Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Merle Travis

AC Origins has made me worried about the small map size for RDR2.

Recommended Posts

Merle Travis
Long post incoming, skip if you cant be bothered reading. Now, I dont know if anyone here played the latest Assassins Creed, but its map is absolutely huge and gorgeous and makes we wonder more and more how RDR2 will really end up being and how its supposed scale will compete with other modern open world titles. Playing it got me thinking, this is also the type of scale a western game such as RDR2 needs, but not the scale that the leaked map has revealed.


Now I am not usually a fan of Ubisoft titles but I will tell you this: not only is AC Origins huge, but it is actually filled with detail, animals and side activities and things to do. Unlike how people often criticise huge scaled maps, AC Origins big size does not in fact make it feel dead at all. It feels real. In fact it is even bigger than Witcher 3s map and it does not even contain loading screens between parts of the map. To me it really feels what we then imagined next gen to look like. RDR2s map leak however, to me, does not. Let me explain.


I see alot people saying "I dont mind if RDR2s map is not much bigger than RDR1, I just care that you can do something useful with it". Sorry but that is just horsesh*t for a 2018 openworld AAA game. Its supposed to be bigger, more impressive AND useful and dense. I mean this is next gen now and it is the huge expansive old west. We should be expecting to be blown away because its 8 years later, not simply expect another RDR. Technology has advanced a lot these 8 years. What I mean is, back in 2010 when RDR1 was released, this RDR2 map leak would have been impressive. But now? RDR isnt all that big now and this leaked RDR2 map is only around 1.5x the size of RDR, an 8 year old game.


So to get to my point, if friggin Ubisoft can make a map like as big and as filled as that of AC Origins, why have Rockstar made the leaked RDR2 map, a 2018 AAA title set in the old west, a place that needs to feel vast, so small? They certainly have the money and current gen certainly has the hardware to handle it as apparent by Origins. But RDR2 is map is out and only 1.5x bigger than RDR1. This doesnt go well with the huge expanses that made up the old west really and its odd for a next gen AAA open world title to have a map several times smaller than other horse riding open world games. Not to mention the map is half water. I mean I cant be the only one still wondering and getting more and more worried by this, no matter how good the screenshots and trailers weve seen have looked and no matter how much we all love Rockstar the screenshots reveal very little about the scale of the map and thats actually slightly odd so close to release. It seems noone dares to talk about this fact yet it is something that will be apparent the first hour you play the game.


In my opinion, for two 2017-2018 horseriding open world games that both center around exploration, playing AC Origins really made me realise and worry that RDR2s map is just pretty small for modern standards, especially for a western game. There is a video of AC Origins map walk, and it took over three hours to cross it! Riding across it takes like an hour. Walking across RDR1 takes approx barely 1 hour, riding takes less than 10 minutes, you get get from snowy tall trees to mexico in like 5 minutes...so from the leaked map we know RDR2 is just slightly bigger than RDR1 so it wont be much different. I love Rockstar but thats just unimpressive for current gen I have to say! Especially when you see other modern AAA open world titles come out that have maps *several times* the size of what RDR2 will be. I was really looking forward to RDR2 to really blow everything else out of the water when it comes to scale, well it actually seems like in terms of scale it wont. We know now that it'll be three times as small as GTA V with the same scale. To me, for an expansive western game, thats not looking good. Now if you disagree just tell me why.


Honestly, the map and scale of AC Origins (but set in the West obviously) is the kind of map scale, size and density I was hoping for in RDR2 especially in a wild west setting. Yet with the now basically confirmed map leak it seems RDR2 is only slightly larger than the 8 year old RDR1. Am I the only one disappointed by that the map will be this small? I am praying Rockstar have made changes to the map since the leak and given it considerably more land mass because if not, we have basically almost seen everything from trailers and screenshots now and while its gorgeous, its not big, and thats bad for a western imho.




Map walk across AC Origins:


In my personal opinion, the map view of AC Origins:




is much more impressive than the RDR2 leaked map:


http://assets.vg247.com/current//2016/04/Red-Dead-Redemption-2-map-leak-hi-res.jpg, and I really hate myself for saying that but I wanted to really get lost in RDR2s world but with a map this small youll very quickly find the map borders. If you simply compare it to contemporary open world "horse riding simulators", there is no dancing around the fact anymore that this is pretty small for current gen. No conclusive comparison has yet been made between AC Origins map size and RDR2s map leak but estimates put RDR2 at around 4 times smaller than AC Origins and both are open world games where you travel a lot by horse. Thats an insane difference in size.


In a western game I think it needs to be vast, and the leaked map is looking a bit small for 2018...

Edited by oglocindahouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous

I appreciate the work that Ubisoft has spent designing and laying out the map of Origins, because it really looks expansive, varied and beautiful. However, I still believe that a smaller Redemption 2 map will be better at all levels, from art direction, polygonal details and overall ambiance, and that's only due to R*'s long history at being ahead of the game when it comes to making open-world maps. Redemption already felt expansive when you're traveling by horses, so even a slightly larger map in its successor will still have that quality and more. There has to be a balance between how large the map is and how much stuff you can find, or do, just by exploring around, and I think Redemption had it right compared to Origins.

Edited by Efreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeniorDerp

I haven't played AC Origins but from skimming that video, as amazing as the map size is there seems to be a lot of nothing. Around the 1hr mark there's something like 40 minutes of walking through nothing but dirt, why?? How much time are you actually going to spend playing the game those areas? As small as the supposed RDR2 map is in comparison, it appears to be very dense with content which for me is more important than a 40 min walk across desert.

 

Also, in all fairness, while the trailers do seem to back up the leaked map there is no evidence that the leaked map is THE map. It's pretty old at this point and R* could've added to it, which to me seems like a good plan for the sole purpose that playing Online on a map smaller than GTAV would simply suck. They would have to limit the amount of players in a lobby to 15 or so

Edited by SeniorDerp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frantz Fuchs

Half the map is just empty desert, honestly just stop complaining about everything. R* are open world pioneers and they know what they're doing. No one said the original RDR was small and now it's a problem.

Edited by Frantz Fuchs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockstar Vienna

I'm not worried about RDR2's map size tbh. True... If the leaked map is the real deal the world of RDR2 is probably just a fraction of AC Origin's map. Credit where credit is due! I gotta give it to Ubisoft this year! Like OP already mentioned... The map is not only ridiculously huge, it's also very detailed and full of things to discover. It's definitely not empty as some people in here who never played it suggest. But in the end I know that Rockstar will put even more details into Red Dead. This combined with a better story (cause AC's stories are always a bit "meh" and messy imo) and I could not care less if RDR2's map is 4 or 5 times smaller compared to AC Origin's map. So no worries but congrats to Ubisoft this year! AC Origin's is an amazing game!

Edited by Rockstar Vienna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zachsterosu

I'm not worried about RDR2's map size tbh. True... If the leaked map is the real deal the world of RDR2 is probably just a fraction of AC Origin's map. Credit where credit is due! I gotta give it to Ubisoft this year! Like OP already mentioned... The map is not only ridiculously huge, it's also very detailed and full of things to discover. It's definitely not empty as some people in here who never played it suggest. But in the end I know that Rockstar will put even more details into Red Dead. This combined with a better story (cause AC's stories are always a bit "meh" and messy imo) and I could not care less if RDR2's map is 4 or 5 times smaller compared to AC Origin's map. So no worries but congrats to Ubisoft this year! AC Origin's is an amazing game!

Yeah, I think another think people aren't accounting for is that there's several large bodies of water, which are still within the world boundaries(altogether they're equal to around half the land mass). Given the size, I have a feeling that R* is going to let us control big riverboats and stuff, because a canoe would take you forever to traverse them. Edited by zachsterosu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dee.

AC O doesn't even have the depth and atmosphere of GTA4. Let alone GTAV. Im sure R* has nothing to worry about here

Wgo R* should really compete with are Nintendo. BoTW is the most atmospheric and interactive open world ive ever played. And it grants players true freedom. You can approach any mission how you want. You can even beat the final boss within the first few minutes of the game if you feel you can. I hope R* goes about world design like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

I think the overall standard of open worlds in games has been stepped up by by various developers this generation and disputing that is putting on some massive rose tinted glasses, tbh. For a long time it's always been a case of Rockstar setting the bar and others trying and usually failing to match it but honestly this time around I do genuinely feel like it's the over way round, in some ways anyway. They've set the bar with every open world they've made so the benefit of the doubt is on their side but given the lack of games this gen, their turbulent few years at North.. I feel like Rockstar have a point to prove for the first time since GTA 3.

Edited by Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mamos

My number one company is rockstargames but i played ac origins for 50 hours and still playing,map isn't empty. 10 times better than gta V's map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dominik1411

I also have played ACO and in my opinion the map is realy nice. Empty? Maybe the desert but I guess its supposed to be empty and big because u should have the feeling that ur lost in it. And just btw: GTAVs map was empty as well. The desert part of it was just as empty as ACOs one. For me the leaked map is a bit too small. Would be better to add some desert between some areas which are just empty. It would just be nicer to ride your horse through the desert to get to the next location. I mean... its a western game. There has to be desert.

 

If its the real map that is leaked, then I hope the game runs with good 30 fps or even 60fps like MGS.

Edited by Dominik1411

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunter S. Compton

There has to be desert.

 

If its the real map that is leaked, then I hope the game runs with good 30 fps or even 60fps like MGS.

I'm really curious to see how this game performs in the end. I'd bet everyone a beer however that it will not be 60 fps. The trailer wasn't even 60, and that was under like laboratory conditions. I think that OP has a pretty good point actually. First off let's all agree that AC:O has probably one of the best maps of the current gen, just in terms of the fact that it REALLY f*ckin feels like you're in an ancient egyptian desert. The map is enormous and dense and most importantly the locales are al very distinct. Even if a lot of it just looks like rocks and dirt, i would drop acid and just walk around that map in a heartbeat. Even the vast "empty" areas feel so deliberately designed.

 

And of course like most other people I want to point out that the map for GTAV was not so amazing. It was just a bunch of padding so there could be enough race tracks and enough airspace for jets to fly around. I would not take acid and explore GTAV. It's 200 buildings I can't enter, and then a bunch of f*cking nothing. Unlike most people who seem to admit that however, that actually makes me much more nervous for RDR2. One of the things I really like in RDR1 is the number of building interiors, which were almost all actual spaces. The two glaring exceptions to this were larger towns like Escalera or Blackwater (even chuparosa could largely be explored). Given that there is another BIG BIG town, "New Bordeaux," I'm worried it will just be like the pop up town in Blazing Saddles, where it's just a bunch of facades with no real life to them, as opposed to Armadillo, where you can enter The Train station, the saloon, the doctor, the gunsmith, the general store, the sheriff's, the bank, the theatre, etc.

 

I will say that RDR1 always did feel vast, so I'm not worried about this game not feeling vast, but having just recently replayed the game.... it's pretty empty. It's gorgeous, so it's never like boring per se, but it is pretty empty. It would feel even more empty if it wasn't for random encounters. I don't think being empty is actually a fault, however. It made GTAV feel weird because not only were the "random" events actually scripted to only take place in specific locations (except for armored cars, ATM thieves) but given that the game is more or less about balls to the walls fast paced thrills, the constant drudgery doesn't work. In a Western game, that isolation is more in line with the theme. I always really enjoyed the feeling of completing a mission in the first game and then just being in the middle of nowhere, alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

It's a bit harsh to go back and play RDR and criticise it (not saying you were, just in general) because it's a last gen game and we've been gifted with a bunch of incredible open world games this generation. GTA V suffers from the same problems too, it's so easily forgotten that it was made for last gen consoles and the remaster was more a visual update than mechanical. Our opinions, and standards, of open world games has massively risen this gen when last gen it was basically Rockstar and Rockstar only making impressive open worlds.

 

Like I said earlier in the thread, it's a reason to be excited about RDR2 to see what they're capable of with current gen consoles but at the same time, they're the ones who have to match what others are doing and not the other way around and that's new for them. That's a problem that could work for them, or against.

 

I've seen Skyrim ridiculed for basically the same reasons as well with the common argument being "How did Fallout 4 not get away with being a meh RPG but Skyrim did?" and the answer is mindnumbingly obvious lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dee.

I think the overall standard of open worlds in games has been stepped up by by various developers this generation and disputing that is putting on some massive rose tinted glasses, tbh. For a long time it's always been a case of Rockstar setting the bar and others trying and usually failing to match it but honestly this time around I do genuinely feel like it's the over way round, in some ways anyway. They've set the bar with every open world they've made so the benefit of the doubt is on their side but given the lack of games this gen, their turbulent few years at North.. I feel like Rockstar have a point to prove for the first time since GTA 3.

Gtav is a 4 year old game and up to now I've seen no game with a map as beautifully crafted as it is. Well...besides BOTW which beat it. But apart from that, its "big map", fetch quest littered around it, and design elements that limit traversal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Braindawg

L.A Noire had a HUGE Los Angeles map... That was EMPTY and BORING. Driving from one end to another did NOTHING for me.

 

Enjoy walking an empty desert in AC. Those "lifelike" NPC animations and behaviors are cool for about an hour. Then it gets old and you don't care anymore.

AC is done for me honestly. The map might be bigger, but just like Just Cause, it's filled wit copy-pasted assets, and is probably too big and boring.

 

I'll stay within the cluttered and satisfying scale of RDR2.

Edited by Braindawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IG_

Not super familiar with AC:Origin's map, but what you do with the map is as important as its size.

Just Cause 2 and Just Cause 3 had large maps, but the maps got boring pretty quick. All the towns were just copy pasted from each other.

Rockstar doesn't go for ridiculously large maps, they go for pretty large maps that are still fulfilling to explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Original Light

L.A Noire had a HUGE Los Angeles map... That was EMPTY and BORING. Driving from one end to another did NOTHING for me.

 

Enjoy walking an empty desert in AC. Those "lifelike" NPC animations and behaviors are cool for about an hour. Then it gets old and you don't care anymore.

AC is done for me honestly. The map might be bigger, but just like Just Cause, it's filled wit copy-pasted assets, and is probably too big and boring.

 

I'll stay within the cluttered and satisfying scale of RDR2.

 

Have you even played AC Origins? It really is quite the opposite of what you described. I wouldn't judge it if I were you until I played it.

 

That being said, AC Origins does set the bar higher than most open world games in sheer size and detail. Maybe not at The Witcher 3 levels, but the map itself comes very close in scope, detail and things to do.

Edited by Original Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Maps need to tailored to the game they're made for - there's no optimal configuration of density, size, variety, and novelty that'll work for all games. They're limited by how much work can go into the map so it's a balancing act between the overall characteristics of a map.

 

As others have pointed out, OP here is focusing purely on overall map size as an indicator for technical quality - which is obviously inaccurate since we've had stupidly massive worlds for yonks now (Daggerfall anyone?). What matters more is making sure the shoe fits - some games benefit from massive expansive maps (flight simulators, for example) whereas something like RDR or GTA's gameplay loop is centred a lot more around exploring a dense detailed map, and different again Just Cause is about whizzing around the map and completing a checklist of objectives as you go - but even if they did go for GTA-level detail it wouldn't even fit the game.

 

What's needed in the OP is a reason as to why RDR2 needs a massive map and why the map sizes of previous Rockstar games weren't good enough; the fact that they "can" make a bigger map doesn't mean they should, and again the OP is mislead in thinking that larger map sizes are because of technical upgrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darrel

All AC maps are utter sh*te and get boring within the first half hour. This one is obviously the same.

 

No contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dick Justice

I went through the Witcher 3 recently and you can't deny both the size and beauty of the game-world. It's tailor crafted for the gameplay experience; riding between towns and taking on contracts and jobs while searching for your surrogate daughter. The open-world serves it's purpose in the sense that the scale gives a reality to the world that serves the gameplay. I haven't played AC: O but I assume it works similarly.

 

But I think you are ignoring the fundamental difference between the open-world of Ubisoft (or CDPR) and the sandbox of Rockstar. In Rockstar's worlds they give you the tools to go and make your own fun. In Red Dead you can; rob banks, tie people to train tracks, hunt animals and shoot anybody outside of the context of the narrative. That's a sandbox videogame. Compared to Assassin's Creed where you'll be kicked out of the Animus for killing someone or playing outside of the way the game is meant to be played.

 

In that sense, the size of the game world in Red Dead Redemption II absolutely does not matter. What matters is the content (or the tools) that Rockstar gives the players to go out and make their own fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Braindawg

Have you even played AC Origins? It really is quite the opposite of what you described. I wouldn't judge it if I were you until I played it.

 

That being said, AC Origins does set the bar higher than most open world games in sheer size and detail. Maybe not at The Witcher 3 levels, but the map itself comes very close in scope, detail and things to do.

 

No it doesn't. And your baseless "If you haven't played it, don't judge" statement is the most cliche` answer ever.

I don't need to play a game to determine whether it's boring to me or not. I've seen enough gameplay to tell that it's the same horsesh*t they release every time.

 

A huge map doesn't set the bar any higher than before. the JC series suck ASS and their maps are too big. Way too big.

I still enjoy Portal 2 puzzles way more than the redundant fight/steal/stab or follow the suspect AC has to offer. "Set the bar higher than most open world games" LMAO

 

Can't wait for you to boast about the memorable places, characters and parts of the story... Don't worry, I'll wait.

Edited by Braindawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kBlaise

I cannot imagine a universe in which a Ubisoft open world is more impressive than a Rockstar one. No matter how amazing Ubi's artists and designers are. It simply cannot happen.

Edited by kBlaise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Original Light

 

Have you even played AC Origins? It really is quite the opposite of what you described. I wouldn't judge it if I were you until I played it.

 

That being said, AC Origins does set the bar higher than most open world games in sheer size and detail. Maybe not at The Witcher 3 levels, but the map itself comes very close in scope, detail and things to do.

 

No it doesn't. And your baseless "If you haven't played it, don't judge" statement is the most cliche` answer ever.

I don't need to play a game to determine whether it's boring to me or not. I've seen enough gameplay to tell that it's the same horsesh*t they release every time.

 

A huge map doesn't set the bar any higher than before. the JC series suck ASS and their maps are too big. Way too big.

I still enjoy Portal 2 puzzles way more than the redundant fight/steal/stab or follow the suspect AC has to offer. "Set the bar higher than most open world games" LMAO

 

Can't wait for you to boast about the memorable places, characters and parts of the story... Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

 

For one, I never said it was the best game ever made. It's not a perfect game, but it's a respectable AAA game. My opinion is my opinion, that's all I'm saying. I've found the map to be gorgeous and detailed, and yes, I think it does exceed many new open world games in scope and detail -- I can confidently say that, but then again, that's just my opinion. I play a lot of open world games, so I have a good idea what the "average" game is and what the "above average" game is.

 

I just wanted to defend the game, but I don't think your worth the effort since you obviously already have your mind set. The story and the characters, it's meh. Average. The main draw here is the map. I would buy it if I were you if it's ever on sale, it's worth $30.

 

In regards to RDR2, I hope the map itself will be similar in size and detail. If the rumors are true (in that it's only 1.5x the size of the original), I'd be disappointed but not completely reluctant to buy it either. As a gaming community it's only fair for us to expect more from developers.

Edited by Original Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DGSimo

I cannot imagine a universe in which a Ubisoft open world is more impressive than a Rockstar one. No matter how amazing Ubi's artists and designers are. It simply cannot happen.

It did. And not just Ubisoft but Guerilla, CD Projekt Red and Nintendo did the job.

 

Like Jason said, Rockstar sleeping these last 4 years has seen other devs push the technology and open world genre to meet and exceed Rockstar's efforts. RDR2 needs to be GTA3 revolutionary to really make a difference and hopefully just not be a reskinned RDR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Braindawg

For one, I never said it was the best game ever made. It's not a perfect game, but it's a respectable AAA game. My opinion is my opinion, that's all I'm saying. I've found the map to be gorgeous and detailed, and yes, I think it does exceed many new open world games in scope and detail -- I can confidently say that, but then again, that's just my opinion. I play a lot of open world games, so I have a good idea what the "average" game is and what the "above average" game is.

 

I just wanted to defend the game, but I don't think your worth the effort since you obviously already have your mind set. The story and the characters, it's meh. Average. The main draw here is the map. I would buy it if I were you if it's ever on sale, it's worth $30.

 

In regards to RDR2, I hope the map itself will be similar in size and detail. If the rumors are true (in that it's only 1.5x the size of the original), I'd be disappointed but not completely reluctant to buy it either. As a gaming community it's only fair for us to expect more from developers.

 

wouldn't call anything that needs a vital "day one patch" a respectable AAA game. I'm not talking about a vital fix to make the game run. I'm talking about the unfinished garbage ubisoft releases every time, promising improvements, oinly to disappoint everyone. The only factor you keep going back to while defending AC is the size and detail of the map. So it's AC with the map size of JC. Great.

 

In my opinion RDR2's leaked map is real. And I remember how much time it took on horseback from one place to another in the first game. It wasn't too long, but it had respectable distances from location to location if you follow trails and roads. I'm not worried about it at all. It might be significantly smaller than AC:O's but I hope it will be 10 times more interesting.

Edited by Braindawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YouAreWrong

I think people should at times take off their rose-tilted glasses and look reality in the face.Rockstar have been for a long time,pioneers in Open-World games,until V came out.V introduced nothing to the series(and I do recognise that V is techincally still a huge succes and as a game is a masterpiece).

 

Origins'map is trully biger and better than anything R* came up with.And don't take that as a jab at R*.It's a straight up fact that Origins is a better map than V,IV,SA,VC.

 

Let's compare Origin's map vs V's map.

 

Level of details--Origins wins and by a long shot.It has the most impressive animal wildlife out there.All the locations are big and look to what I've seen and imagined old Egypt looked like.A lot of scrpited NPC doing different stuff,and some of them were really fascinating(I saw greeks fighting over something,with greek wreslting-like way of fighting).The whole map is filled with secret caves,tunnels and tombs to find and explore(something V completely lacked).At a glance of a YT video,you could think the map offers nothing,but you can only state that when you did not even try the game.Besides that,they copied Witcher's way of telling a story in sidequests,and it worked.AC Origins is filled with quests to do,which are not really that bad.

 

Graphics-Comparing them on PS4,I can easily say Origins is better looking.It's a more vibrant world with more colors and just looks more attractive.V looks cartoonish for some reason,the color pallete is way too bright,makes people look like they're made out of ruble or something.

 

Conent-Not even a chance.V is boring.SP i mean.Has barely anything to offer,unlike Origins,which could easily take 100 hours of your life to complete.Most of the collectibles were enjoyable to find,and comleting sidequests gave me reason to continue playing.

 

 

This is IMHO of course,and I'm not saying that Ubi is better than R*.

I'm just implying that R* are no longer the Kings of Open-World games.They are not revolutionary anymore.Other comapnies do things better than they do(AC offers a bettter map,Sleeping dogs offered the best combat any other Open=world game would,Watch Dogs offered you a different type of gameplay and so on).

 

While I still consider them the best open-world game makers out therethey trully have to knock it out of the park this time to keep that place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PapasHota

RDR is still the best map ever created in a open world, any little game you mention wont stand a chance against it

Edited by PapasHota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

It did. And not just Ubisoft but Guerilla, CD Projekt Red and Nintendo did the job.

Like Jason said, Rockstar sleeping these last 4 years has seen other devs push the technology and open world genre to meet and exceed Rockstar's efforts. RDR2 needs to be GTA3 revolutionary to really make a difference and hopefully just not be a reskinned RDR.

 

Yep. I realise the threads about AC:O but the topics veered towards open worlds in general and while I'd say that no developer has yet to match Rockstar's city building (particularly realistic modern day cities), if we're talking just well made open worlds we're going through a golden period of them. Horizon's is madly beautiful, packed with life and things do and find. Witcher 3 absolutely nails a fantasy RPG world from top to bottom and has set a bar so high it's probably why Bethesda is taking their sweet time with the next Elder Scrolls, and Nintendo knocked it out the park with Zelda.

 

Who knows, RDR2 will probably be the next in line for great open worlds but the reality of the situation is that because of their long drought, they're the ones who have to match what others are doing now. If the team making RDR2 is even half as talented as the one who made RDR we can probably expect something special but until we have the game in our hands we're living in a world of ifs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTAFanClub

I think people should at times take off their rose-tilted glasses and look reality in the face.Rockstar have been for a long time,pioneers in Open-World games,until V came out.V introduced nothing to the series(and I do recognise that V is techincally still a huge succes and as a game is a masterpiece).

 

Origins'map is trully biger and better than anything R* came up with.And don't take that as a jab at R*.It's a straight up fact that Origins is a better map than V,IV,SA,VC.

 

Let's compare Origin's map vs V's map.

 

Level of details--Origins wins and by a long shot.It has the most impressive animal wildlife out there.All the locations are big and look to what I've seen and imagined old Egypt looked like.A lot of scrpited NPC doing different stuff,and some of them were really fascinating(I saw greeks fighting over something,with greek wreslting-like way of fighting).The whole map is filled with secret caves,tunnels and tombs to find and explore(something V completely lacked).At a glance of a YT video,you could think the map offers nothing,but you can only state that when you did not even try the game.Besides that,they copied Witcher's way of telling a story in sidequests,and it worked.AC Origins is filled with quests to do,which are not really that bad.

 

Graphics-Comparing them on PS4,I can easily say Origins is better looking.It's a more vibrant world with more colors and just looks more attractive.V looks cartoonish for some reason,the color pallete is way too bright,makes people look like they're made out of ruble or something.

 

Conent-Not even a chance.V is boring.SP i mean.Has barely anything to offer,unlike Origins,which could easily take 100 hours of your life to complete.Most of the collectibles were enjoyable to find,and comleting sidequests gave me reason to continue playing.

 

 

This is IMHO of course,and I'm not saying that Ubi is better than R*.

I'm just implying that R* are no longer the Kings of Open-World games.They are not revolutionary anymore.Other comapnies do things better than they do(AC offers a bettter map,Sleeping dogs offered the best combat any other Open=world game would,Watch Dogs offered you a different type of gameplay and so on).

 

While I still consider them the best open-world game makers out therethey trully have to knock it out of the park this time to keep that place.

 

You're comparing a last gen game to a current gen game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YouAreWrong

I understand,just wanted to tell that people at times get overly-protective of any R* games just because they are R* games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gray-Hand

GTAV was made for the PS3 and the XBox360.

AC Origins was made for the PS4 and the XBone.

 

Of course AC Origins has a more impressive map.

 

We haven't seen what Rockstar can do on the current generation of consoles yet. But judging by their record over the last decade and a half, it's probably a pretty safe bet that RDR2 will set the new standard in open world gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.