I think people are trying to play these games like an AC game or any other open world game where you can just sprint around and do whatever. So I guess I can understand not liking this game if you want a game like that but never understood the criticism of the game as if this game isn't deliberately trying to be slow paced. It's like going to a western movie and complaining that there's not enough action.
That must be it. I was always content to walk most places. Even back to camp after being left in Valentine after coming in by cart.
Especially in crowded places like St-Denis. It's just not a game where you're supposed to be sprinting around all the time. The default movement is walking for a reason.
I've been thinking about this game a lot recently. I put it down about a month ago after a near 2 month obsession with it, and I'm kind of bummed out that the game is so divisive. This game deserves to be celebrated but it feels like you can't have a conversation about it without someone telling you how the game is very overrated etc. It doesn't really matter because it doesn't affect how I feel about the game and my understanding of what R* was trying to do but that's just something I think about.
Absolutely agree with this. I understand complaints that the slow pacing makes for an unenjoyable experience - I personally disagree - but I totally get it. If that's how you feel then I recommend AC: Odyssey or many other great alternatives. But don't just dismiss the thing as "overrated." It won a landslide of awards for a reason.
In general the arm-chair critic mentality surrounding certain developers bums me out. Like CDProjeckt or Naughty Dog or Sony games are darlings (and I love those devs too!) but almost automatically games by Rockstar, UbiSoft or various EA studios are dismissed around here. Stigmas exist for a reason but I prefer taking games on a case by case basis instead of automatically damning them based on previous work or publisher.