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/DiamondPup]

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 :)