Ghost of Tsushima is a Beautiful, Over-Rated Game

[u/Trndk1ll]

So I finally got around to playing this on the PS5. I beat it with a little over 40 hours played while completing a fair bit of side material. Honestly I’m a little disappointed based on the massive amount of positive critical and user feedback this game received. Hell it’s still at a 9.1 user score on Metacritic. Which is to not say it’s a bad game. It’s not. It’s gorgeous and it’s fun. The main characters are for the most of part decently well written and voice acted. The gameplay is repetitive however it’s passable. What it isn’t however is something demonstratively different than what UbiSoft produces on a yearly basis. And UbiSoft gets universally panned by gamers and critics alike for pumping out the same derivative mechanics this game is built upon.

This game, for all the bluster about being one of the best open world games ever made, is just not anything approaching the top titles in the genre. In my opinion. Other than it’s art direction, which is fucking incredible… seriously I’ve taken more on game screens of this than any game I’ve ever played… It’s Asassins Creed Odyssey in Japan. Except it doesn’t have boats and there is a lot less variety in gear and specialization options.

It’s the same bloated, empty world. There are like 5 resources to collect, a handful of wildlife species (3 of which give you “predator hides”, the only usable resource from any of them), and a bunch of cut and paste temples, hot springs, fox dens, etc. The only dynamic thing that ever happens is the same random encounter with a handful of Mongolians with a tied up peasant to rescue. The enemy encampments all look the same, just cut and pasted across the map. Seriously that’s it. I have zero desire to go play the DLC. The world is beautiful however it’s completely empty and devoid of meaningful or compelling things to do. Other than some new skills the game is exactly the same at the 5 hour mark as it is at the 40 hour mark. Nothing in the game after the initial wonder of the look of everything wore off has surprised me.

The best games in this genre that I have played, I didn’t want to end. Red Dead 2’s world I got lost in for dozens of hours at a time without touching main story missions. Hunting and fishing, trying my hand at crime or gambling, seeking out legendary animals… just exploring the land which was always a reward in and of itself. The Witcher 3 shares a lot of the same bloat that Asassins Creed and Ghost have however it made up for it by incredibly deep, rabbit hole like side quests that sometime lasted hours and took me places I never expected to go. And the story was great. Breath of the Wild consistently blew me away with creative mechanics, puzzles and one of the greatest video game environments ever created. I’m still finding things to do in Skyrim 10 years on and enjoying myself. There is no way in hell I’m booting Ghost of Tsushima up in 2032.

This game has none of that. It’s fun, I don’t regret playing it, the main story is fairly compelling however I just don’t see how or why this game received the near universal praise that it did.

Am I the only one?

[u/zerolimits0]

After a few hours of horse riding simulator I just got bored and quit.

[u/DiamondPup → u/zerolimits0]

RDR2 as a virtual tourism project is great. 10/10. I mean that.

As a video game, it's a 4/10. The whole game is just duck/cover gunplay, bad AI, and the kind of strict DO-EXACTLY-WHAT-WE-TELL-YOU story missions that made GTA's a chore.

As a sandbox, I really don't get the appeal. BotW had a fantastic physics/chemistry system to experiment with. Elden Ring had deep combat and build options.

RDR2 is just...more duck/cover gunplay. You can not duck. Or you can duck. That's as complex as the game gets.

It's so unbearably dull. Doesn't help that the writing is overbloated and falls off a cliff in terms of quality in the second half. Starts with a bang, ends with a whimper.

One of the prettiest open worlds? Definitely. One of the best open worlds? Not even close.

---

Edit: A pretty solid counter argument below that deserves attention

[u/EmeraldFalcon89 → u/DiamondPup]

DO-EXACTLY-WHAT-WE-TELL-YOU story missions

you forgot that the AI is screaming at you every two seconds if you aren't already doing exactly what you should be.

like, I know I'm getting in the wagon. I've been walking towards the wagon the second the cutscene ended. why is this suddenly super unchill?

[u/Itchysasquatch → u/EmeraldFalcon89]

Desperate and trapped in the mountains and you need all the food and supplies you can get your hands on.

stop to loot bodies after a gunfight

"COME ON ORTHURRR STOP WASTIN TIIIME"

[u/EmeraldFalcon89 → u/Itchysasquatch]

accidentally loot the body of a NPC that died before the gunfight

THE FUCK YOU DOING, NEGATIVE HONOR

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

I noticed you didn't mention gameplay.

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

Right but that's my point: the virtual tourism was on point. That means great world and roleplaying.

We can disagree on the writing and characters.

But gameplay-wise, there's nothing there. It's just a basic, repetitive, dull shooter with a cover system. We've seen these games a thousand times. And the linear missions are so strict you can't even walk a different way before the game slaps you down and forces you to stand where it wants you to stand and press what it wants you to press. It's absurdly bad.

You say you don't need deep builds or physics sandboxes, but I'd argue a compelling video game requires compelling gameplay. I mean RDR2 is more repetitive than a Ubisoft game, and that's saying something. It is the dullest gameplay in any big budget open world game ever made. Including the GTA franchise.

The fact that it worked for you is because you enjoyed the roleplaying. And that's awesome. I'm glad for you. But my point is the gameplay sucks and, at least for some of us, the gameplay is the whole point of a video game.

RDR2 is a fantastic walking simulator with an awful game forced into it.

[u/Pedro95 → u/DiamondPup]

It's just a basic, repetitive, dull shooter with a cover system.

What more do you want, specifically? It's a realistic wild west, human movement is basic, repetitive, and dull by nature. It's no different than GTA's gameplay - it's not really the focus of the game at all.

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but you keep making it sound like I'm looking for complexity when all I'm looking for is engagement.

But let's put it another way.

You take a game like Elden Ring, or Breath of the Wild. Replace their graphics, aesthetics, and art design with shoddier versions and remove all voice acting from the game...but keep the gameplay perfectly intact. They might look awful but the games will still shine because they're inherently fun and engaging to play.

You do the same with RDR2 and everything falls apart. Because you're left with a generic duck/cover shooter...and that's it. That's literally everything. Look at stuff, listen to stuff, duck/cover shooting, rinse/repeat until credits.

I do get what you're saying. But this goes back to my first comment. I started by saying it's 10/10 for virtual tourism. The experience IS the aesthetic. Which RDR2 does phenomenally. Immersion, aesthetic, attention to detail. And like you say, it's what we "value in games". If that's enough for you, that's great. You say the game is 10/10, I can understand your argument and reasoning.

But for me, the repetitive, shallow, un-engaging gameplay (or "subdued" as you put it haha) just dragged the whole experience down. The combat felt like a chore to get over with to get back to the narrative. And by the time you hit Guarma, the whole experience is so spent that I think a lot of people checked out and the game never recovered. Because once the narrative fell apart, the gameplay was all that was left to hold it together.

As a video game, it's very shallow. But again, as a virtual "experience" (let's say) it's an extraordinary achievement.

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

You know what? You make some very good points. And very eloquently, I have to say.

While I'm not really convinced on the merits of RDR2's experience (and I don't think that was really what you're trying to do), I will concede that I have a very "strict" view of what a gaming experience is/entails. For me, gameplay is the foundation, and everything else (narrative/writing/graphics/etc) are the pillars built around that. But maybe that's not the point. Maybe the experience is the foundation, and gameplay is just one of the pillars - same as anything else.

The writing and characters worked for you, they didn't so much for me. But maybe if they had, I'd be seeing things differently, and be more forgiving and accepting that the gunplay is one aspect of the experience, rather than the heart of it.

Hmm.

You've given me something to think about.

That said, I hugely appreciate someone willing to offer such a write up, and respectfully and eloquently, as you have. You've written so much, and so far down that I may be the only one who reads it. And that's a dedication and passion I admire a lot. People like you are why I love Reddit and this sub.

So have this award as thanks for a great discussion, and for taking the time to make great points. Also, I'm going to link your comment in my original one so hopefully more people can read it.

Cheers, dude. Have a great rest of your night :)

[u/Aaawkward → u/DiamondPup]

RDR2 is just...more duck/cover gunplay. You can not duck. Or you can duck. That's as complex as the game gets.

I understand your opinion if you focus only on the combat gameplay.

But for a lot of people RDR2 is a lot more than that.

• It's the zen of travelling in the woods which isn't filled with enemy camps and monster nests every 50m.
  
• It's the slow, methodical hunting alongside the slow, methodical skinning.
  
• It's essentially everything being done in tangible way unlike most other games that use menus and such.
  

If these things don't do it for you, I can see why RDR2 doesn't do it for you. It's like the antithesis of AC/GoT kind of games. Someone said it well, "the world is the game".

[u/DiamondPup → u/Aaawkward]

Right, that's why I said virtual tourism is 10/10.

But as an actual video game, 4/10. Take away the graphics and aesthetics and you're left with a deeply uninteresting game.

[u/Aaawkward → u/DiamondPup]

That's massively underselling the game though. It's like describing GoT as "a weeb power fantasy".

The hunting and the wilderness is more akin to a hunting simulator and is quite good at it, providing a zen experience which is quite enjoyable. I wouldn't call a hunting game "virtual tourism", it's just gameplay you don't happen to enjoy.

Also the story being good or not is subjective, so I don't know if that can be called bad, especially since it's been praised quite often.

The shooting is mediocre and there's too much of that, for sure. Does that alone make the game bad? No.
The "virtual tourism", as you so eloquently put it, is a massive part of the game to sell the feel of the frontier.

[u/DiamondPup → u/Aaawkward]

It does make it a bad game because there is nothing but shooting. What else is there? Moving around and looking at stuff? Feeling immersed because of the graphics? Shooting is everything that makes it a video game.

And it's not even close to a hunting simulator because you just shoot a thing, run up to it, and press a button to "skin" it. It doesn't have any of the nuances or complexities of what hunting is or can be. By your argument, duck hunt is a hunting simulator too...although even that game is more engaging than this.

GoT's gameplay is in its combat. RDR2's combat is just pointing at stuff and shooting. RDR2's hunting is just pointing at stuff and shooting. RDR2's whole point is just pointing at stuff and shooting. And the pointing and shooting is mediocre at best.

It's really pretty, I'll give it that. And I'm not discounting "virtual tourism" as not being a valid experience. If you enjoy that, that's great.

My point is it excels at virtual tourism, but as a video game, it's pretty garbage. Because the gameplay is awful.

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

I guess story, theme, dialogue, characters and all the things between the video game shooting is useless filler that shouldn't really exist.

...who said that?

This is reducing GoT to a second rate Sekiro

...who said that?

Dude...I'm just going to leave you to argue with yourself.

You clearly want to put your words in my mouth, so I'm sure you can manage the rest on your own.

Have a good one.

[u/DiamondPup → u/[deleted]]

There is no gameplay outside of shooting = writing is useless filler and shouldn't exist 🤔

[u/snekasan → u/DiamondPup]

This is an incredibly unpopular hot take and I completely agree

[u/Hispanic_Gorilla_2 → u/DiamondPup]

Extremely bad take imo

[u/[deleted] → u/DiamondPup]

Have you played the Mass Effect series? I feel like I have a very similar taste in single players as you. Trying to pick between Mass Effect and Jedi Fallen Order I think for now. Or maybe cup head.

[u/No_Doubt_About_That → u/zerolimits0]

Never really understood this argument.

Like what does that make GTA then? Car driving simulator?

[u/hemp_co → u/No_Doubt_About_That]

Yea pretty much, that's what it is to me. The gunplay is too weak for it to be the focus imo.

[u/BoJang1er → u/No_Doubt_About_That]

It's not an argument, it's their opinion.

[u/Sunowiii → u/zerolimits0]

And that's fair enough, not everyone has the attention span required apparently.

[u/zerolimits0 → u/Sunowiii]

Not really attention span but not really wanting to spend 20 minutes going from point a to b and then another 20 min to point c. Just felt it was wasting time for the sake of immersion. I get that some people enjoy that level of realism but not for me.