• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

LTTP How does the current Assassin's Creed compare to Ghost of Tsushima?

GreyHorace

Member
Jun 14, 2019
2,055
5,733
650
I guess someone had to ask the question right? Might as well be me. Some disclosure here, but I played all of the main line Assassin's Creed games up to Black Flag back in 2013. Didn't bother with Unity because of all the bugs and Syndicate wasn't enough enticement for me to get back in the series. I heard that Origins was a nice return to form and apparently Odyssey was a solid sequel (though some Gaffers assure me it's a boring slog).

The upcoming Valhalla has my interest since I love the Viking setting but it has an uphill battle in trying to top the recently released Ghost of Tsushima. I love that game. From the visuals, the combat, the story, the presentation, etc. Everything about it just blew me away.

So I ask you GAF? Does the current Assassin's Creed offer something just as good compared to Sucker Punch's title?
 

xrnzaaas

Member
Dec 9, 2013
10,492
4,004
680
For me modern AC games are much worse (I played both AC Origins and AC Odyssey). Most of all they're bloated and filled with repetetive content and they feel too much like RPG's. Sure Tsushima isn't flawless, but it does a much better job of telling a good story (I struggled to get through the main plot in Origins and Oddysey), offering attractive gameplay (especially in terms of direct combat) and not trying to overstay its welcome.
 
May 25, 2014
1,190
345
545
GoT has better combat and is way more responsive than all the AC's.

The speed of running and jumpin and slashing around is just way better in got
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryank75

Exentryk

Member
Jun 21, 2012
13,085
1,341
1,020
twitter.com
Ghost has better quests and melee combat, while AC has better traversal, quality of life and ranged combat.

They are pretty close though, so you can consider Ghost as an AC game set in Japan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TurboSpeed

tommycronin

Member
Feb 4, 2017
287
1,296
485
Cork,Ireland
The combat alone makes it a much better game. Obviously AC when it comes to world building is on another level but it always comes down to how the game feels when playing and GoT wins hands down. You don't even feel like an assassin in the new Assassin's Creed games at all where as in GoT you do really feel like a samurai.
 

GreyHorace

Member
Jun 14, 2019
2,055
5,733
650
In a simple words, Assassin’s Creed Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla is closer to The Witcher 3 clones and sometimes it is a chores of side quests.

I would say Ghost of Tsushima has unique feeling like Horizon and Days Gone.
Funnily enough, I thought the side quests of Ghost were fantastic. Especially the companion quests and the mythic tales. And even the smaller side quests were a nice distraction and didn't feel like tedium.

Haven't played Horizon or Days Gone so I can't compare.

The stealth/camp outposts felt the same between the two games. It's really the visuals and the combat that separates them.
For me modern AC games are much worse (I played both AC Origins and AC Odyssey). Most of all they're bloated and filled with repetetive content and they feel too much like RPG's. Sure Tsushima isn't flawless, but it does a much better job of telling a good story (I struggled to get through the main plot in Origins and Oddysey), offering attractive gameplay (especially in terms of direct combat) and not trying to overstay its welcome.
GoT has better combat and is way more responsive than all the AC's.

The speed of running and jumpin and slashing around is just way better in got
Ghost has better quests and melee combat, while AC has better traversal, quality of life and ranged combat.

They are pretty close though, so you can consider Ghost as an AC game set in Japan.
So better combat eh? Lol

Joking aside, I was amazed by how great Tsushima's combat is. Ubisoft on the other hand has never really impressed me with any of the combat of their AC games. They made some mild improvements in Brotherhood by adapting Rocksteady's freeflow combat for the Batman Arkham games but it was never really a standout feature for me. I heard they adapted a more Soulslike combat system for Origins going forward but I've yet to try it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rea and Tranquil

Abear21

Banned
Apr 11, 2020
413
455
255
Combat is the big difference, parry and attacks feels way better in Ghost, not that it’s bad in the new AC games, it’s just more button mashy whereas in Ghost it’s more skill based, especially on hard.

Parkour is way different. If you like climbing everything, AC has the edge here. I was pleased how much you can climb in Ghost, and jumping on to things, like beams and ledges, feels great in Ghost, but standing next to a cliff you can’t just climb up it like you can in AC.

You get just a few weapons and tools in Ghost as well as AC has way more weapon variety but the feel of that Katana and upgrading it is just...chefs kiss good.

Lastly, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the side content. Every mission or npc interaction in Ghost feels significant and while AC tells you exactly where to go in Ghost you’ll be guided by clues or animals to find side content that’s more mellow and artsy than fetch quest or, just climb this thing.

I really like AC games and think they’re solid games, but Ghost is just amazing and shouldn’t be missed.
 
Last edited:

TheCockatrice

Member
Jun 16, 2019
2,161
3,999
525
You can compare them but ACO is technically almost if not entirely an action rpg game so content wise it will surpass GoT. GoT has better atmosphere, a more emotional story, and a bit more satisfying combat especially when you play on hard and have those 1v1 fights it was really nice. ACO has better stealth, more varied combat, better boss fights, and obviously the key feature of ACO, traversal, is hard to surpass. Overall ACO is better imo but not by far. I'd say by 0.5 if you were to score them from 1-10. If you wanna talk negatives, both game have a lot of bugs and janky animations/combat scenarios and the AI can be quite shit in both games.
 

GreyHorace

Member
Jun 14, 2019
2,055
5,733
650
The combat alone makes it a much better game. Obviously AC when it comes to world building is on another level but it always comes down to how the game feels when playing and GoT wins hands down. You don't even feel like an assassin in the new Assassin's Creed games at all where as in GoT you do really feel like a samurai.
In all honesty, they should have ended the whole Assassin storyline with Revelations and Ezio. I thought the concept of Assassins and Templars at war with each other was becoming tired by AC3 (and I liked that game because of it's story).

But Black Flag was a breath of fresh air for me because for once we weren't playing an Assassin, but a pirate. That game was great in capturing the feel of being a pirate in the Caribbean so I asked why we needed to attach the AC brand to it. I wish Ubisoft would just make a bunch of historical action games instead with no prior association to the series.
 

ruvikx

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,681
3,338
420
In a simple words, Assassin’s Creed Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla is closer to The Witcher 3 clones and sometimes it is a chores of side quests.

I would say Ghost of Tsushima has unique feeling like Horizon and Days Gone.
Assassin's Creed Odyssey is much, much closer to something like Destiny (without the GaaS part) than The Witcher 3. It's a literal upgradathon where all that matters is repeating the same content over & over again with a "narrative" which doesn't fit with the game world presented (namely the fact Alexios/Kassandra can fight for either Athens or Sparta & vice-versa whilst no one cares, because the game only wants the player to upgrade & fight the mercenaries sent to kill him/her).
 

GreyHorace

Member
Jun 14, 2019
2,055
5,733
650
You can compare them but ACO is technically almost if not entirely an action rpg game so content wise it will surpass GoT. GoT has better atmosphere, a more emotional story, and a bit more satisfying combat especially when you play on hard and have those 1v1 fights it was really nice. ACO has better stealth, more varied combat, better boss fights, and obviously the key feature of ACO, traversal, is hard to surpass. Overall ACO is better imo but not by far. I'd say by 0.5 if you were to score them from 1-10. If you wanna talk negatives, both game have a lot of bugs and janky animations/combat scenarios and the AI can be quite shit in both games.
So you're saying AC Origins is what I'm looking for as a competition to GoT?

Sweet. Maybe I'll check it out.
 

TheCockatrice

Member
Jun 16, 2019
2,161
3,999
525
So you're saying AC Origins is what I'm looking for as a competition to GoT?

Sweet. Maybe I'll check it out.
Odyssey but Origins is good as well and you'll need to play both since they're a trilogy when Valhalla hits. But don;t take the Assassins part too serious. AC lost its identity and has pretty much just become an RPG like Witcher 3 so if you're more into a more grounded experience GoT will certainly feel superior combat wise. World building no matter what, ACO is only surpassed by RDR2 and maybe even Witcher 3.
 

llLeonhart

Member
Sep 26, 2017
109
327
385
Badly, very badly IMO. People say AC Odyssey is closer to the witcher, but I'd disagree. It's much closer to the Shadow of Mordor/War games(which are better than this, despite being only good at best). It has skills ripped straight from those games, such as throwing a knife and teleporting to the enemy, it even tries to copy the nemesis system in Odyssey, but it does it so poorly that most people don't even make the connection. It even copies MTX from Shadow of War for god sake. At least Warner had the decency to remove them, even though they did it late.

What bother's me the most is that unlike the Shadow of series, it has absolutely no context for it's main characters godly abilities, kill an enemy and they disappear into the void? Sure Why not. Invisibility? Hells yeah.

All of that on top of a very poor combat system, with a bunch of bullet sponge type enemies that level with you, because it might give you the illusion of challenge, when in truth is just annoying, because there is no real chance of defeat in most cases, you'll just be bored pressing R1/RB until they die, or learn that you should be stealthing always because of how fucking boring the combat really is.

The series has abandoned all of it's past "somewhat believable nature" to balls to the walls crazy, all while using historical events as a selling point, it honestly feels to me like a game with a identity disorder, it does not know what it wants to be or how to properly anything it tries to achieve.

Sorry for the rant. I really hate AC Odyssey.

Ghost of Tsushima is a masterpiece, and personally, one of the best games of this generation, it's atmosphere and respect for the culture it represents is second to none.
 

Le Big Mac

Member
Jul 3, 2018
57
44
325
AC:O (whichever one) has a lot of content, like a shit tonne. So if you want a large timesink than those games are great. But a lot of it varies greatly in quality

I find GOT respects my time so I prefer that game - you can absolutely rush mainline quests and just enjoy the world at the pace you want. Side stories in this game feel like loyalty missions from Mass Effect 2 which I absolutely loved.

As it goes, the combat in GoT is far better, aside from some input lag (hopefully pc/ps5 release mitigates this) the hit registration and overall style is far, far more engaging. Go with whichever fits that description for you.
 

Camreezie

Member
Dec 27, 2019
408
378
265
Ghost of Tsushima is better than any assassins creed I've played and I've played them all except Odyseey. It does scratch the itch for a Japanese Assassins Creed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bryank75

bumleforce

Member
Apr 6, 2017
734
638
370
In a simple words, Assassin’s Creed Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla is closer to The Witcher 3 clones and sometimes it is a chores of side quests.

I would say Ghost of Tsushima has unique feeling like Horizon and Days Gone.
I’m confused by this. Horizion is amazing but days gone is bad so how does ghosts compare?
 

Le Big Mac

Member
Jul 3, 2018
57
44
325
I’m confused by this. Horizion is amazing but days gone is bad so how does ghosts compare?
Bruh. Days gone is actually quite good (relatively okay) especially after all the patches. It's average Metascore is from triggered people that you play a straight white man. In all honesty, you can pick it up for cheap and it's well worth it
 

thief183

Member
Aug 23, 2018
923
743
385
Italy
AC is in a good shape imho, way more rpg than tsushima, I'd say that they are on par, but I still prefer AC, tsushima is great game but the world building is not on the dame level. I'd love to see some of the details in GoT applied to AC...
 

bumleforce

Member
Apr 6, 2017
734
638
370
Bruh. Days gone is actually quite good (relatively okay) especially after all the patches. It's average Metascore is from triggered people that you play a straight white man. In all honesty, you can pick it up for cheap and it's well worth it
Thanks for that. I may try it and you are correct.Pc police have an impact on scores now
 

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
5,095
2,846
675
France
Days gone is not really comparable to AC (but i prefer it to horizon and GOT)...
Sony open world are more controlled ones. they are always 3 areas you unlock behind a linear progression in them.
They are bloated by the same bad content ubisoft put in their open world and story and side quest are imo not really more engaging , just different.
Sony content in Horizon and GOT is main story, side quests , camps and multiple collectives or POI to find. Ubisoft has more and you can change your loop more often and feel less the repeat.
Also world feel more empty or gamey in sony studios game , especially it seems you are the only human being not being a totempole in them(this feeling is especially a problem for all sucker punch games)
scale and freedom exploring the world is not comparable in last AC games (and you have tools to it make it not being only following a pointer or something else in odyssey if you want)
It's difficult to compare Horizon combat because of dino and it's great doing it...but versus human it's mediocre and i prefer AC over it
GOT combat system has more depth but it's also really too easy (even more playing ghost).
AC has for it you can appreciate it with 60 or more responsiveness because it's multi-plat.
DA of Sony studio is really something special in good way but at the time it's not really shooting for realism on lot of thing (world design / art)
This is probably why i prefer days gone over the two others because it's the one doing it less (Horizon is post apo i can accept crazy DA but no way my suspension of disbelief is not broken in tsuchima)
AC games DA is more grounded overall (outside specific areas and dlc).

To sum up i think exploration is where AC game are better. They are also really trying to be RPG unlike them and it's my thing.
It's probably why i would choose them over horizon and GOT even if they are great games samey but also different because the mix is less my thing.
 
Last edited:

SLoco

Neo Member
Sep 21, 2019
17
7
160
quited ac Odyssey because of grind walls after 40 hours i just couldnt force myself thru it even do i lowered difficulty from hard to normal...it is probably most beautiful game i ever played but if vikings also have in them time savers for grind walls it will be nice skip from me.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Rac3r

Neil Young

Member
Mar 26, 2020
435
1,115
335
People seem to be giving a looong ass leash to GOT. I'm a good 10 hours in and I don't hear too many comments about GOTs archaic tailing or follow the footsteps missions. The stealth is dreadful compared to assassins creed. But that's ok because:

I play the game like a badass Samurai sheriff calling the bad guys out to face me. No sneaking around for me so I hope the game let's me play it this way throughout because the stealth is doo doo, especially after playing TLOU2. I love the setting and the pace.

Assassins Creed is fun, looks incredible, and you get your money's worth. The locations are fun, and the go anywhere traversal is liberating and action is constant and fast.

Both games are great and you can probably pick up AC Odyssey for nothing.
 

INCUBASE

Member
Jan 8, 2018
3,201
6,487
615
I hate how the npc run on the spot, if u walk to slow when on a 'following' mission. Same goofy animations from infamous
 

Jigsaah

Gold Member
Live on Twitch
Jan 31, 2018
4,909
4,803
660
I guess someone had to ask the question right? Might as well be me. Some disclosure here, but I played all of the main line Assassin's Creed games up to Black Flag back in 2013. Didn't bother with Unity because of all the bugs and Syndicate wasn't enough enticement for me to get back in the series. I heard that Origins was a nice return to form and apparently Odyssey was a solid sequel (though some Gaffers assure me it's a boring slog).

The upcoming Valhalla has my interest since I love the Viking setting but it has an uphill battle in trying to top the recently released Ghost of Tsushima. I love that game. From the visuals, the combat, the story, the presentation, etc. Everything about it just blew me away.

So I ask you GAF? Does the current Assassin's Creed offer something just as good compared to Sucker Punch's title?
I'm assuming you mean Odyssey because that is the latest one to come out so...
I think the character models look better in Odyssey, it also has a more intriguing story. The combat is is kinda up to your personal preference, but I like the variety of weapons you get in Odyssey, Both games are fraught with repetition. Both worlds are huge, though I'd say Odyssey in undeniably larger in scope. There are more interesting activities in Odyssey. Even with those, kind of all boil down to, go here...sneak around if you want or go in guns blazin and kill everything including your target. Collect Collect, mission over. I think if you like GoT you will also like Odyssey.

GoT is undeniably the better looking game overall. I feel like the outfits you get are meaningful in some ways but are not really necessary from a combat perspective (I'm currently playing GoT on hard mode and lets just say...hard mode needs to be, harder). GoT doesn't seem to have the rpg elements that Odyssey has, For example, there's no scaling of enemy levels or any enemies that are too hard to defeat. Skill and upgrades trumps gear in GoT, it's quite the opposite in Odyssey, where gear and your level really can make a difference in a fight. Skills also help a great deal in odyssey but this is to say they aren't the only focus. This makes Odyssey a bit of a deeper customized experience, where you can make your own "build" if you get what I'm saying.

For example you can seek out gear that compliments specific skills in both games, but if you say, wanted to have really powerful fire based build using daggers you can choose skills along wiht your sought out gear to maximize that particular build. Builds in Odyssey can empower you to take on much higher level foes if you can use your tools effectively.

GoT doesn't have any of that mess. I got a sword, I cut you 3 times...you should be dead. Anybody should be dead. Only time that doesn't really happen is in boss fights. Odyssey can seem somewhat reminiscent of The Division in that, sometimes you can go up against normal enemies that you gotta stab 15 times before their dead. I don't really like the whole "blade sponge" aspect of this.

Sorry this post is too long.

 

Rac3r

Member
Mar 3, 2020
126
199
330
Assassins Creed, especially Odyssey, is a mess compared to GoT. AC litters the screen with fetch quests, the RPG mechanics are annoying (I could never finish it because my current mission was level locked and I didn't want to bother with the shitty side quests), and it's just become a shell of it's former self (wtf happened to Assassins).

GoT is a much cleaner experience. It does suffer from some similar issues like cookie-cutter outposts, and other liberation encounters, but that's probably the worst of it. The combat is much more fun and interesting, traversal is less clunky, and the environment is absolutely beautiful. Most of all GoT knows exactly what it is (just a fun samurai game), and accomplishes it in the most stylish and elegant way possible.

Ubisoft simply doesn't have the artistic talent or creativity to craft something like GoT. I appreciate their ambition, but they've missed hard since AC: Black Flag.
 
Last edited:

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
41,624
18,139
1,585
Honestly they are extremely similar. AC has a bit more of an action RPG lean.
 

NoMoChokeSJ

Member
Jun 3, 2014
1,276
1,064
575
Is that a good thing ?
It just came out, so I think you'd get better responses after some time passes and the 'shine of newness' has worn off.
Sure its a good thing, not everything has to have a weird political undertone. Coherent and consistent writing with stellar voice acting made GOT my favorite game since Mass Effect. Does the game have flaws... Sure it does. There are too many searching for stuff in an area missions in act 2, too many fox holes and other optional side quests (key word optional). Also, later in the game it gets to be too frequent you run in Mongol groups (which can be avoided by staying off the road). But these flaws are easily overshadowed by the good in the game. Meaningful quests, fleshed out back stories, fun combat, and an actual grown up story. For me I loved it, but it hit the sweet spot in my taste of games.
 

Abear21

Banned
Apr 11, 2020
413
455
255
Night and Day difference in terms of HUD as well.

GoT goes minimalistic and AC Origins has so much shit on screen it’s insane. You can customize the hud in AC though, but honestly that’s where the other difference in these games lies—GoT feels cinematic and no hud fits, whereas AC is not so serious and seeing the XP flashed when you hit enemies and waypoint markers on screen feels right for me.
 

GreyHorace

Member
Jun 14, 2019
2,055
5,733
650
I'm assuming you mean Odyssey because that is the latest one to come out so...
I'm asking about both Origins and Odyssey, since they mark a departure from the usual Assassin's Creed formula. Since Valhalla is coming I want to see if it's worth my time.

GoT is undeniably the better looking game overall. I feel like the outfits you get are meaningful in some ways but are not really necessary from a combat perspective (I'm currently playing GoT on hard mode and lets just say...hard mode needs to be, harder). GoT doesn't seem to have the rpg elements that Odyssey has, For example, there's no scaling of enemy levels or any enemies that are too hard to defeat. Skill and upgrades trumps gear in GoT, it's quite the opposite in Odyssey, where gear and your level really can make a difference in a fight. Skills also help a great deal in odyssey but this is to say they aren't the only focus. This makes Odyssey a bit of a deeper customized experience, where you can make your own "build" if you get what I'm saying.

For example you can seek out gear that compliments specific skills in both games, but if you say, wanted to have really powerful fire based build using daggers you can choose skills along wiht your sought out gear to maximize that particular build. Builds in Odyssey can empower you to take on much higher level foes if you can use your tools effectively.
So AC is now a fully fledged RPG rather than a 3rd person action platformer? Not sure how I feel about that.

GoT doesn't have any of that mess. I got a sword, I cut you 3 times...you should be dead. Anybody should be dead. Only time that doesn't really happen is in boss fights. Odyssey can seem somewhat reminiscent of The Division in that, sometimes you can go up against normal enemies that you gotta stab 15 times before their dead. I don't really like the whole "blade sponge" aspect of this.
Yeech. I hate sponge enemies that soak up a ton of damage before you can kill them. At least Ghost has a posture mechanic just like Sekiro. Breaking an enemy's guard is much more fulfilling than wailing on some boss before you can hurt them. I was actually surprised playing on hard difficulty on how easy it was to kill bosses once you mastered the combat and knew how to stagger them. Even Khotun Khan fell like a bitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

THEAP99

reposts tweets from kids about console wars
Mar 16, 2020
1,618
3,548
615
they're both pretty much wannabe pseudo-witcher 3's.

but ghost of tsushima respects the player's time and is still a grind, but not as close to being as bloated as Assassins Creed Odyssey was.
 

GymWolf

Member
Jun 11, 2019
11,529
16,484
565
Tsushima is less bloated and the combat is more polished but too easy.

AC has better traversal with the "climb everything" but a worse horse.

Story and pg are probably in the same level, kassandra was more interesting than jin but the main plot was worse so...
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
5,728
6,598
680
Games are all about the setting they are in.

Personally i got nothing with japanese culture, so assassin creed straight up wins already because of the setting.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
8,248
17,652
825
Ireland
AC is bloated with very little identity, the combat is never unique to the culture you're playing and all just feels the same or more accurately doesn't feel like anything.

The XP and leveling system is mostly there to sell you XP boosts because the game becomes such a boring slog if you decide to grind that you're more likely just to give up.

There's no skill needed for anything or even attention, most of the armor and items are just the same with a different rarity and very few feel unique, all the quests are just markers on the map and remain so in my memory..... whereas in GOT I can remember the start of a story and how it progressed, right to the end because it all felt natural, I didn't enter a map to find a marker and talk to someone for some bland busy work as in AC.....

The side characters in GOT were very memorable and I wanted to find out what happened in their thread as much as my own.....

The antagonist was really memorable too and motivated you to want to get revenge.

The world design in GOT is next level, beautiful colors, areas all feel very different and unique... amazing views into the distance with no obfuscation....

Great combat, that gives you options and the closest we have had to feudal Japanese sword combat in a grounded setting....
The 'ghost' abilities make you feel unstoppable and forgive the term but.... a complete 'badass'!

The armors in GOT are also unique and beautiful, I just wish there were more.

I really thought AC peaked during the Ezio trilogy and Black Flag was decent too but I have no love for the new direction TBH.....

I feel GOT puts AC to shame in almost every area.
 
Last edited:

Rikkori

Member
May 9, 2020
1,398
2,329
395
There are 3 greats of open world action-adventure games this generation that stand above all others (and from which all others derive):

Kingdom Come: Deliverance - For the weight of the consequences & a meaningful world which you can affect, and perhaps the most immersive RPG ever made
The Witcher 3 - Overall and for its best-in-class writing
Assassin's Creed Odyssey - As a package and for a lighter & more fun experience focused on combat, together with an incredible setting & just so much to do

Expecting anyone on this forum to say a Sony game isn't the best that has ever been done or ever imagined, it's just a fool's errand. In reality both HZD & GoT are lite versions of this gen's AC, but really the technical limitations of the console should disqualify them both from discussion (at least until recently for HZD). I just don't understand people who like fighting the camera and FOVs of 50 with characters taking up a 3rd of the screen. Crazy!

Sadly I don't have as much faith in Valhalla but that's okay, I'm hoping next-gen AC will be Rome & they'll go nuts.