I finished AC Shadows

[Big M]

and i have to say after 100h of gameplay Ghost of Tsushima is better in Combat

[ZemX]

Origineel geplaatst door Aria Athena:

Valhalla had a 60 hours long main quest, while this is about 30. It's what people complained about.

I'm sure it's technically possible to spend more time in Shadows if you just like roaming around cleaning the map more than you did in Valhalla but that wouldn't be apples to apples.

There's definitely more to do (quantity wise) in Valhalla but that's either a good thing or a bad thing considering how you feel about how big a game SHOULD be. Valhalla got as much criticism as it did praise for being THAT big.

[Adventurous350]

To me one of the big components to these two games is how in Ghost of Tsushima you have a katana and a bow. A few other things as well, but overall those are your tools. I never got bored and never felt a need for more weapon variety. I think this speaks volumes to how well the game was developed. Its gameplay was very good to keep people engaged for so long. The fact that AC Shadows needs lots of weapons tells me the combat is not as good.

GoT was really one of my favorite gaming experiences. The combat did get pretty easy, but in that game I think it was very fitting. I truly felt like a Samurai. In a way it is similar to the older AC titles, but with more depth to the combat. In GoT I wasn't fumbling around with controls getting killed constantly. I could take down a whole group and feel like a boss haha. Ac Shadows combat looks so arcade like to me. Not that it isnt fun or cool in ways, but it isnt on the level of realism and detail as GoT.

[Derivat949]

Origineel geplaatst door Adventurous350:

To me one of the big components to these two games is how in Ghost of Tsushima you have a katana and a bow. A few other things as well, but overall those are your tools. I never got bored and never felt a need for more weapon variety. I think this speaks volumes to how well the game was developed. Its gameplay was very good to keep people engaged for so long. The fact that AC Shadows needs lots of weapons tells me the combat is not as good.

GoT was really one of my favorite gaming experiences. The combat did get pretty easy, but in that game I think it was very fitting. I truly felt like a Samurai. In a way it is similar to the older AC titles, but with more depth to the combat. In GoT I wasn't fumbling around with controls getting killed constantly. I could take down a whole group and feel like a boss haha. Ac Shadows combat looks so arcade like to me. Not that it isnt fun or cool in ways, but it isnt on the level of realism and detail as GoT.

I don't think you can judge a game's combat just by looking at the number of available weapons. Does Demon's Souls have better combat than Elden Ring because it has 18 weapon categories VS Elden Ring's 40? Sure, sometimes there might be a quantity over quality approach but I don't think it applies in this case or to most games really. Shadows has more weapon variety than Ghost because 1. it features two playable characters, with one of them being a Shinobi so it would be unfitting to not have Shinobi-style weapons for her and Samurai-style weapons for the Samurai character 2. it's an RPG that let's you create many different builds so having a choice of weapons plays into that and helps build variety flourish 3. it's also just a much longer and bigger game than Ghost, so having multiple available weapons and playstyles helps make it feel fresh longer.

[Adventurous350]

Origineel geplaatst door Derivat949:

Origineel geplaatst door Adventurous350:

To me one of the big components to these two games is how in Ghost of Tsushima you have a katana and a bow. A few other things as well, but overall those are your tools. I never got bored and never felt a need for more weapon variety. I think this speaks volumes to how well the game was developed. Its gameplay was very good to keep people engaged for so long. The fact that AC Shadows needs lots of weapons tells me the combat is not as good.

GoT was really one of my favorite gaming experiences. The combat did get pretty easy, but in that game I think it was very fitting. I truly felt like a Samurai. In a way it is similar to the older AC titles, but with more depth to the combat. In GoT I wasn't fumbling around with controls getting killed constantly. I could take down a whole group and feel like a boss haha. Ac Shadows combat looks so arcade like to me. Not that it isnt fun or cool in ways, but it isnt on the level of realism and detail as GoT.

I don't think you can judge a game's combat just by looking at the number of available weapons. Sure, sometimes there might be a quantity over quality approach but I don't think it applies in this case or to most games really. Shadows has more weapon variety than Ghost because 1. it features two playable characters, with one of them being a Shinobi so it would be unfitting to not have Shinobi style-weapons for her and Samurai-style weapons for the Samurai character 2. it's an RPG that let's you create many different builds so having a choice of weapons plays into that and helps build variety flourish 3. it's also just a much longer and bigger game than Ghost, so having multiple available weapons and playstyles helps make it feel fresh longer.

No you cant judge on that alone, but GoT felt fresh throughout imo. Its combat was very well done. AC Shadows just looks arcade like in comparison and doesn't have that satisfying effect that Ghost does. All I really meant was that GoT kept people engaged throughout the game. If AC Shadows tried the same approach it would be worse than it already is. It needs the extra weapons to be able to compete.

[Harris]

In my review last year I outlined several issues with GoT:

1. Linear storytelling of a movie coexists with an open world, which doesn't work. We get an open world, however with little freedom to act within it. A quest only ever has one ending to it

2. Small number of content, with mostly just 2 encounters while travelling - free a peasant, fight some bandits

3. Tedious, repetitive side-activities, like pet X foxes

4. Any semblance of difficulty in the beginning being quickly trivialized by the power creep of multiple mechanics enabling you to quickly dispose of groups of enemies

5 Limited parkour that is ever at mercy of level designers

6. Little reason to revisit the game beyond the initial playthrough

7. Bugs and other shenanigans

Oddly enough, most of these criticisms 1:1 apply to Shadows as well - even parkour, which was supposedly AC's particular forte. One could call Shadows a GoT with bloated open world and a dilluted story. And it would probably be a fair assessment, if it wasn't for one thing...

Stealth and castles.

My favorite childhood game was Shogun: Total War, in particular I enjoyed that game's ninja clips. Shadows scratches that itch for me in a way GoT never could due to its very rural landscape and only two tiny castles for the entire game. I may be biased, obviously, but Shadows features a robust stealth sandbox that lands it next to games like Hitman and Dishonored. Which, to me, makes Shadows superior.

[Adventurous350]

Origineel geplaatst door Harris:

In my review last year I outlined several issues with GoT:

1. Linear storytelling of a movie coexists with an open world, which doesn't work. We get an open world, however with little freedom to act within it. A quest only ever has one ending to it

2. Small number of content, with mostly just 2 encounters while travelling - free a peasant, fight some bandits

3. Tedious, repetitive side-activities, like pet X foxes

4. Any semblance of difficulty in the beginning being quickly trivialized by the power creep of multiple mechanics enabling you to quickly dispose of groups of enemies

5 Limited parkour that is ever at mercy of level designers

6. Little reason to revisit the game beyond the initial playthrough

7. Bugs and other shenanigans

Oddly enough, most of these criticisms 1:1 apply to Shadows as well - even parkour, which was supposedly AC's particular forte. One could call Shadows a GoT with bloated open world and a dilluted story. And it would probably be a fair assessment, if it wasn't for one thing...

Stealth and castles.

My favorite childhood game was Shogun: Total War, in particular I enjoyed that game's ninja clips. Shadows scratches that itch for me in a way GoT never could due to its very rural landscape and only two tiny castles for the entire game. I may be biased, obviously, but Shadows features a robust stealth sandbox that lands it next to games like Hitman and Dishonored. Which, to me, makes Shadows superior.

The other problem Shadows has going for it is that the standard is very high for player expectation. Number one, for some of the comments made by its developer (AAAA), number two it is a long running series. AC should be so much better than it is and has been for many years now. GoT is new and has not had time to evolve. We will see what happens with Yotei, but those devs will feel the same wrath that Ubisoft has if they do not innovate the gameplay and improve the open world.

[Weltall8000]

I could go for more evolution of the series. Idc about the legacy of the series, all I care about is the varied historical settings and sealth/assassin (thematically) gameplay. In that order. Overhaul the gameplay to something better? All gravy to me, with no love lost IMO.

[Shin Happens]

Combat in GoT is decidedly more satisfying. You do not need 100 hours to ascertain that.

Both games have their pros and cons. In terms of gameplay I feel GoT is better. There also never is a moment in Shadows where you literally feel that you are powerful, I mean, you DO get powerful, but whereas in GoT you get the moment where you first become the Ghost (one of the most empowering moments in recent video game history) and people eventually become so scared of you they literally run away, in Shadows guards treat you like rabble in hour 1 and they will treat you like rabble in hour 100, you do not have a reputation.

I like the open world in Shadows more, even though GoT's stylised world is MUCH more pretty (and Shadows is already pretty). But in Shadows it feels more alive, you have actual towns, you meet people, GoT's world is pretty empty and the settlements are tiny, if feels like a movie set piece (a very pretty one), Shadows feels more grounded.

All in all I feel GoT is the better overall Assassin in Japan game, I enjoyed the narrative more (which is really like a movie), the side content with your allies/friends is much better than anything you get in Shadows, you also feel much more powerful (even if actual power levels are probably similar in both games), you feel how you grow as a character and as the Ghost in GoT, no one will know who you are in Shadows even after 100 hours. And while someone here complained about the tens of foxes you can pet in GoT you sneak up on tens of animals in Shadows so you can draw them and sometimes even add them as a pet, it's pretty similar.

You can easily like both games. Both do things pretty well and not so well. GoT is more poetic maybe, feels like some Kurasawa movie, Shadows feels more like a real location though.

[Raider Deci]

Same, but AC has never really had a good combat system. Its fine

[Weltall8000]

Origineel geplaatst door Shin Happens:

Combat in GoT is decidedly more satisfying. You do not need 100 hours to ascertain that.

Both games have their pros and cons. In terms of gameplay I feel GoT is better. There also never is a moment in Shadows where you literally feel that you are powerful, I mean, you DO get powerful, but whereas in GoT you get the moment where you first become the Ghost (one of the most empowering moments in recent video game history) and people eventually become so scared of you they literally run away, in Shadows guards treat you like rabble in hour 1 and they will treat you like rabble in hour 100, you do not have a reputation.

I like the open world in Shadows more, even though GoT's stylised world is MUCH more pretty (and Shadows is already pretty). But in Shadows it feels more alive, you have actual towns, you meet people, GoT's world is pretty empty and the settlements are tiny, if feels like a movie set piece (a very pretty one), Shadows feels more grounded.

All in all I feel GoT is the better overall Assassin in Japan game, I enjoyed the narrative more (which is really like a movie), the side content with your allies/friends is much better than anything you get in Shadows, you also feel much more powerful (even if actual power levels are probably similar in both games), you feel how you grow as a character and as the Ghost in GoT, no one will know who you are in Shadows even after 100 hours. And while someone here complained about the tens of foxes you can pet in GoT you sneak up on tens of animals in Shadows so you can draw them and sometimes even add them as a pet, it's pretty similar.

You can easily like both games. Both do things pretty well and not so well. GoT is more poetic maybe, feels like some Kurasawa movie, Shadows feels more like a real location though.

Your post makes me more interested in eventually checking out GoT.

[Adventurous350]

Origineel geplaatst door Weltall8000:

Origineel geplaatst door Shin Happens:

Combat in GoT is decidedly more satisfying. You do not need 100 hours to ascertain that.

Both games have their pros and cons. In terms of gameplay I feel GoT is better. There also never is a moment in Shadows where you literally feel that you are powerful, I mean, you DO get powerful, but whereas in GoT you get the moment where you first become the Ghost (one of the most empowering moments in recent video game history) and people eventually become so scared of you they literally run away, in Shadows guards treat you like rabble in hour 1 and they will treat you like rabble in hour 100, you do not have a reputation.

I like the open world in Shadows more, even though GoT's stylised world is MUCH more pretty (and Shadows is already pretty). But in Shadows it feels more alive, you have actual towns, you meet people, GoT's world is pretty empty and the settlements are tiny, if feels like a movie set piece (a very pretty one), Shadows feels more grounded.

All in all I feel GoT is the better overall Assassin in Japan game, I enjoyed the narrative more (which is really like a movie), the side content with your allies/friends is much better than anything you get in Shadows, you also feel much more powerful (even if actual power levels are probably similar in both games), you feel how you grow as a character and as the Ghost in GoT, no one will know who you are in Shadows even after 100 hours. And while someone here complained about the tens of foxes you can pet in GoT you sneak up on tens of animals in Shadows so you can draw them and sometimes even add them as a pet, it's pretty similar.

You can easily like both games. Both do things pretty well and not so well. GoT is more poetic maybe, feels like some Kurasawa movie, Shadows feels more like a real location though.

Your post makes me more interested in eventually checking out GoT.

His post really nailed GoT. If you haven't played it and you like Samurai games then it is a must. I dont know how to explain it, but the combat feels so powerful and satisfying. You actually feel the impact of your weapons against opponents. It has weight. I would recommend taking your time and really enjoying the experience. Ghost is more empty as well partly because of the story/setting.

[Weltall8000]

Origineel geplaatst door Adventurous350:

Origineel geplaatst door Weltall8000:

Your post makes me more interested in eventually checking out GoT.

His post really nailed GoT. If you haven't played it and you like Samurai games then it is a must. I dont know how to explain it, but the combat feels so powerful and satisfying. You actually feel the impact of your weapons against opponents. It has weight. I would recommend taking your time and really enjoying the experience. Ghost is more empty as well partly because of the story/setting.

Neat. I totally agree, in that I value "weight" in simulated combat being visceral. When it is floaty, I am less interested.

Also loved their bit about becoming the ghost being a powerful moment. I know very little about the game, so it means next to nothing to me in context (and I do not want to be spoiled), but I like those experiences.

If it has these qualities, sounds up my alley, thanks, y'all!

[WESTG4M3R4L1F3]

bravo

[JKDos]

Origineel geplaatst door Aria Athena:

Valhalla had a 60 hours long main quest, while this is about 30. It's what people complained about.

In Valhalla, the main quest took me 87 hours according to Steam playtime, in Shadows, the main quest (all the way to the credits that is) also took me, coincidentally, 87 hours. I didn't even complete act 1 until over 20 hours.

It's important to note, I play with Guided Mode or w/e they call it turned off, so the game doesn't show me where to go. I have to figure it out with the clues.

When it comes to Valhalla, there were a few bosses in the main story where I spend an hour or so straight reloading checkpoint because the boss was either too strong or I wasn't built for the fight. Had to basically get every counter/dodge of every fight down to the T.

After that I was able to dig in deep to all the extra DLC stories, and even complete the Order of Ancients, and the Children of Danu assassination target lists.

I have not 100% either Valhalla or Shadows, but Shadows has already taken me nearly 120 hours to just do just the base game story and assassination objectives. I have 2 unknown organizations left, and some boring open world stuff like "Kill 100 bandits". By the time I do those, I will likely have put more hours into the base game than I have put in Valhalla+Valahlla DLC. I've only put 130 hours into Valhalla and accomplished far more content.

[Acpolax]

I did a lot of exploring in Shadows before I even started the main story and most of it turned out pointless since the mainquest would take me there anyways.