something. This is where collectibles come in. I can just freely roam and explore the world, while still doing a little something in the process.

#66 Edited by millerlight89 (18338 posts) -

GTA missions aren't exactly filled with fresh goodness either. Go here and pick up a package of drugs, drop it off there, then get ambushed by drug lords and pew pew your way out of it, which is usually followed by a vehicular chase scene. Rinse, repeat.

Shit, I wanted more of those missions in 5. Instead we got, go here, buy mask, YAY complete.

#67 Edited by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

Yes, they have.

Let me make some arguments.

First off, I don't understand where some of you are coming from when you say that ACs free-run system is boring. You say that "all you have to do is hold down a single button 90% of the time"? How is that any different than menially mashing A or X over and over and over again? ACs free-run is way better than GTAs. The gameplay as a whole is better. In GTA, the controls feel so clunky and unresponsive, and the protagonist feels so non-maneuverable. In AC however, your character feels agile and responsive. It just works smoother.

The lack of collectibles in GTA is pathetic. In AC or Far Cry 3, there are collectibles, and they actually serve a very good purpose. Let me put it into perspective: In GTAV, what is there to do while not in a mission? Hmmm....go shoot random people. Then, call a buddy to go watch a movie that you have already viewed 5 times because there are only 2 or 3 movies. Or you could just watch TV alone....and choose from 3 or 4 available TV shows that you have already watched 10 times each..... and maybe smoke a cigarette while doing so which serves no point whatsoever. Then, go shoot more random people. Then, take a drive out into the dull, empty countryside to find a whole lot of nothing. That pretty much sums up free-roaming in GTAV.

But, in AC4....it's a different story. You want to free-roam and explore.....so, go plunder and pillage poor helpless merchant ships in epic naval battles, then board the ships and capture their loot. Or, you can play board games and do a bit of gambling. But, what if you just want to randomly explore the world? Luckily, this is where collectibles and viewpoints come in. These are here to encourage exploration. To allow players to explore the world, and yet still feel like they are doing something. AC games and even Far Cry 3 encourage exploration and adventure ..... while all the GTA games do nothing to make you WANT to go out and explore (specifically, GTAV)

Even mission wise, GTA suffers in comparison. AC and Far Cry games offer so many different kinds of side missions. While GTA only really has one type: Strangers. Really. It's like, Rockstar games don't let you unravel the world: It unravels it for you. Where's the fun in that? However.... Red Dead Redemption is pretty much the exception to everything I have said about Rockstar so far. RDRs world was interesting, full of things to do, good at encouraging exploration, etc., best game ever IMO.

But, the key element here, is something that Rockstar used to be able to do, but has since failed at doing, and now Ubisoft does better: Atmosphere. Atmosphere is the key element to all games. A good atmosphere can overcome so many of a games negatives. The Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series both have learned how to set atmosphere perfectly. As I said earlier, Red Dead Redemption is the exception here; it set atmosphere perfectly as well. But that's Rockstars only big success. RDR. All of their other games are unatmospheric, dull, and severely lacking in adventure and exploration.

AC games......have amazing atmosphere. AC2, while not perfect (it's gameplay and mission design was pretty mediocre), has some of the best atmosphere of any game to date, and THAT is what turned it into a classic. That ability to truly immerse and pull the player into the world. All of the AC games have this charm (except AC3...), and this is achieved greatly through the soundtracks, which add ambiance and tone to the games, which lays the foundation for atmosphere. This is where AC3 failed IMO. It failed to do that. Honestly, I feel like the lack of soundtrack during free-roam contributed to this falter hugely.

And whoever it was that said immersion is for "immersion whores" .... you are silly. The whole point of a game is to feel immersed.

So....yeah. That's my view. Sorry for the wall of text.

#68 Edited by zeroyaoi (1826 posts) -

If they did Surpass them it sure wasn't with the AC franchise.

#69 Posted by jg4xchamp (46610 posts) -

They are both completely unimpressive beyond how much money they will throw at their games.


#70 Edited by cooolio (428 posts) -

Yes, they have.

Let me make some arguments.

First off, I don't understand where some of you are coming from when you say that ACs free-run system is boring. You say that "all you have to do is hold down a single button 90% of the time"? How is that any different than menially mashing A or X over and over and over again? ACs free-run is way better than GTAs. The gameplay as a whole is better. In GTA, the controls feel so clunky and unresponsive, and the protagonist feels so non-maneuverable. In AC however, your character feels agile and responsive. It just works smoother.

The lack of collectibles in GTA is pathetic. In AC or Far Cry 3, there are collectibles, and they actually serve a very good purpose. Let me put it into perspective: In GTAV, what is there to do while not in a mission? Hmmm....go shoot random people. Then, call a buddy to go watch a movie that you have already viewed 5 times because there are only 2 or 3 movies. Or you could just watch TV alone....and choose from 3 or 4 available TV shows that you have already watched 10 times each..... and maybe smoke a cigarette while doing so which serves no point whatsoever. Then, go shoot more random people. Then, take a drive out into the dull, empty countryside to find a whole lot of nothing. That pretty much sums up free-roaming in GTAV.

But, in AC4....it's a different story. You want to free-roam and explore.....so, go plunder and pillage poor helpless merchant ships in epic naval battles, then board the ships and capture their loot. Or, you can play board games and do a bit of gambling. But, what if you just want to randomly explore the world? Luckily, this is where collectibles and viewpoints come in. These are here to encourage exploration. To allow players to explore the world, and yet still feel like they are doing something. AC games and even Far Cry 3 encourage exploration and adventure ..... while all the GTA games do nothing to make you WANT to go out and explore (specifically, GTAV)

Even mission wise, GTA suffers in comparison. AC and Far Cry games offer so many different kinds of side missions. While GTA only really has one type: Strangers. Really. It's like, Rockstar games don't let you unravel the world: It unravels it for you. Where's the fun in that? However.... Red Dead Redemption is pretty much the exception to everything I have said about Rockstar so far. RDRs world was interesting, full of things to do, good at encouraging exploration, etc., best game ever IMO.

But, the key element here, is something that Rockstar used to be able to do, but has since failed at doing, and now Ubisoft does better: Atmosphere. Atmosphere is the key element to all games. A good atmosphere can overcome so many of a games negatives. The Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series both have learned how to set atmosphere perfectly. As I said earlier, Red Dead Redemption is the exception here; it set atmosphere perfectly as well. But that's Rockstars only big success. RDR. All of their other games are unatmospheric, dull, and severely lacking in adventure and exploration.

AC games......have amazing atmosphere. AC2, while not perfect (it's gameplay and mission design was pretty mediocre), has some of the best atmosphere of any game to date, and THAT is what turned it into a classic. That ability to truly immerse and pull the player into the world. All of the AC games have this charm (except AC3...), and this is achieved greatly through the soundtracks, which add ambiance and tone to the games, which lays the foundation for atmosphere. This is where AC3 failed IMO. It failed to do that. Honestly, I feel like the lack of soundtrack during free-roam contributed to this falter hugely.

And whoever it was that said immersion is for "immersion whores" .... you are silly. The whole point of a game is to feel immersed.

So....yeah. That's my view. Sorry for the wall of text.

I am surprised that you said that AC2'S gameplay and mission design was mediocre. Most people say that about 1. Maybe you meant 1. The only Far Cry game i played was 3 and the side missions seemed dumb to me. The whole story is pretty cliche and there is not really any interaction with the locals besides side missions. It is basically like you are there, but you do not associate yourself with the civilians.

AC games may have good atmosphere, but they have to do better. The thing that made AC4 so popular was pirates and the open sea. I hope that in the next one you are someone who is an Assassin who is leading a double life and i do not mean a pirate who spends all his time plundering and assassinating without having a good time.

RDR is the only one that I feel had the perfect balance. I could see John Marston helping others and getting involved with a few strangers along the way because while he was a man on a missions that would guarantee his family's safety, he also was a man looking to redeem himself and live a better life than the one he once lived. At the same time, I could see him not settling down at towns to have a good time because that was not who he was. When a character's personality fits his or her role in an open world, then you have a well built open world game.

#71 Edited by Celtic_34 (1209 posts) -

For those of you who find these games to be uninspired what are you playing? I agree tehy are big money games and it's like they lack a soul. They all copy each other in some way and there is this cookie cutter mentality. The issue is i like games like this and find it is a great medium for the best kind of games. Unfortunately these developers just have a ton of money and don't know how to make games which is quite pathetic if you think about it.

Still I enjoyed AC 2 and AC 4 is great so far. I like the assassin's creed series in general because it's just good fun. Too many collectibles though but at least they have a purpose. The story annoys me in GTA. A lot of the side stuff is just tacked on and meaningless as well. you do it once and that's it. LA Noire was a good game but was very linear without things to do and the interrogation stuff got really repetitive and was just too much. It's cool and all but to build the whole game around it?

I think watch dogs is going to be the best yet. I'd like to see an LA Noire 2. I didn't overly like red dead redemption either for some reason. Just the setting and it was almost too much. Bethesda games are great and all but again just too much and not enough fun.

It's my opinion but I think Assassin's cReed and Watchdogs are the best game series out right now at least. LA Noire could be good. If I don't like GTA that's pretty much what i'm looking at.

#72 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

I like Local Co-Op. Very unlikely in an Open World game. Puzzles and Platforming too. Another unlikely aspect of open world Games.

#73 Posted by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

@cooolio said:

@Kevlar101 said:

Yes, they have.

Let me make some arguments.

First off, I don't understand where some of you are coming from when you say that ACs free-run system is boring. You say that "all you have to do is hold down a single button 90% of the time"? How is that any different than menially mashing A or X over and over and over again? ACs free-run is way better than GTAs. The gameplay as a whole is better. In GTA, the controls feel so clunky and unresponsive, and the protagonist feels so non-maneuverable. In AC however, your character feels agile and responsive. It just works smoother.

The lack of collectibles in GTA is pathetic. In AC or Far Cry 3, there are collectibles, and they actually serve a very good purpose. Let me put it into perspective: In GTAV, what is there to do while not in a mission? Hmmm....go shoot random people. Then, call a buddy to go watch a movie that you have already viewed 5 times because there are only 2 or 3 movies. Or you could just watch TV alone....and choose from 3 or 4 available TV shows that you have already watched 10 times each..... and maybe smoke a cigarette while doing so which serves no point whatsoever. Then, go shoot more random people. Then, take a drive out into the dull, empty countryside to find a whole lot of nothing. That pretty much sums up free-roaming in GTAV.

But, in AC4....it's a different story. You want to free-roam and explore.....so, go plunder and pillage poor helpless merchant ships in epic naval battles, then board the ships and capture their loot. Or, you can play board games and do a bit of gambling. But, what if you just want to randomly explore the world? Luckily, this is where collectibles and viewpoints come in. These are here to encourage exploration. To allow players to explore the world, and yet still feel like they are doing something. AC games and even Far Cry 3 encourage exploration and adventure ..... while all the GTA games do nothing to make you WANT to go out and explore (specifically, GTAV)

Even mission wise, GTA suffers in comparison. AC and Far Cry games offer so many different kinds of side missions. While GTA only really has one type: Strangers. Really. It's like, Rockstar games don't let you unravel the world: It unravels it for you. Where's the fun in that? However.... Red Dead Redemption is pretty much the exception to everything I have said about Rockstar so far. RDRs world was interesting, full of things to do, good at encouraging exploration, etc., best game ever IMO.

But, the key element here, is something that Rockstar used to be able to do, but has since failed at doing, and now Ubisoft does better: Atmosphere. Atmosphere is the key element to all games. A good atmosphere can overcome so many of a games negatives. The Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series both have learned how to set atmosphere perfectly. As I said earlier, Red Dead Redemption is the exception here; it set atmosphere perfectly as well. But that's Rockstars only big success. RDR. All of their other games are unatmospheric, dull, and severely lacking in adventure and exploration.

AC games......have amazing atmosphere. AC2, while not perfect (it's gameplay and mission design was pretty mediocre), has some of the best atmosphere of any game to date, and THAT is what turned it into a classic. That ability to truly immerse and pull the player into the world. All of the AC games have this charm (except AC3...), and this is achieved greatly through the soundtracks, which add ambiance and tone to the games, which lays the foundation for atmosphere. This is where AC3 failed IMO. It failed to do that. Honestly, I feel like the lack of soundtrack during free-roam contributed to this falter hugely.

And whoever it was that said immersion is for "immersion whores" .... you are silly. The whole point of a game is to feel immersed.

So....yeah. That's my view. Sorry for the wall of text.

I am surprised that you said that AC2'S gameplay and mission design was mediocre. Most people say that about 1. Maybe you meant 1. The only Far Cry game i played was 3 and the side missions seemed dumb to me. The whole story is pretty cliche and there is not really any interaction with the locals besides side missions. It is basically like you are there, but you do not associate yourself with the civilians.

AC games may have good atmosphere, but they have to do better. The thing that made AC4 so popular was pirates and the open sea. I hope that in the next one you are someone who is an Assassin who is leading a double life and i do not mean a pirate who spends all his time plundering and assassinating without having a good time.

RDR is the only one that I feel had the perfect balance. I could see John Marston helping others and getting involved with a few strangers along the way because while he was a man on a missions that would guarantee his family's safety, he also was a man looking to redeem himself and live a better life than the one he once lived. At the same time, I could see him not settling down at towns to have a good time because that was not who he was. When a character's personality fits his or her role in an open world, then you have a well built open world game.

Trust me, I read everything you said ... but I want to address something specifically.

I did indeed mean AC2. That was not a mistake. Honestly, the gameplay and mission design for AC1 and AC2 was kind of mediocre, but in different ways for sure. AC1s mission design was mediocre because it was repetitive. AC2s mission design was mediocre because it just felt out of balance and "go here, press X, mission over" sometimes. This retained in Brotherhood. Luckily, Revelations actually improved the mission design, making it more balanced and interactive. Though, the little gameplay quirks would not be fixed until AC3.

So there.

#74 Edited by BigBoss255 (3538 posts) -

Assassin's creed has shovelware gameplay mechanics and combat animations.

The missions are shallow and have no more depth than a user created mission from Infamous.

You have terrible taste in games.

#75 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

@ BigBoss255

Thats kind of the whole point of an Open World game.

#76 Posted by PAL360 (26563 posts) -

Not even close, in my opinion. AC games have too many invisible walls and gameplay glitches. AC4 is a great pirate game, though.

#77 Edited by BigBoss255 (3538 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: GTA V had great shooting and driving mechanics.

GTA IV on the other hand had very poor mechanics and was no better than an Assassin's Creed.

I couldn't believe how poor Black Flag's combat animations were. Here I am on a next gen console but Arkham Asylum from 4 years ago was 100x better.

The missions are just the same template over and over. There's rarely any significant variable to make each mission memorable. That's definitely not the case with GTA V.

#78 Posted by sukraj (21604 posts) -

Love GTA V

#79 Edited by cooolio (428 posts) -

@ BigBoss255

Thats kind of the whole point of an Open World game.

No, it is up to developers to evolve the concept of an open world

#80 Posted by cooolio (428 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: GTA V had great shooting and driving mechanics.

GTA IV on the other hand had very poor mechanics and was no better than an Assassin's Creed.

I couldn't believe how poor Black Flag's combat animations were. Here I am on a next gen console but Arkham Asylum from 4 years ago was 100x better.

The missions are just the same template over and over. There's rarely any significant variable to make each mission memorable. That's definitely not the case with GTA V.

Very obnoxious to tell someone they have bad taste in games just because they like one that you do not. Please do not act like GTA V has better missions. Some of the things that you do missions are one time only and should have been added to the mechanics, like when you push that guys trailer into the water or pull the house off the cliff. Anyway, GTA V's missions have the same concept. AC4 at least has the pirate setting and attack forts and other ships can be quite a blast, but please do not act like GTA V is the cream of the crop. It is the same old mechanics and the same old Rockstar design.

#81 Edited by AsadMahdi59 (6540 posts) -

definitly think rockstar needs to focus on making their games more fun to play, instead of focusing just on being realistic. the characters really need to not control like tanks, driving many of the bigger vehicles is boring/tedious. GTA5 tried really hard to be funny but failed pretty hard imo.

i would rather play an assassin's creed game then a GTA game these days. ofcourse AC also has its flaws but it's more fun for the most part. i also found sleeping dogs had better gameplay, then gta4/5 although the driving is kinda awkward. (but its open world is a joke compared to what rockstar has created.)

basically rockstar creates the bestworlds, the games however arent nearly as fun as their competitors.

#82 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

@ cooolio

Actually Big Boi is Dead On. Most Open World games are Linear games copied and Pasted in an Open World enviroment, and that true even for "The King Of Open World games"

it maybe the developers job to evolve the open world formula... But they are not going to if people settle for what we have now, hell they don't even settle for it, They Celebrate this sh!t, Open World will never live up to its Potential, and we have countless reviewers and fans to thank for that. Meanwhile I get more freedom in a Linear Game with an Open Ended Level Design like Hitman Absolution. In my oppinion, I find the Pixelated Minecraft way more evolved than anything Rockstar and Minecraft can Spit out on their best of days.

And for god sake can we get some ninjas up in Assassin's Creed, we know thats what its coming to, might aswell get started on it.

#83 Posted by cooolio (428 posts) -

@ cooolio

Actually Big Boi is Dead On. Most Open World games are Linear games copied and Pasted in an Open World enviroment, and that true even for "The King Of Open World games"

it maybe the developers job to evolve the open world formula... But they are not going to if people settle for what we have now, hell they don't even settle for it, They Celebrate this sh!t, Open World will never live up to its Potential, and we have countless reviewers and fans to thank for that. Meanwhile I get more freedom in a Linear Game with an Open Ended Level Design like Hitman Absolution. In my oppinion, I find the Pixelated Minecraft way more evolved than anything Rockstar and Minecraft can Spit out on their best of days.

And for god sake can we get some ninjas up in Assassin's Creed, we know thats what its coming to, might aswell get started on it.

I can agree about missions using the same template, but only for open world games as a whole. RDR was the only that felt right to me and I am hoping that The Witcher 3 takes it to new heights.

#84 Posted by BigBoss255 (3538 posts) -

@cooolio said:

@BigBoss255 said:

@Lulu_Lulu: GTA V had great shooting and driving mechanics.

GTA IV on the other hand had very poor mechanics and was no better than an Assassin's Creed.

I couldn't believe how poor Black Flag's combat animations were. Here I am on a next gen console but Arkham Asylum from 4 years ago was 100x better.

The missions are just the same template over and over. There's rarely any significant variable to make each mission memorable. That's definitely not the case with GTA V.

Very obnoxious to tell someone they have bad taste in games just because they like one that you do not. Please do not act like GTA V has better missions. Some of the things that you do missions are one time only and should have been added to the mechanics, like when you push that guys trailer into the water or pull the house off the cliff. Anyway, GTA V's missions have the same concept. AC4 at least has the pirate setting and attack forts and other ships can be quite a blast, but please do not act like GTA V is the cream of the crop. It is the same old mechanics and the same old Rockstar design.

You're right, GTA does have mechanics that are specific to individual missions which gives the game a bit of variety. Overall the mechanics were very good. A TPS could get away with V's shooting mechanics but imagine if the Arkham series had Assassin's Creed's combat, it would be unplayable.

The game is just so shallow. Hold o to pickpocket an entire street, stalk someone from a rooftop and magically hear their conversation, climb to the top of a tower to instantly map the entire area.

You hardly get any sense of accomplishment because everything is so streamlined. It's no better than Fable.

#85 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (8570 posts) -

@ BigBoss255

Thing is, even though the mechanics are good, how does that work in an Open World enviroment. For instance it would be nice if GTA had drain pipes and Firescapes you could scale to pull off long distance shots from tall buildings, completely optional ofcourse. And also it seems like GTA V's core Mechanics are just driving and shooting, doesn't seem like much in a game where variety is key.

Also in AC, the sense of accomplish comes from executing a well thought out plan, so even if getting around and going on the offensive is easy, doing so without being spotted and raising an alarm is a challenge, its micromanaging small decisions that execute the larger plan, complex controls could get in the way of that. AC is at its best when you stealth in and stealth out, some people appreciate the simple controls, you spend less time figuring how to do something and more time actually doing it, the challenge comes in when deciding if the doing that particular thing is the best way to proceed, undetected ofcourse.

I think I made a simular argument when I was b!tch!ing about Street Fighter's controls (seriously how do you do a full 360 on the stick without jumping, screw Zangief !), its a challenging game on two fronts, when using the controller you struggle with the controlls and stuggling to beat you're opponent, the controls are an unnecessary barrier, artificially raising the difficulty, like playing large scale Chess with heavy pieces, it definately more challenging but not in a good way. Dead Or Alive on the Other hand is much simpler, you can master half the Roster in a single day, yet the game doesn't lose its difficulty thanks to the Triangle System, it makes you think twice about how you proceed, striking might not be the best way to proceed so try a throw instead, You spend less time playing the controls and more time playing your opponent in a high intenity game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Street Fighter barely had that, if you learn the difficult moves you can spam them to your hearts content , you'l rarely think you're leaving yourself vulnerable. So yeah, AC's Mechanics are easy to master but that was never the point. Not if you wanted to go above and beyond just completing your objective, you'l notice this allot about games with multiple ways of completing an objective. Hell hitman Absolution introduced that Mark and Execute mechanic, excellent for taking out multiple baddies easy peasy, but using it is risky, it could make a noise and also leaves you with one hell of a mess to clean up. Its basically Risk and Reward, Does GTA have that ?

#86 Posted by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

@cooolio said:

@BigBoss255 said:

@Lulu_Lulu: GTA V had great shooting and driving mechanics.

GTA IV on the other hand had very poor mechanics and was no better than an Assassin's Creed.

I couldn't believe how poor Black Flag's combat animations were. Here I am on a next gen console but Arkham Asylum from 4 years ago was 100x better.

The missions are just the same template over and over. There's rarely any significant variable to make each mission memorable. That's definitely not the case with GTA V.

Very obnoxious to tell someone they have bad taste in games just because they like one that you do not. Please do not act like GTA V has better missions. Some of the things that you do missions are one time only and should have been added to the mechanics, like when you push that guys trailer into the water or pull the house off the cliff. Anyway, GTA V's missions have the same concept. AC4 at least has the pirate setting and attack forts and other ships can be quite a blast, but please do not act like GTA V is the cream of the crop. It is the same old mechanics and the same old Rockstar design.

You're right, GTA does have mechanics that are specific to individual missions which gives the game a bit of variety. Overall the mechanics were very good. A TPS could get away with V's shooting mechanics but imagine if the Arkham series had Assassin's Creed's combat, it would be unplayable.

The game is just so shallow. Hold o to pickpocket an entire street, stalk someone from a rooftop and magically hear their conversation, climb to the top of a tower to instantly map the entire area.

You hardly get any sense of accomplishment because everything is so streamlined. It's no better than Fable.

lol i'm sorry but ... that's pretty poor criticism. At least AC tries to inspire exploration. At least it TRIES. GTA doesn't even try to do that.

#87 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

In my opinion Rockstar isnt even in the category of open worlds let alone the King.

Darkfall, Xyson, Eve Online, Wurm Online, Elder Scrolls Single player games are much better examples of open world.

#88 Posted by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

@ BigBoss255

Thing is, even though the mechanics are good, how does that work in an Open World enviroment. For instance it would be nice if GTA had drain pipes and Firescapes you could scale to pull off long distance shots from tall buildings, completely optional ofcourse. And also it seems like GTA V's core Mechanics are just driving and shooting, doesn't seem like much in a game where variety is key.

Also in AC, the sense of accomplish comes from executing a well thought out plan, so even if getting around and going on the offensive is easy, doing so without being spotted and raising an alarm is a challenge, its micromanaging small decisions that execute the larger plan, complex controls could get in the way of that. AC is at its best when you stealth in and stealth out, some people appreciate the simple controls, you spend less time figuring how to do something and more time actually doing it, the challenge comes in when deciding if the doing that particular thing is the best way to proceed, undetected ofcourse.

I think I made a simular argument when I was b!tch!ing about Street Fighter's controls (seriously how do you do a full 360 on the stick without jumping, screw Zangief !), its a challenging game on two fronts, when using the controller you struggle with the controlls and stuggling to beat you're opponent, the controls are an unnecessary barrier, artificially raising the difficulty, like playing large scale Chess with heavy pieces, it definately more challenging but not in a good way. Dead Or Alive on the Other hand is much simpler, you can master half the Roster in a single day, yet the game doesn't lose its difficulty thanks to the Triangle System, it makes you think twice about how you proceed, striking might not be the best way to proceed so try a throw instead, You spend less time playing the controls and more time playing your opponent in a high intenity game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Street Fighter barely had that, if you learn the difficult moves you can spam them to your hearts content , you'l rarely think you're leaving yourself vulnerable. So yeah, AC's Mechanics are easy to master but that was never the point. Not if you wanted to go above and beyond just completing your objective, you'l notice this allot about games with multiple ways of completing an objective. Hell hitman Absolution introduced that Mark and Execute mechanic, excellent for taking out multiple baddies easy peasy, but using it is risky, it could make a noise and also leaves you with one hell of a mess to clean up. Its basically Risk and Reward, Does GTA have that ?

This, listen to this guy.

#89 Edited by BigBoss255 (3538 posts) -

@BigBoss255 said:

@cooolio said:

@BigBoss255 said:

@Lulu_Lulu: GTA V had great shooting and driving mechanics.

GTA IV on the other hand had very poor mechanics and was no better than an Assassin's Creed.

I couldn't believe how poor Black Flag's combat animations were. Here I am on a next gen console but Arkham Asylum from 4 years ago was 100x better.

The missions are just the same template over and over. There's rarely any significant variable to make each mission memorable. That's definitely not the case with GTA V.

Very obnoxious to tell someone they have bad taste in games just because they like one that you do not. Please do not act like GTA V has better missions. Some of the things that you do missions are one time only and should have been added to the mechanics, like when you push that guys trailer into the water or pull the house off the cliff. Anyway, GTA V's missions have the same concept. AC4 at least has the pirate setting and attack forts and other ships can be quite a blast, but please do not act like GTA V is the cream of the crop. It is the same old mechanics and the same old Rockstar design.

You're right, GTA does have mechanics that are specific to individual missions which gives the game a bit of variety. Overall the mechanics were very good. A TPS could get away with V's shooting mechanics but imagine if the Arkham series had Assassin's Creed's combat, it would be unplayable.

The game is just so shallow. Hold o to pickpocket an entire street, stalk someone from a rooftop and magically hear their conversation, climb to the top of a tower to instantly map the entire area.

You hardly get any sense of accomplishment because everything is so streamlined. It's no better than Fable.

lol i'm sorry but ... that's pretty poor criticism. At least AC tries to inspire exploration. At least it TRIES. GTA doesn't even try to do that.

First of all, AC IV is a pirate game so of course it's going to encourage exploration more than a game where you play as a three criminals.

Secondly, GTA has loads of easter eggs and activities to do around the city.

I'm no GTA fanboy, in fact I'd say IV was one of the worst games this gen, still you guys seem to be hating V just for the sake of it. No way is Assassin's Creed even close.

#90 Edited by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

@Kevlar101 said:

@BigBoss255 said:

@cooolio said:

@BigBoss255 said:

@Lulu_Lulu: GTA V had great shooting and driving mechanics.

GTA IV on the other hand had very poor mechanics and was no better than an Assassin's Creed.

I couldn't believe how poor Black Flag's combat animations were. Here I am on a next gen console but Arkham Asylum from 4 years ago was 100x better.

The missions are just the same template over and over. There's rarely any significant variable to make each mission memorable. That's definitely not the case with GTA V.

Very obnoxious to tell someone they have bad taste in games just because they like one that you do not. Please do not act like GTA V has better missions. Some of the things that you do missions are one time only and should have been added to the mechanics, like when you push that guys trailer into the water or pull the house off the cliff. Anyway, GTA V's missions have the same concept. AC4 at least has the pirate setting and attack forts and other ships can be quite a blast, but please do not act like GTA V is the cream of the crop. It is the same old mechanics and the same old Rockstar design.

You're right, GTA does have mechanics that are specific to individual missions which gives the game a bit of variety. Overall the mechanics were very good. A TPS could get away with V's shooting mechanics but imagine if the Arkham series had Assassin's Creed's combat, it would be unplayable.

The game is just so shallow. Hold o to pickpocket an entire street, stalk someone from a rooftop and magically hear their conversation, climb to the top of a tower to instantly map the entire area.

You hardly get any sense of accomplishment because everything is so streamlined. It's no better than Fable.

lol i'm sorry but ... that's pretty poor criticism. At least AC tries to inspire exploration. At least it TRIES. GTA doesn't even try to do that.

First of all, AC IV is a pirate game so of course it's going to encourage exploration more than a game where you play as a three criminals.

Secondly, GTA has loads of easter eggs and activities to do around the city.

I'm no GTA fanboy, in fact I'd say IV was one of the worst games this gen, still you guys seem to be hating V just for the sake of it. No way is Assassin's Creed even close.

I actually don't hate GTAV. I like it. I just don't love it. It has legitimate problems that kept me from loving it. That's it.

#91 Posted by adamosmaki (9352 posts) -

As far as open world games go

Stalker>Just cause 2>Crysis>Far Cty 3>>>sleeping dogs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>everything else

#92 Posted by princeofshapeir (13600 posts) -

AC4 is a decent game that improves over AC3 but it's still the same old Assassin's Creed. GTA V is the best open world game of its generation.

#93 Posted by Kevlar101 (5971 posts) -

AC4 is a decent game that improves over AC3 but it's still the same old Assassin's Creed. GTA V is the best open world game of its generation.

Oh yes, with it's huge dull world filled with absolutely bumfvck nothing

#94 Edited by Pray_to_me (2735 posts) -

Nah. The missions in GTA5 are way more varied and interesting.

#95 Posted by Netret0120 (1886 posts) -

@Pray_to_me:

Agreed.

I thoroughly enjoyed both games but GTAV's missions had me going "Oh S***" especially with how insane trevor is

#96 Posted by Riverwolf007 (23389 posts) -

if you do the comparison as franchise vs franchise gta crushes ac and it is not even close.

#97 Edited by cooolio (428 posts) -

@ BigBoss255

Thing is, even though the mechanics are good, how does that work in an Open World enviroment. For instance it would be nice if GTA had drain pipes and Firescapes you could scale to pull off long distance shots from tall buildings, completely optional ofcourse. And also it seems like GTA V's core Mechanics are just driving and shooting, doesn't seem like much in a game where variety is key.

Also in AC, the sense of accomplish comes from executing a well thought out plan, so even if getting around and going on the offensive is easy, doing so without being spotted and raising an alarm is a challenge, its micromanaging small decisions that execute the larger plan, complex controls could get in the way of that. AC is at its best when you stealth in and stealth out, some people appreciate the simple controls, you spend less time figuring how to do something and more time actually doing it, the challenge comes in when deciding if the doing that particular thing is the best way to proceed, undetected ofcourse.

I think I made a simular argument when I was b!tch!ing about Street Fighter's controls (seriously how do you do a full 360 on the stick without jumping, screw Zangief !), its a challenging game on two fronts, when using the controller you struggle with the controlls and stuggling to beat you're opponent, the controls are an unnecessary barrier, artificially raising the difficulty, like playing large scale Chess with heavy pieces, it definately more challenging but not in a good way. Dead Or Alive on the Other hand is much simpler, you can master half the Roster in a single day, yet the game doesn't lose its difficulty thanks to the Triangle System, it makes you think twice about how you proceed, striking might not be the best way to proceed so try a throw instead, You spend less time playing the controls and more time playing your opponent in a high intenity game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Street Fighter barely had that, if you learn the difficult moves you can spam them to your hearts content , you'l rarely think you're leaving yourself vulnerable. So yeah, AC's Mechanics are easy to master but that was never the point. Not if you wanted to go above and beyond just completing your objective, you'l notice this allot about games with multiple ways of completing an objective. Hell hitman Absolution introduced that Mark and Execute mechanic, excellent for taking out multiple baddies easy peasy, but using it is risky, it could make a noise and also leaves you with one hell of a mess to clean up. Its basically Risk and Reward, Does GTA have that ?

I hope when you say introduced you mean to the hitman franchise because splinter cell conviction introduced that.

#98 Posted by nervmeister (15132 posts) -

TC spelled "CD Projekt Red" wrong.

#99 Posted by Pffrbt (6357 posts) -

AC IV is probably the best game of last gen and this gen

Why? It has garbage, borderline non-existent gameplay and the open world may as well not be there since you're not allowed to fucking do anything in it. I don't think Ubisoft or Rockstar has made a single good open world game.

#100 Posted by sukraj (21604 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

In my opinion Rockstar isnt even in the category of open worlds let alone the King.

Darkfall, Xyson, Eve Online, Wurm Online, Elder Scrolls Single player games are much better examples of open world.

R king of kings