I don't think "boring" is the right word for Outlaws. It has much less of the repetitive stuff that has plagued Assassins Creed for years now and instead puts in stuff that's less frequent but more memorable. I've played for about 10 hours so far and it's been the most fun I've had with an open world game in a long time. The annoying stuff is mainly bugs (not too many for me so far) and quality of life stuff like infrequent save points. A few patches down the road this could still become game of the year material.

In my friend group one is really into both ME and AC, he really didn't like Andromeda but he did like Odyssey.

The other felt that Andromeda was okay/mid but that Odyssey was also a lot of fun.

I never got into ME and the last AC game I played was Black Flag, and that may have legitimately been after Odyssey was long released. So while I can't speak on these games, from what I gather online and from my friends is that Andromeda was kind of a buggy mediocre game that didn't do as good of a job for the ME universe as it could have, whereas Odyssey was a bit of a deviation, which the people who don't like it tend to criticize and everybody else seems to enjoy the game for what it is, if not maybe a little Ubisoft standard fetch quest grindy.

In the case of Odyssey, I think it's a good potential that is limited by the restraints of Ubisoft, in the same way that has just happened to Star Wars Outlaws. Because for all of the obvious faults we can give Ubisoft, I think it's fair to give merit to the developers and designers who, for example, completely recreated France for AC: Unity. For all the faults that game had at launch, apparently they did eventually clean it up and my friend really enjoys it.

It sounds like Outlaws has a great world but just didn't get the polish, like Ubisoft tends to do.

Also some unrelated design choices, I've seen in gameplay videos like the repetitive mini-games (which can be turned off - but why design something that players turn off because it gets tedious and annoying?) and the AI during non-stealth combat encounters being completely inept, firing in the complete wrong direction. The little things become cumulative and can easily turn a perfectly fine game into a mish-mash of features that we're put together with any cohesion. The last thing that I remember in terms of criticisms are that there doesn't seem to be a lot of impact on the system for reputation. Someone who hates you after an interaction can be completely on your side just by doing a few side missions for that character. Not sure if this continues on into the late game, but if it does it seems to be another instance of just not quite fleshed out design.

The minigame looks fun, but not 4 doors and 3 item crates in a row fun. The reputation system is typically a really engaging and fun thing, but forcing yourself under constraints by choosing to not do missions with someone isn't as engaging as being put into a situation where you choose one merchant over another, and then that merchant is just done with you forever and may even send goons after you. From what it sounds like, in present state if an event like that happens, just do some odd jobs for the guy and it's all forgotten?

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the game - I tend to like games and movies that people are criticizing, since at least lately most of the criticisms have been... severely biased... but sometimes there's also truly legitimately terrible stuff, like Rebel Moon. There's always a line of subjectivity of course, there are people out there who enjoyed it, but the other people see the nearly 21 minutes of the movie, legitimately nearly 30% of it, being in slowmo and say, "Hey, that's pretty awful, why would you do that?" on top of having another mish-mash of ideas that are presented and subsequently dropped to never be heard from again. I don't think Outlaws is comparable to Rebel Moon, I have a feeling it's probably better than its reception but still worse than it should be.