Armored Core VI Fires of Rubicon Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

[ratirt]

Nah there are just far too many bullshit games coming out that are built with minimal effort. I consider this Armored Core one of them. Repurposed engine, empty environments, short playtime, full price. Everything in the game looks cheap and empty while a lot of effort went into your own robot. Okay...

We should simply not buy them. The combo of fun and good art was commonplace no less than a decade back and prior. When graphics advancements slowed down... ironically... we had some of the better examples. Art matters more when graphical quality isn't moving places. And if you go even further back to very low resolutions, that holds true even more. Every pixel mattered. Now you can just toss a bunch of butt ugly post effects over it, or say you have RT, and sell on screenshots with flashy lights.

I think so as well. Considering games that I have spent 300++ hours and not finish it yet. 20h is a bit of a joke no matter what the experience is putting emphasis on graphics experience of course. For me, it is bare minimum to have any sort of an opinion after 10-20h of playing.
It seems to be a pattern nowadays where games look nice but they have little gameplay experience to offer. No content actually just the looks and you literally get bored just before the end of the game or finish it in measly 20h. You never come back to those games though because within the 20h of gameplay not much can happen for you to remember to go back to it go through the journey again.

 

[Vayra86]

I think so as well. Considering games that I have spent 300++ hours and not finish it yet. 20h is a bit of a joke no matter what the experience is putting emphasis on graphics experience of course. For me, it is bare minimum to have any sort of an opinion after 10-20h of playing.
It seems to be a pattern nowadays where games look nice but they have little gameplay experience to offer. No content actually just the looks and you literally get bored just before the end of the game or finish it in measly 20h. You never come back to those games though because within the 20h of gameplay not much can happen for you to remember to go back to it go through the journey again.

The amount of games I tried the last 5 years where I could just not get myself to actually finish them... I've lost count. Since then I renewed my focus, play less of them, but be more considerate about what's worth buying and what's not. I find myself focusing on a small handful of games now for a long time, and it really helps a lot. You get more out of the games that are really good, and you're not wasting time starting on those typical experiences that feel like reading a book where the intro doesn't quite impress but you still read on, because it might get good at some point.

Less is more... in my view the only reason we think more is better, is because of FOMO. But you don't miss a thing, really, 90% of what comes out is absolutely forgettable / a waste of time. And playing as much as possible so you might discover a gem among the mountains of trash isn't the way. It just leads to yourself becoming overloaded with experiences that are pointless and losing the time and with that, the motivation, to invest in something great.

 

[AusWolf]

The amount of games I tried the last 5 years where I could just not get myself to actually finish them... I've lost count. Since then I renewed my focus, play less of them, but be more considerate about what's worth buying and what's not. I find myself focusing on a small handful of games now for a long time, and it really helps a lot. You get more out of the games that are really good, and you're not wasting time starting on those typical experiences that feel like reading a book where the intro doesn't quite impress but you still read on, because it might get good at some point.

Less is more... in my view the only reason we think more is better, is because of FOMO. But you don't miss a thing, really, 90% of what comes out is absolutely forgettable / a waste of time. And playing as much as possible so you might discover a gem among the mountains of trash isn't the way. It just leads to yourself becoming overloaded with experiences that are pointless and losing the time and with that, the motivation, to invest in something great.

Yep. "Never fear to miss out on garbage" and "find and hold on to the rare gems" are pretty much my motto of 21st century entertainment in general.

 

[Capitan Harlock]

You must have never played an armored core game before to think there's no grind. All Armored Core games require grinding, whether that be for money, parts, or skill. In fact I'd go as far as to say it's a central component in the series.

As I pointed out in my last post, 90% of your time in this game for your first playthrough will be spent grinding bosses. I'd estimate that the game can take up to 22 hours for someone who is having trouble but again that time is all on the bosses. Contrary to older Armored Core games, the regular missions are a cake walk and are short. You'll likely be grinding those and replaying them as well given there are hidden items, logs, and you'll just straight up want the money. There's a NG+ mode as well, which is actually just grinding the entire game again for parts.

If you took the grind out of Armored Core, by for example having a meta build or being a skilled player, you'd be left with a 3-4 hour game. Even less if you are skipping the voice logs.

I can definitely appreciate a quality 10-15 hour experience. That said those experiences are typically 10-15 hours of solid content and typically come in at a lower price tag. I've never spent $60 on a game that's 15 hours of content including the grind until AC6. Games like Road 96 are a solid 10-15 hour experience and that game was $20. Hades is a $25 game that takes anywhere from 20 hours to 40 hours depending on if you want the true ending or not. Divinity Original Sin 2 was a $30 game with 80 hours of content. Baldur's Gate 3 is a $60 game with 70 - 120 hours of content, The Witcher 3 is a $60 game with 120+ hours, Dying Light was a $30 game with 50 hours of content, the list could go on forever.

For a AAA $60 - $70 game to only have 16 hours of content, I'd expect extra-ordinarily high production value. AC6 doesn't, most of the game's story is conveyed through text and audio logs. The graphics are only decent and the missions are completely bog standard outside of the bosses, of which is just an imperfect marrying of dark souls and armored core. The soundtrack is a tad above decent but nothing to write home about (there is a single notable song and the rest are pretty generic).

So your saying that it took you 16 hours to beat the game + Ng + and ++ and S ranking all the missions ?
Because the game have 3 endings for what i heard.
If you only did 1 run 16 hours i can get it but you have to count in the other 2 ng+ you have to do to complete the story and s ranking all the missions.
I say the price tag is that of a New game. You can get it cheap else where of course .
If you did everything s rank missions and all endings in 16 hours gg at you you speed run it.

 

[evernessince]

So your saying that it took you 16 hours to beat the game + Ng + and ++ and S ranking all the missions ?
Because the game have 3 endings for what i heard.
If you only did 1 run 16 hours i can get it but you have to count in the other 2 ng+ you have to do to complete the story and s ranking all the missions.
I say the price tag is that of a New game. You can get it cheap else where of course .
If you did everything s rank missions and all endings in 16 hours gg at you you speed run it.

No, my comment did not include the time to beat new game plus. It doesn't make sense to include new game plus time. As the name implies, NG+ counts as a second playthrough and thus it would make no sense to imply that somehow represent a single playthrough of the game. That would be akin to me saying the Witcher 3 is a 250 hour plus game because beating the game and new game plus would take an average of that long.

How many endings a game has is irrelevant to how long it takes to beat a game. Using the witcher 3 example again, there are thousands of small variations on TW3 ending (accidentally releasing a wraith in a random sidequest for example can change the tide of the war for example) , adding the time up to achieve each ending would give the game a nonsensical amount of playtime that simply is not a useful figure. In addition, the different endings in AC6 are extremely forced. There are certain choices where you are forced to betray someone when a simple talk could have fixed things. I have zero desire to replay the game after beating it, the story is just plain bad. I did replay some missions for logs and parts so I think my playthrough is pretty accurate of the average time it takes to beat the game.

S ranking missions is irrelevant. It's like saying you have to max out all your fighting style and every business in yakuza 0 in order to "beat" the game. At least with Yakuza though, you are actually going through unique new content when doing those side businesses instead of replaying the same boring missions.

The game progression for me was essentially die 15 times on Bolteus, 15 times on Sea Spider, found OP build, kill rest of bosses in game 1st try. Thank god I found the OP build after experimenting, this game was like they plucked the worst elements from Soul's games and Armored Core and put them all in here while stripping out a lot of what made armored core fun.

 

[Capitan Harlock]

No, my comment did not include the time to beat new game plus. It doesn't make sense to include new game plus time. As the name implies, NG+ counts as a second playthrough and thus it would make no sense to imply that somehow represent a single playthrough of the game. That would be akin to me saying the Witcher 3 is a 250 hour plus game because beating the game and new game plus would take an average of that long.

How many endings a game has is irrelevant to how long it takes to beat a game. Using the witcher 3 example again, there are thousands of small variations on TW3 ending (accidentally releasing a wraith in a random sidequest for example can change the tide of the war for example) , adding the time up to achieve each ending would give the game a nonsensical amount of playtime that simply is not a useful figure. In addition, the different endings in AC6 are extremely forced. There are certain choices where you are forced to betray someone when a simple talk could have fixed things. I have zero desire to replay the game after beating it, the story is just plain bad. I did replay some missions for logs and parts so I think my playthrough is pretty accurate of the average time it takes to beat the game.

S ranking missions is irrelevant. It's like saying you have to max out all your fighting style and every business in yakuza 0 in order to "beat" the game. At least with Yakuza though, you are actually going through unique new content when doing those side businesses instead of replaying the same boring missions.

The game progression for me was essentially die 15 times on Bolteus, 15 times on Sea Spider, found OP build, kill rest of bosses in game 1st try. Thank god I found the OP build after experimenting, this game was like they plucked the worst elements from Soul's games and Armored Core and put them all in here while stripping out a lot of what made armored core fun.

I see , well to each their own. I like to do everything in a game so i do count ng + and ++ to get all the endings .
I understand that ng+ doesn't count if you consider your first run to be the one .
Since you did say you played the older games it might be they had more content and where harder because they where not open to a wide audience compared to now .
I'm having fun with it and i'm taking my time but at least is more clear now that your first and only run is 16 hours.
Cheers

 

[AusWolf]

I see , well to each their own. I like to do everything in a game so i do count ng + and ++ to get all the endings .
I understand that ng+ doesn't count if you consider your first run to be the one .
Since you did say you played the older games it might be they had more content and where harder because they where not open to a wide audience compared to now .
I'm having fun with it and i'm taking my time but at least is more clear now that your first and only run is 16 hours.
Cheers

You can't count literally everything into your play time, as lots of games come with Easter eggs, hidden quests, dialogue options that are only available in your second playthrough, or NG+, etc. I also like discovering as much as I can, but there's always something I miss and have to go back for in a second run.

 

[ReallyBigMistake]

I just got the game. I just beat Balteus after 6 tries and I did not change ACs, I am still using the stock AC you get just with different weapons.
This game is amazing and I am glad FromSoftware made it even though they know it will not sell anywhere close to Dark Souls 3 or Elden Ring numbers.

I wish Rockstar did the same and made a new Manhunt, Smugglers Run or Midnight Club instead of just doing 1 or 2 games per generation

 

[Zubasa]

Armored Core 5 VS Armored Core 6 | UI & Graphics Comparison