Ghost of Tsushima Catch All

ClockworkHouse wrote:

In summary:

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Video games are too long.

Not for everyone.

Personally, thought it was the perfect length.

BlackSabre wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

In summary:

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Video games are too long.

Not for everyone.

Personally, thought it was the perfect length.

I think the bigger problem is that games have a hard time communicating their length. Ending the game at Act 1, is like watching just the first season of a TV show - it can be quite enjoyable and satisfactory. Overall, I think Ghost of Tsushima does a pretty good job at letting you know how far along you are.

I stopped playing this.

I wanted to enjoy it. It is stunningly beautiful.

But it is way, WAY too paint-by-numbers. Go to a place, stab some dudes, come back to the original hut and talk to the original person. Get some points. Go to next hut, find out I have to track some dudes, then kill them, and repeat.

How long the game takes also depends on completionism. Honestly it's built so you can do nothing but the main story quests if you want, and while it'll be a challenge it'll also probably only take 20 hours maximum, and that's being generous. My ideal replay would be to do all the side quests and main quests and ignore the optional pick-ups like crickets or having to do all the different Mongol encampments.

Like all open-world games, that stuff is there to provide gameplay, but if Ghost of Tsushima is stronger than most AAA Western open-world games it's in how much they allow you to chase that stuff or not. In the wake of Assassin's Creed: Give Us Money For Progress, that's pretty darn nice. I'd rather a game be more like Spider-Man where it's just the 30 hours to 100%, but there's also a trade-off because at least Ghost of Tsushima doesn't drop snipers left and right by the third act and make a chore out of exploration.

Spoiler:

Sort of. The Mongol patrols did become more numerous and that was frustrating, but it was easy enough to go around or run away.

So if the game feels like "too much", well... stop doing everything and stick to the story. The only reason to check off every bullet point of completion is to chase the trophies or because you're used to trying to 100% a game. Just don't. Play what you enjoy and leave the rest behind.

ccesarano wrote:

Play what you enjoy and leave the rest behind.

Exactly what I'm doing.

ccesarano wrote:

Play what you enjoy and leave the rest behind.

I agree with the sentiment. But I think the fundamental problem with the game is its repetitiveness. Or - to be more precise - the fact that the game dos nothing to disguise its repetitiveness.

The strength of the best open world games is there ability to deceive the player into thinking that they're not doing the same three missions over and over again.

The only other Sucker Punch game that I've played - Infamous - had exactly the same problem. And, to be fair, most open world games fail in this regard. Far Cry. Ghost Recon. Assassins Creed.

In fact, you could argue that Ubisoft takes a perverse pleasure in announcing - through its game maps - just how repetitive is games are.

detroit20 wrote:

The World is largely empty and uninteresting, and therefore not enjoyable to traverse. Foxes. Wild boar. Bears. Yellow birds. That's it. There's nothing 'non-functional' here. If you encounter an NPC on your travels, then its a Mongol patrol or a bunch of bandits. If you encounter wildlife, then its been spawned because the developers feel that you have reached a point where more resources would be handy.

This is exactly why I'm loving this game so much. I enjoy the sparseness of the world, it gives me an opportunity to walk around and enjoy the beauty of it all. I'm still in Act 1 but there's a lot of variety in scenery and color palettes as you traverse the map and I really enjoy just walking around and seeing it all... it's gorgeous. Every turn I'm blown away by the beauty of the game. I've almost never rode my horse outside of quests where I'm required to because I just love seeing the world and I find running around to just be a lot of fun.

Had the game been packed with "stuff" in the world I don't think I'd be able to just enjoy the scenery. That's actually something that I found a turnoff for me in games like Assassin's Creed or The Witcher. I think I prefer the smallness of the general scope of the game design... it works for me. I only play a handful of hours each week though, so I think having such a small scope makes it easy for me to pick up and continue where I left off.

It's the same reason I enjoyed Horizon: Zero Dawn so much; it was similarly focused in its general game design. I do think the side quests were generally more engaging in Horizon but the two seem to share a lot of DNA to me. Yeah, there's a lot of random collectibles in the game but I just grab those if I happen to see them along the way, and yes I'm always compelled to follow a golden bird. But I certainly don't see myself trying to collect everything or clear the entirety of the map. I fire up the game, pick a marker on the map and go do said activity. There's few enough markers on the map that this feels accomplishable to me.

I don't think I could name an open-world game that succeeds in disguising that repetitiveness, however. Even Breath of the Wild, which I always hold up on a pedestal, is repetitive. Horizon: Zero Dawn most certainly was repetitive.

However, I think I might get what you mean. Breath of the Wild's greatest advantage is that the graphics are stylized instead of realistic. It's fine going into a bland looking Shrine with minimalistic design because that very minimalism allows the developers more freedom to experiment with it as a play space. You're effectively walking around a gray box environment that hasn't had to be meticulously detailed by the artists to look like a real living space. In such a location, who cares that you have a ball-rolling contraption that you gotta re-jigger to drop on this platform to launch link through the air? No need to make the place look plausible or lived in.

On the other hand, Horizon: Zero Dawn has a wide variety of mechanical beasts that each have a different type of A.I., different weaknesses, different elemental vulnerabilities, so on and so forth. So even if you don't have as many secret underground monster factories as Breath of the Wild has shrines, you have a lot of surface world encounters that feel more dynamic.

In Ghost of Tsushima, a stand-off is a stand-off and it is always a stand-off. An encampment is an encampment and by the third act you'll still be crawling through holes in fences and sneaking through tall grass only to slip through a tent flap and stab a guy in his sleep. What there is at the beginning, there is at the end, with the only change being things like poison arrows and flaming swords and how many guys you can kill in a single stand-off.

The comparison to Ubisoft is a good one, because for me, Sucker Punch has always done what Ubisoft does, but better. However, do they happen to do what other companies do, but better? That's going to depend, but with Ghost of Tsushima, arguably their biggest game, I think it is only wholly better than its Ubisoft competition. Navigating the world, as noted, is not particularly interesting. The world is gorgeous to look at, and there's a lot of landmarks and locations that just beg for the game's photo mode.

If there's any place that I think I felt a sense of variety and joy more than others, it was the different shrines that you had to navigate through platforming. Even then, it's not like I haven't been doing that stuff in the Tomb Raider games or other competitors.

I think this is why I feel like this game sits at a solid "8" for me. It does a lot of things well, I think it is greater than the sum of its parts, but being a good interpretation of Ubisoft's formula is still Ubisoft's formula and there's only so much you can do with that.

I finished yesterday and I found it was just starting to push my patience so I am glad it ended. I didn't feel like they added much in the 3rd act. Just more of the same which was starting to wear out for me.

I think this is still my top contender for GOTY but Cyberpunk hasn't come out yet so I am not calling the race yet.

I wanted to have a more informed opinion about some of the comparisons made in this thread, so I played a couple hours of Red Dead Redemption 2 via Game Pass. If the accusation is that Suckerpunch tried to rewind the clock to a time before Red Dead Redemption 2 existed, then I cannot blame them for doing so, and I'll endeavor to do the same myself. Woof.

Perhaps "Open World" is simply not the genre for you?

I've enjoyed a number of open world games, including this one. However, after two hours in Red Dead, if there was an open world or anything even remotely like open world gameplay, I never managed to make it there. I spent those two hours as an actor in a cowboy movie hitting my marks and saying my lines. It's not even a good cowboy movie.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I've enjoyed a number of open world games, including this one. However, after two hours in Red Dead, if there was an open world or anything even remotely like open world gameplay, I never managed to make it there. I spent those two hours as an actor in a cowboy movie hitting my marks and saying my lines. It's not even a good cowboy movie.

RDR2 is so bad for caring for the players time. I think the intro is like 4+ hours. I still need to finish the game.

Yeah, the tutorial / opening sequence is very long. It opens up quite a bit after that though and gives you some pretty cool ways to play and things to do.

But it is always fairly slow-paced.

I would so love to finish RDR2. I love the setting, I love the graphics. I can't handle the controls. It was just horrid. If there was an option setting for "make usable" I would be all over that game.

farley3k wrote:

I would so love to finish RDR2. I love the setting, I love the graphics. I can't handle the controls. It was just horrid. If there was an option setting for "make usable" I would be all over that game.

As a RDR1 fan I adored the ending. The controls worked for me. I enjoyed the enforced slower pace. They did feel a touch clunky when selecting stuff but no more so than they’ve always been in GTA. I do wonder if they’ll have another pass at the controls when they do the inevitable next gen release. If so, and if it makes all the difference for you, I’d recommend playing through to the end. And when I say the end I mean ‘the end end’ not just the end.

farley3k wrote:

I would so love to finish RDR2. I love the setting, I love the graphics. I can't handle the controls. It was just horrid. If there was an option setting for "make usable" I would be all over that game.

I found it very frustrating that after having played for what seemed to me to be a reasonable amount of time, and having done a few sections that seemed designed as tutorials, I was still really unclear about how to do certain basic things. To bring this back to the topic at hand: Ghost of Tsushima might not be the most innovative game out there (psst: Kurosawa Mode) but I've never felt like I didn't know how to physically do something I wanted to do.

Higgledy wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I would so love to finish RDR2. I love the setting, I love the graphics. I can't handle the controls. It was just horrid. If there was an option setting for "make usable" I would be all over that game.

As a RDR1 fan I adored the ending. The controls worked for me. I enjoyed the enforced slower pace. They did feel a touch clunky when selecting stuff but no more so than they’ve always been in GTA. I do wonder if they’ll have another pass at the controls when they do the inevitable next gen release. If so, and if it makes all the difference for you, I’d recommend playing through to the end. And when I say the end I mean ‘the end end’ not just the end.

For controls, RDR2 and Ghosts had a similar issue of using context specific buttons that could suddenly change causing the player to perform unintended actions. They're not the only ones, but I hate this so much. I was really pleased when Days Gone had this fixed in a patch.

farley3k wrote:

I love the setting, I love the graphics. I can't handle the controls. It was just horrid. If there was an option setting for "make usable" I would be all over that game.

This is me with Nioh.

After getting the platinum in Ghost of Tsushima I was itching for more sword-clashing and ninja/samurai-ing. I dropped off of Nioh when it first came out because I thought it felt absolutely terrible to play, but at that point I had been playing a lot of From games, so I thought maybe it'd feel better going back to it after playing Ghost of Tsushima.

Nope! Didn't even make it anywhere near as far as I did the first time. I'll say it again. Nioh plays like trash! Floaty, unsatisfying, weightless controls tied to an absurdly over-complicated moveset and loot system. Terrible.

So I'm playing Sekiro again instead.

Ghosts does have a problem with too many things being R2. I wonder why they use contextual button presses (R2 when you are near this but if you face slightly left it does something else) Just to many things to do so they run out of buttons?

farley3k wrote:

Ghosts does have a problem with too many things being R2. I wonder why they use contextual button presses (R2 when you are near this but if you face slightly left it does something else) Just to many things to do so they run out of buttons?

Yes, this is perplexing ... particularly in light of the fact that they assigned a light attack to square button when the game gives you zero incentive to use it.

I've opened four stances and none of them make use of the light attack at all. I wonder whether they had initially planned a more complex combo system, and then thought better of it.

I stopped using the light attack after about an hour because it was so ineffectual.

I think one of my frustrations with the game is that the combat is so simplistic. I'm about halfway through Act 2 and i feel pretty overpowered. Unless the numbers of enemies are ludicrous (and in some of the Mongol territories they are), then combat is pretty trivial... which is a problem when combat is the only activity in the game.

The light-attack does change between each stance, but it's not very noticeable. If you swap between "Big Boy" stance and "Swords" stance, the latter will strike faster. But it's subtle and enemies don't really respond differently to these attacks.

The stance is all about the triangle-attack, which some are far more useful than others. The triangle-attack for Big Boys can interrupt their own wind-up attacks, which is very useful for cutting them down and getting them out of the fight early. I found the Spear stance triangle-attack to be one of the most pointless, as it's only really worth doing when they're open already. Once you gain the ability to block/counter their thrusts, it's nearly worthless.

Basically, the intent isn't a combo system, but to use the triangle attack to open the enemy up, then assault them with quick light-attack strikes.

Of course, I only fought like this when there were fewer enemies to worry about. More enemies? Ghost weapons. Everywhere. All over the place. Allowed for quickly wiping out a bunch of targets.

Best way to describe the combat is a wide pool. None of its tools or attacks provide depth, but there's a lot of options available to you. But if you don't make use of everything available then you're going to feel how shallow each of those individual items are.

detroit20 wrote:

I think one of my frustrations with the game is that the combat is so simplistic. I'm about halfway through Act 2 and i feel pretty overpowered. Unless the numbers of enemies are ludicrous (and in some of the Mongol territories they are), then combat is pretty trivial... which is a problem when combat is the only activity in the game.

I would highly recommend cranking the difficulty up. This was a rare game (almost DOOM-esq) that benefits massively from pushing your limits with difficulty. And they add to that difficulty nicely, it’s not just that everyone has 50% more health, playing on lethal you do more damage and the enemies do significantly more damage. Two hits and you’re done from a trash mob and one big swing from a heavy and you’re reloading. Forcing myself to really engage with all the systems was a truly beautiful change.

The problem for me is that there is no incentive for using the quick attack button. Mashing the triangle button is effective enough.

What I'm reminded of when I play is the early Assassins Creed games where using the counter-attack was basically the win button. You could fight another way, but there was no reason to actually do it.

Edited to respond to staygold: Yes, I could increase the difficulty, but I'm not sure that this would change the fundamental problem with combat. It would just make the combat encounters longer, but no more enjoyable. In a game that is this combat-heavy, the combat should shine at any difficulty level. But particularly on Normal.

It shouldn't require the old tricks of massively increasing enemies hit points and damage output (which - as I've written in another thread - feel like lazy ways of making the game seem more difficult). In fact, all that has happened is that enemies take longer to dies, and i die more quickly.

What's strange is the fact that - superficially - Ghost of Tsushima's combat is not dissimilar to the Souls games. And yet the implementation, even in the first game Demons Souls, feels like it has more depth and feels much more satisfying.

And there is only one difficulty level in a Souls game.

I think the fact that Sucker Punch rushed out an extra difficulty level so quickly suggests that they recognise that their combat model isn't where it should be.

On higher difficulty if you tried to play with nothing but slower attacks I think you'd get wrecked extremely quickly.

edited to respond to the above edit: Pretty sure the increased difficulty decreases the parry window, and causes the enemies to attack more frequently and leave fewer openings. Which is why I said you wouldn't be able to get away with only using slow attacks.

Also I find it's never helpful to compare any game to From games. They have absolutely mastered the feeling of weapon weight and movement.

ccesarano wrote:

Best way to describe the combat is a wide pool. None of its tools or attacks provide depth, but there's a lot of options available to you.

That's a good summary of it. What I think makes Ghost of Tsushima distinct from many other, similar games is that everything in that wide pool is equally effective.

Looking at other games like Spider-Man or Shadow of Mordor or the Arkham series, there was a conscious effort made to stymie the player's comfort with any particular tactic. Every ability you have will eventually have an enemy that requires it or is immune to it. You'll eventually be forced to use most of your abilities situationally, and much of those games' challenge comes from juggling the various enemy types in situations where they're all blended together.

At its best, that kind of design can create dynamic combat situations where you're fluently changing your approach from opponent to opponent. It can create a marvelous sense of flow and mastery. At its worst, however, you can be continually forced to utilize mechanics you don't have fluency with or simply don't enjoy in order to progress. In my mind, the nadir of that design sensibility is Shadow of Mordor forcing you to master caragor riding in order to defeat the enemies who are immune to all other forms of attack. I f*cking hated the caragor mechanics.

Ghost of Tsushima takes a different approach by making most tactics equally viable for all enemies. I haven't encountered any enemies yet who are straight-up immune to any kind of attack. There aren't super-fast ninjas who you can't hit with bows; you don't need to stun big brute guys before you can damage them; there aren't enemies that you can only parry; everyone but Mongol leaders will die to a single assassination attack.

You can find what works for you and settle into that groove. You'll either be content because you're getting a lot of what you enjoy most without having to use mechanics you don't like, or you'll be bored and feel like the whole system is shallow and most of the upgrade tree is pointless.

staygold wrote:
detroit20 wrote:

I think one of my frustrations with the game is that the combat is so simplistic. I'm about halfway through Act 2 and i feel pretty overpowered. Unless the numbers of enemies are ludicrous (and in some of the Mongol territories they are), then combat is pretty trivial... which is a problem when combat is the only activity in the game.

I would highly recommend cranking the difficulty up. This was a rare game (almost DOOM-esq) that benefits massively from pushing your limits with difficulty. And they add to that difficulty nicely, it’s not just that everyone has 50% more health, playing on lethal you do more damage and the enemies do significantly more damage. Two hits and you’re done from a trash mob and one big swing from a heavy and you’re reloading. Forcing myself to really engage with all the systems was a truly beautiful change.

There was some conversation while I posted the above. I agree with you that you'd likely get a much more varied combat experience in this game by increasing the difficulty.

detroit20 wrote:

It shouldn't require the old tricks of massively increasing enemies hit points and damage output (which - as I've written in another thread - feel like lazy ways of making the game seem more difficult). In fact, all that has happened is that enemies take longer to dies, and i die more quickly.

That isn't how this game handles increased difficulty. The game massively increases damage from enemies, yes, but it also increases damage from you and doesn't increase anyone's hit points. If you want a more From-style combat system where your enemy leaves themselves open and you gut them in one hit, that's what the higher difficulties in Tsushima give you.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

In my mind, the nadir of that design sensibility is Shadow of Mordor forcing you to master caragor riding in order to defeat the enemies who are immune to all other forms of attack. I f*cking hated the caragor mechanics.

Coincidentally, I believe I gave up on that game once I was forced to try and learn how to pull that off and kept on dying.

ccesarano wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

In my mind, the nadir of that design sensibility is Shadow of Mordor forcing you to master caragor riding in order to defeat the enemies who are immune to all other forms of attack. I f*cking hated the caragor mechanics.

Coincidentally, I believe I gave up on that game once I was forced to try and learn how to pull that off and kept on dying.

That's exactly the point at which I gave up on Shadow of Mordor, as well. I loved it up until then, but I managed to get an entire Nemesis board that was immune to stealth attacks and combat finishers and only vulnerable to caragors. f*ck that.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I haven't encountered any enemies yet who are straight-up immune to any kind of attack. There aren't super-fast ninjas who you can't hit with bows; you don't need to stun big brute guys before you can damage them; there aren't enemies that you can only parry; everyone but Mongol leaders will die to a single assassination attack.

You didn’t play beyond Act 1, right? Because there are definitely enemies that are near immune to certain attacks or dodge almost 100% of the time.

I played it on Hard and found everything flowed together well. Had to remember to use my ghost skills since, by the mid-game, I could defeat almost every foe in combat.