Ghosts of Tsushima Review thread

[BrawlMan]

I am almost done with act 1. I got two more main missions to do, but I've been really exploring and doing side missions or objectives. The combat is good but I do wish that they had a lock on for it. Well I can get used to it, it does not make it any less annoying. I do like the stance system, even though it boils down to a similar system of use X stance to defeat X enemy. Similar to ninja theory's DmC stance system or God of War 4. Okay, with God of War 4, it was more so weapons, but it still followed the use ice/blue weapon against red/flame enemy. Or use flame/red weapon against ice/blue enemy. Except with the DmC, it was use blue weapon to kill blue enemy, etc. I also don't like how stances are locked behind progressing of killing a certain amount of Mongolian leaders. All stances should have been unlocked from the start, but obviously you should get more attacks or moves as you upgrade. I get why they did this, but they should not have done it that way. Overall, I am having fun and I can't wait to play more after I get off from work.

 

[happyninja42]

Arthur is one of the richest characters in videogame history. He really didn't have much of a choice in the way his life turned out but you see how he struggled as he was still an essentially good man. The layering in his character was pristine.

None of which has any impact on whether or not I actually empathize with him. My issue with RDR2's protagonist group, is they opine at great length, about the freedom of the human spirit, and living free, and being a free man, not subjugated to anyone's laws, because freedom! And yet all they do is predate on the very society they turn their noses up at. They don't actually subsist on their own, they rob, and kill, and lie, and cheat, everyone around them. And I frankly don't give a shit how nuanced his character is, I don't care about a character like that. You aren't winning me over to the "tragic plight" of the world you live in, when I don't see any actual remorse in your behavior at all. Even when I'm trying to play as a White Hat in that game, he's still a terrible person. Sure, maybe he's not as terrible of a person when compared to others in his group, but NONE of them are good people. So I, as a player, personally have zero interest in actually engaging in his story. Because I lost count of how many times I rolled my eyes at their preachy bullshit, before i stopped playing the game. I just didn't care, so I didn't care to explore, or play it.

YMMV, but for me, it wasn't a story I wanted to engage in. Maybe "it gets better 20+ hours into the story", but it didn't hook me in the first several hours of story before I uninstalled and played something else. By the 2/3 into Act 1 point, I had zero interest in any of the people in Arthur's camp, and really didn't care if they thrived. Other than the majority of the women presented, who seemed to be relatively normal.

The deal breaker for me was when:

You break Michael out of jail, and proceed to MURDER THE ENTIRE TOWN because he's just a homicidal asshole. And Arthur just..goes along with it. He makes a few comments about Michael being insane, but he's right there with him, murdering innocent people. Do I get the option to refuse to help him? Nope. And then when it's done, do I get the option to just fucking KILL Michael because he's clearly insane, and a loose canon, and will do nothing but bring negative consequences down on all of us? Nope, can't shoot him.....I tried, the game prohibits it. And then...he talks about it to the boss guy (forget his name), and it's just like "Hahah, yeah, well, that's Michael you know? What can you do? Family is family!" And it's just ignored after that. And I'm like "Um, fuck you no, that is NOT the right response to this. If that is your family, you have a fucked up family, and you should kill that person, or remove them from your group permanently. You don't just, "Well Michael has his rough spots." But of course they don't do that, because, aside from the prostitutes(who I think are probably the most moral members of the gang), everyone of them are some flavor of killer and thief, just like Michael.

 

[happyninja42]

I am almost done with act 1. I got two more main missions to do, but I've been really exploring and doing side missions or objectives. The combat is good but I do wish that they had a lock on for it. Well I can get used to it, it does not make it any less annoying. I do like the stance system, even though it boils down to a similar system of use X stance to defeat X enemy. Similar to ninja theory's DmC stance system or God of War 4. Okay, what God of War 4, it was more so weapons, but it still followed the use ice/blue weapon against red/flame enemy. Or use flame/red weapon against ice/blue enemy. Except with the MCS, it was you blue weather the feed blue, etc. I also don't like how stances are locked behind progressing of killing a certain amount of Mongolian leaders. All stances should have been unlocked from the start, but obviously you get more attacks or moves as you upgrade. I get why they did this, but they should not have done it that way. Overall, I am having fun and I can't wait to play more after I get off from work.

Yeah the stances was a bit weird, how they unlocked. A tip to make that quicker, is if you make a point to "observe" the mongol leaders BEFORE you kill them, you get double points toward unlocking a new stance. So be sneaky, go watch him do weapons traning, and then kill him.

The lack of a lockon can be annoying, but given my recent hassles with terrible lockon systems in other games, I'm mostly ok with a melee oriented game not using it. If the alternative was a poorly implemented lockon, I'd rather not have on at all.

 

[BrawlMan]

Yeah the stances was a bit weird, how they unlocked. A tip to make that quicker, is if you make a point to "observe" the mongol leaders BEFORE you kill them, you get double points toward unlocking a new stance. So be sneaky, go watch him do weapons traning, and then kill him.

I'll remember that, thank you.

recent hassles with terrible lockon systems in other games, I'm mostly ok with a melee oriented game not using it. If the alternative was a poorly implemented lockon, I'd rather not have on at all.

For me at least, most of the time, when it comes to melee action games, I can usually find an exploit or work around the bad lock on. Mad World, DmC DE, and Onechanabra Z2 Chaos. Surprisingly, Anarchy Reigns has a better lock on than the three I just mentioned. It's weird, because Ghost of Tsushima is a better Assassin's Creed game than all of them, yet they have a lock on too. Even the Souls style games have a lock on.

 

[happyninja42]

For me,at least most of the time, when it comes to melee action games, I can usually find an exploit or work around the bad lock on. Mad World, DmC DE, and Onechanabra Z2 Chaos. Surprisingly, Anarchy Reigns has a better lock on than the three I just mentioned. It's weird, because Ghost of Tsushima is a better Assassin's Creed game than all of them, yet they have a lock on too. Even the Souls style games have a lock on.

I've just had too many bad issues with the game flicking to the totally wrong target when I try and switch, and it becomes a mini-game in itself, to figure out what input it wants to actually let me hit the person who is about to kill me. Sadly, the time it takes to figure that out, ends up with me being killed. So I have a bad feeling about lockon based on how it's often implemented.

Usually GOT is pretty good about just figuring it out when you point in the right directly, though sometimes you end up doing an epic katana slash....right past the guy.

Later though, you get access to some special attacks that.....well let's say autolock is basically built in, and they are badass.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Interesting, as I feel the opposite. I had almost zero incentive to explore in RDR2, but really like exploring in GoT. I think it's me not having any empathy or connection to Arthur in RDR2, but really enjoying Jin Sakai.

For me, the answer to "where is the incentive to explore?" is "because the people are living in an occupied country, and it's my duty to protect them as a samurai. Like it's literally my purpose in our societal structure (as presented in the game at least), to be the protector of the people of my kingdom. " So going out and saving them felt very appropriate.

In RDR2, it was just....a criminal asshole wandering around and getting his nose into things

I haven’t played GoT yet so can’t accurately compare anything, but to me not even The Witcher 3 feels as interesting as RDR2 in terms of raw exploration and the element of surprise. This is because the way the former game presents its map is a counterpoint to the element of surprise and a natural sense of discovery. Everything is laid out by default as an icon on a map to chase, and outside of new gear or crafting materials (which also goes waaaaay overboard) there really isn’t much that feels like you’re finding something unique or that serves any other purpose besides your character progression. If it wasn’t for the side quests there really wouldn’t be much point in going anywhere. Most of the “books” I’ve found are the nth copy of something I’ve already read, and just end up in a big discard pile.

The game feels like “kitchen sink” design, where it’s massive and abundant for the sake of being so more than using its map and anything within it to actually pique the player’s curiosity. The hook is in its questing more so than the act of pure exploration. Sure, CDPR had a lot smaller team and budget, but they could’ve trimmed a lot of stuff that mostly wound up as recyclable inventory filler and still made it feel like a big world, only more significant.

In RDR2, everything feels more natural and organically laid out, from landmarks to whatever occupies or populates them. The whole map has a lived in feel that completely stands on its own outside of existing for the game progression itself. I never feel burdened by my inventory, and outside of crafting and eating occasionally there is very little to detract from simply roaming the map and seeing what I’ll find or what’ll happen. The fact that I’m playing as an outlaw (even though you can still ultimately play as a do-gooder) has no bearing on it, because I knew that going into it.

With GoT, I get the impression its open world is mostly designed to pad out the game progression and little else. Why make a big open world only to turn it into a repetitive, checklist. It’s an issue the God of War reboot sidestepped rather well. The wide linear approach fit it perfectly as it is only big enough to house enough unique content that feels worthwhile.

 

[CriticalGaming]

With GoT, I get the impression its open world is mostly designed to pad out the game progression and little else. Why make a big open world only to turn it into a repetitive, checklist. It’s an issue the God of War reboot sidestepped rather well. The wide linear approach fit it perfectly as it is only big enough to house enough unique content that feels worthwhile.

I think what I really really hate about the world in Ghosts, is the lack of any mystery. You look at any great open world game and there is always a mystery you are hunting down.

Where is Ciri, why is she being chased? (TW3)
Why does this warlord know my mom? (FC4)
Why are there robot dinosaurs? (HZD)

In Ghosts there is no mystery, hell there isn't even any lore. Your discoveries on the island mean nothing, they don't reveal more about Jin, or the other samurai or even the other characters in the game. You discover nothing about the Mongols. Everything about the story is basically known from the start. Mongols are invading and you would really prefer that they not invade. End of story, end of deal.

So there is nothing naratively to drive you forward. Every mission is a glorified clear the bandit camp mission.

I felt like there was no exciting revelation around the next corner to encourage me to play more. No side stories. No little mini stories you find along the way. Like in the Witcher 3 you can stumble across so much shit, like a lady who just wants her pan back, or you might find a bunch of bodies only to follow the trail to a monster only to then follow the result back to a turn that was cursed and you have now saved it.

Ghosts has none of that. There are no side quests. There is nothing here that fleshes out the game world and that hollowness is what ended up making me give the game up.

 

[happyninja42]

In RDR2, everything feels more natural and organically laid out, from landmarks to whatever occupies or populates them. The whole map has a lived in feel that completely stands on its own outside of existing for the game progression itself. I never feel burdened by my inventory, and outside of crafting and eating occasionally there is very little to detract from simply roaming the map and seeing what I’ll find or what’ll happen. The fact that I’m playing as an outlaw (even though you can still ultimately play as a do-gooder) has no bearing on it, because I knew that going into it.

With GoT, I get the impression its open world is mostly designed to pad out the game progression and little else. Why make a big open world only to turn it into a repetitive, checklist. It’s an issue the God of War reboot sidestepped rather well. The wide linear approach fit it perfectly as it is only big enough to house enough unique content that feels worthwhile.

RDR2 lost it's "organic" feel for me, when I kept running into the same random events over and over and over. The same convict showing up asking me to shoot his chains, or take him in. The same bounty hunters riding by, saying the same things to the same criminal, over and over, because I didn't elect to engage in their bounty/law enforcement. The same woman tied to the back of a horse, being abducted by an asshole. The same Mexican guy wanting to do a shooting contest, over and over, in the same spot, because I don't really care to do a shooting side mission. It got really repetitive.

And while I do think GOT also suffers from repetitive issues with it's missions and locations, that's hardly a flaw unique to GOT. Almost all open world sandbox games have this problem to varying degrees.

The issue I was addressing though, was the question of what compels the player to WANT to engage in that exploration? Not the quality of the stuff to explore. That's a separate issue. And for me personally, the fact that I have zero connection with Arthur, and just don't really give a shit about his life and his "struggle" given how it's presented, makes me not want to explore. This is compounded by the repetitive nature of the landscape I'm exploring, and the repetitive quests (which GOT also has, as I stated), but the compounded negative aspects, makes me feel like I'm doing work, instead of having fun playing a game.

GOT, I don't have that issue. I find the landscape far more enjoyable to explore. It's visually more captivating for me personally, I find my motivation to go explore far more engaging than RDR2, so I am compelled to actually explore.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

RDR2 lost it's "organic" feel for me, when I kept running into the same random events over and over and over. The same convict showing up asking me to shoot his chains, or take him in. The same bounty hunters riding by, saying the same things to the same criminal, over and over, because I didn't elect to engage in their bounty/law enforcement. The same woman tied to the back of a horse, being abducted by an asshole. The same Mexican guy wanting to do a shooting contest, over and over, in the same spot, because I don't really care to do a shooting side mission. It got really repetitive.

And while I do think GOT also suffers from repetitive issues with it's missions and locations, that's hardly a flaw unique to GOT. Almost all open world sandbox games have this problem to varying degrees.

The issue I was addressing though, was the question of what compels the player to WANT to engage in that exploration? Not the quality of the stuff to explore. That's a separate issue. And for me personally, the fact that I have zero connection with Arthur, and just don't really give a shit about his life and his "struggle" given how it's presented, makes me not want to explore. This is compounded by the repetitive nature of the landscape I'm exploring, and the repetitive quests (which GOT also has, as I stated), but the compounded negative aspects, makes me feel like I'm doing work, instead of having fun playing a game.

GOT, I don't have that issue. I find the landscape far more enjoyable to explore. It's visually more captivating for me personally, I find my motivation to go explore far more engaging than RDR2, so I am compelled to actually explore.

Yeah I get that with some of the random encounters repeating themselves, but as the story progresses I didn’t notice that as much as long as I did them at least once. They’re basically there to ensure they aren’t missed in some way, but could’ve been balanced better according to what the player’s done.

In terms of the world though, what sets it apart for me is the sheer amount of unique things to see and do, and knowing that you can go about it however you want. Not tied to some quest or icon, but a pure sense of discovery in that you never know what you’ll stumble across. This open world is pretty much designed to be the opposite of most. I’ve never encountered surprises like the Aberdeen pig farm in other open worldS for example, because there was no quest marker icon telling me to go there. It’s discovered just by getting on a horse and riding to that particular area. The world is full of unique points of interest and encounters that you can influence an outcome in, and then find out later what happened because of it. You don’t really so much as play the game to get done with it, ticking off boxes and completing tasks, but rather to get lost in it, roll with it and see what happens.

As for Arthur, going into the game it’s pretty much established that he’s still an outlaw in a gang. Maybe you were thinking it was going to be self-authored vs story-driven? I’m just not sure what you were expecting going in.

What makes it memorable though is that he can have one of the most impactful character arch’s in the medium depending on how you chose to play him over the course of the game.

This video perhaps illustrates the above better -

 

[happyninja42]

As for Arthur, going into the game it’s pretty much established that he’s still an outlaw in a gang. Maybe were you thinking it was going to self-authored vs story-driven? I’m just not sure what you were expecting going in.

To be honest I wasn't expecting much, as it's a Rockstar game. My issue with Arthur, is the contradiction they have for the entire gang, and how the actions of the character, totally independent of MY actions as the player, are still often at odds with their concept of morality. I play Arthur as a nice person, who tries and helps people, and then the game yanks away all of my agency, and has him beat a man near to death. The game in fact, refuses to let me continue with the scene without me continuing to beat a man's face to a bloody pulp. I actually tried to stop beating him, you know, because I don't like playing a fucking psychopath with rage issues, and instead of the game having the option of letting you stop after several seconds of no input, and "coming to your senses" no, the game is like "No, you must beat him. YOU, the player, MUST continue to press the punch button, and bash this man's face until WE tell you you're done beating him." And then it's all just "oh hey he's fine, no big deal, I didn't hit him too bad (despite plenty of people in town commenting that the guy is REALLY fucked up now). Oh and yeah we're free and that's a GOOD thing! Them thar city folk are evil and bad!! Now let's go survive by being a parasite on their society and resources! Because our way of life is superior! But not at all sustainable! And sure, I murder and rob my way across the country, but it's OK, because I'm FREE!" And I'm just like "yeah, bullshit. That's utter, fucking bullshit, and I don't care. I don't care to be forced to play through your self-delusion on justification for your horrible actions, ESPECIALLY if the game gives me the false pretense of choice, when there isn't actually any choice in the matter."

This wouldn't be as big of an issue for me, if the game didn't pretend to give the player a choice in being an asshole or not. Because the Black/White hat meter, has no actual bearing on anything that I saw. People would still try and kill you at the drop of a hat for the smallest infraction in a town, often due to stupid fucking game mechanics about witnesses and actions. It didn't make people more amiable to me, it just moved that little bar left or right...that's it. Plus it was a dumb implementation too. I just murdered a guy, but hey go pay 10 bucks to the postal man, and it's clear, and then just walk around town saying "Howdy" to 30+ people, and all the negative karma I accrued from that murder, is balanced out on the scale. It's just not engaging for me. It's the trappings of choice, without actually having choice.

And that's my last comment on this in this thread, as our discussion is no longer directly about GOT, and I don't want to derail it any further. If you want to start a thread about this specifically sure, or PM me, that's fine. But i try and limit my derailing of threads as much as I can. And after 3 sets of quote/reply on a sidetopic, I try and draw the line there.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Ghost's is going to become the 3rd game this year that I didn't like that much and yet I still end up Platinuming. 2020 has been a shitshow.

 

[happyninja42]

Ghost's is going to become the 3rd game this year that I didn't like that much and yet I still end up Platinuming. 2020 has been a shitshow.

I thought you stopped playing it because you didn't find it engaging at all?

 

[CriticalGaming]

I thought you stopped playing it because you didn't find it engaging at all?

I did but I got bored and picked it up again, because murdering Mongols is better than doing nothing.

 

[happyninja42]

I did but I got bored and picked it up again, because murdering Mongols is better than doing nothing.

Lol, I can't argue with that logic.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Lol, I can't argue with that logic.

I mean with all the lockdowns and the downturn of my business, I've had a metric shitload of extra freetime so I've actually caught up on my backlog, and so.....Ghost is what I have left.


For reference thethree not-so-good games I've 100%ed this year alone have been:

DBZ Kakarot
TLOU2
and now Ghosts.

 

[BrawlMan]

DBZ Kakarot

I don't know what you're expecting from that one. It was just another mediocre Dragon Ball Z game that goes through the most famous arcs again. I already saw the writing on the wall when the first trailer was showcased. The best DBZ game already happened and is getting more play time than Kakarot. Speaking of anime games, can we please stop getting ones based off of popular shounen?There are plenty of other anime and manga that exist. As much as I hate Black Lagoon, I would not mind a GTA clone of that. Or DMC style Vampire Hunter D game.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I don't know what you're expecting from that one. It was just another mediocre Dragon Ball Z game that goes through the most famous arcs again. I already saw the writing on the wall when the first trailer was showcased. The best DBZ game already happened and is getting more play time than Kakarot. Speaking of anime games, can we please stop getting ones based off of popular shounen?There are plenty of other anime and manga that exist. As much as I hate Black Lagoon, I would not mind a GTA clone of that. Or DMC style Vampire Hunter D game.

I love DBZ and I always have my fingers crossed for a steller game. Give me a break.

 

[BrawlMan]

I love DBZ and I always have my fingers crossed for a steller game. Give me a break.

I respect your love for DBZ, I got sick and tired of it by the time I was 16 or 17 ish. like I mentioned before on some other threads, I am an all variety person when it comes to anime. DBZ has been doing the same shit for over 20 years. Which is why I have no interest in super. More of the same, but with a bunch of crap you would see in bad fanfics from the early 2000s. Most of the games I play were just alright or mediocre. There is only a few that truly stood out. This applies mostly to all shonen anime adapted into games. I can't keep doing the same thing over and over I get bored real fast. It's also nice to have something different.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I respect your love for DBZ, I got sick and tired of it by the time I was 16 or 17 ish. like I mentioned before on some other threads, I am an all variety person when it comes to anime. DBZ has been doing the same shit for over 20 years. Which is why I have no interest in super. More of the same, but with a bunch of crap you would see in bad fanfics from the early 2000s. Most of the games I play were just alright or mediocre. There is only a few that truly stood out. This applies mostly to all shonen anime adapted into games. I can't keep doing the same thing over and over I get bored real fast. It's also nice to have something different.

TO be fair, they did try to do something different with Kararot in a semi-open world RPG. And to it's credit it had some very interesting boss fights throughout. The rest of the game just didn't hold up.

I'm happy to support Kakarot because I want them to keep trying new things with the license.

 

[BrawlMan]

TO be fair, they did try to do something different with Kararot in a semi-open world RPG. And to it's credit it had some very interesting boss fights throughout. The rest of the game just didn't hold up.

I'm happy to support Kakarot because I want them to keep trying new things with the license.

This is not the first time they tried something like that. There were semi RPG/open world DBZ games before, Kakarot is just barely better than the ones that came before it. I know there was one on the GBA, PS2/GC/XBox, and 360. So they really weren't doing anything new. I am all for experimentation, but you're just putting in a game that's barely better than the one from two generations ago. Other than pretty graphics, there is nothing much new. It's same old, same old.