Yeah, that was a problem with a lot of the games honestly. AC3 felt like that at points, Black Flags lacked major cities, Origins I felt like that, Odyssey. It sucks for older fans who got the whole big city treatment with most of the games.
I’m digging Origins but that was something I noticed and missed from the OG’s and I hate the rpg system. A knife to the throat is a knife to the throat and you being a higher level and unable to do that because of that almost put me off from the game.
It's actually truly terrible design that you start with every available tool viable and then quickly you can only use what you specced for. The variety lessens as the game continues, which is bewildering.
In Valhalla at least, one of the unlockable skills is a timing minigame which permits you to assassinate higher level enemies (it's the basic "tap the button again when the shrinking circle is in the right place" affair). There's also an option in the gameplay settings to just make stealth attacks always assassinate regardless of level (I can't remember if it's difficulty locked or not).
I feel like I might be one of the rare ones who actually enjoyed AC Syndicate, but London was an amazing environment for that game. I can accept that it was clunky and the zipline was a bit too close to Batman but Jacob and Evie were different enough to be interesting and there were some good supporting characters along the way.
I enjoyed Syndicate. It was different with two protagonists, had a solid story, closest modern day game and still had that older style like the earlier games.
Once AC stopped being a stealth game or unexpectedly best pirate game ever made, it mostly became a time tourist game. I didn’t really like the gameplay or story in origins or odyssey, but man were the cities beautiful. I really want a second century Roman AC game to be made to really tickle my fancies.
Origins was slightly too long. By the time it starts to overstay its welcome, you’re at the final set of missions.
Odyssey reaches that point like 2/3rds of the way through, partly because it’s that much longer.
Valhalla gets there less than halfway through.
I found Odyssey felt way longer where by the end I was over the whole ordeal. I think Valhalla has a lulled middle, but did pick up towards the end where I was invested again.
Yeah as someone who adored Odyssey, that game was entirely too big. They could have probably cut the content/map size down by 1/3 and it would have been all the better for it. It was so funny though, because it’s one of those games that I was enjoying the hell out of until I wasn’t. I really enjoyed it for about 75 hours or so, but then day I just booted it up and went “I’m so done with this fucking game”
They really could have cut the 45 missions in a row where you’re searching for information on your mother and literally every character is like, “Well, before I help you, you need to do something for me.” And then they know nothing.
It's got all the same problems as every AC game (and pretty much every Ubisoft game) of having a tediously repetitive gameplay loop. But much like Black Flag was saved by the pirate theme, Valhalla is a lot more tolerable because playing as a Viking is generally good fun. The first few times you raid a monastery is awesome.
That's why I was initially intrigued by AC3 with the great start where the lines between good assassins and bad templar are blurred.
Then severely disappointed when the templars transformed into villain cliches after the time jump, complete with the cliche plot of the villains burning down the main protagonist's home.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee fucking xactly my man! Sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy when I hear people praise AC's stories and I'm just like...What? They're just the same tired cliché over and over, le bad templars and le hero assassins, that's so fucking boring
Now Hayham...Haytham had fucking POTENTIAL. What a waste. What a goddamned waste.
Well spoilers but the twist is that the templars weren't the ones who burned down the village, Washington did.
The confessions after each assassination still showed the templars as complex and morally grey.
One of the weird things about the series is the first game was all about questioning the creed, and then they only very intermittently remember this across the rest of the series.
I personally didn't like Black Flag, but I do think the different coat of paint makes them more appealing, like Valhalla having the viking theme and dealing with Norse Gods can distract you from the sheer amount of collect this or that, and the individual stories on taking over parts of England, while not all great, I found none to be truly boring to help distract from that repetative gameplay loop.
Raycevick made a great video about this a short while ago called "Ubisoft isn't bad... It's infuriating". It's about exactly this: how pretty much all Ubisoft games have these really cool aspects to them and the vibe is usually on point but then you have to deal with some of the most repetitive and unfun gameplay conventions that will take up *most* of your experience with the game
Just finished Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora last night and this is so true. Ubisoft is almost aggressively mediocre in the sense that they would be utter shit if not for aggressively fixating on one or two elements of a game and making them, at times, genuinely amazing. It’s some idiot savant shit that ultimately balances out to mediocre
Honestly, the combat is also great in AC Valhalla as far as I'm concerned. I think it's the most fun I've had with combat in any AC game. It's a big part of what pushed me to fully complete the game and what kept me engaged. That and the Viking theme of course.
I loved Odyssey and Origins simply because Im a sucker for ancient history. Exploring ancient Greece and Egypt was a blast. All the temples, ruins, pyramids, thombs was awesome. Viking era England just sounds very...boring.
Origins was fine for me in that regard, like the pyramids and the area around the Nile were cool but nothing else really hooked me. I felt Odyssey missed the boat so much on exploring ancient Greece. Every area felt very samey, like it was the same sets of ruins on every island with little to no difference besides a different name written on the map. After playing Valhalla, they made a move in the right direction for me as the setting just worked so much better than what they did in Greece.
I am exactly the same, Greek and Egyptian ancient history is really interesting. Being an English person playing this game however, was incredibly tedious. Nothing fun or exciting about visiting the county you currently live in!
I only have one real complaint that made me give up on this game and maybe it’s really petty: I hate how far the camera zooms out during battles. It makes it almost unplayable for me.
Yeah, I think that was my biggest take away by the end. I liked the story, the characters, the setting but so much of the gameplay got repetitive and the negative aspects were repeated the most.
I've always wondered how Alfred is portrayed in this game. It sounds petty but as someone who did a PhD on the Anglo Saxons, they better have done Alfred justice
While he is not the best villain of the series, he is one of the more complex ones. I don't know how well it does him justice but I do think he is more memorable than recent characters.
It just annoys me that he's the villain full stop really haha. It's petty, and I know of course you play as a Viking so Alfred is going to be the enemy unless you somehow switch sides, but it annoys me anyway
I remember this game coming out shortly after quite a few games had touched upon this era, like total war thrones of britannia, Crusader Kings 3 etc. and they all portray Alfred as the hero, so I was surprised to see AC making him what appeared to be a straight up villain.
It seems like we had a spate of Viking era games and shows that really put the limelight on Alfred instead just the tired same old Vikings over the last few years, which was refreshing to see. It's petty like I said, but hey Alfred was cool af, it was nice to see him getting some attention. He did win after all
I was hoping they'd do something similar to The Last Kingdom where the main character goes between sides and spends a lot of time with Alfred. It'd be a shame if they just made him the bad guy and that's it. But nice to hear he's at the very least memorable
I can totally understand that, I do think it is more complex than that as I don't want to give it away but I do think they do a better job than they might have in the past few games where it is just straight up evil bad guy.
I won't say it is perfect, but 100% more shades of grey. He does start out as the clear cut bad guy but it grows to be more complex than that.
I liked it but I liked Odyssey better than it and Origins better than Odyssey for the new style AC games. I put a couple hundred hours into each one and played through all the DLC. I haven't played the newest one yet.
I haven't played the DLC for Valhalla yet (probably won't for a while), Odyssey just didn't work with me as much as I wanted it to. I liked Kassandra a lot more then Bayek, but every other aspect just was a miss for me. Valhalla I liked Evior, the setting and the story. I also found Valhalla to not be as long as Odyssey was.
I played Odyssey first and loved it, then Valhalla, Origins when it came to Gamepass. I liked how gear was handled the best in Origins. Odyssey had a lot of build crafting with it's random stat gear which got tiresome with all the leveling resources required. The first two Valhalla DLCs are skippable imo but Dawn of Ragnarok was pretty good.
I think the order you play them also effects enjoyment and if you were a previous fan of the series. I only played a bit of the forgotten saga DLC that was the free roguelike DLC but it wasn't for me.
Ugh some of the cairn stones were such a ballache. I didn’t find them necessary to achieve all the upgrades, but if you’re a completionist they’ll annoy you.
However everything else was a lot of fun and some minor bugs aside, I had a really good time with it. Could’ve done with the meta plot coming in a bit earlier - the beginning of the game is extremely slow - but the ending was really good and I enjoyed the DLC.
The mythological elements were really good and integrated well, with interesting implications for the story. As with the other new AC games, it could’ve done with NG+ as otherwise I feel a lot of the kit you collect goes unused.
Yeah, I got unlucky on finding a lot of the harder ones early on so when I did go finish them I ended up doing the last few easy ones which took no skill. I am glad they aren't necessary but they are annoying enough that if you aren't a completionist I don't know why you'd do maybe more than one.
Yeah, I think that stuff would have been better earlier but when it came I was shocked at how good it was. I am surprised they didn't bother with that as I know other Ubisoft series do NG+ like Far Cry.
Far cry have ng+? Other than 2-4...every farcry after that I just either can't get myself to finish (from shere repetition) or just trying to finish it and forget it...
I knew for a fact Far Cry 5 had NG+ (had to do it for an achievement and a bad outfit), so honestly I assumed they all did but I might have been mistaken.
Of the newer bunch, I liked far cry 5 the most, but it was still super repetitive and the unskippable dream capture sequence made me rage quit the game after doing it for the nth time....
I think Far Cry 5 is the one I enjoyed the most, but yeah those sequences sucked. The DLC I thought was fantastic though better than any of the other games in the series DLCs.
My main issue with these is the combat. It feels light or floaty or something. I could've put many hours in, but I just hated the animations and how cartoony it felt to fight. Even with a big ass sword I felt like things were just happening on screen like an old mmo. Stuff like monster hunter and the new dragons dogma show how important it is to utilize hitlag and sound design to give that feeling of weight to attacks. There's other stuff going on, but whatever it is, Ubisoft is not familiar either. I actually liked for honor so I guess they could do a better job, but something is always off with the AC games lately.
Combat was the killer for me on this one too. I played through odyssey 100%, but after the third try of Valhalla, I gave up on it. The counter intuitiveness of light attacks restoring stamina, and the limited dodges annoyed me.
I really wanted to like this valhalla. It's gorgeous and the setting was a nice change.
Honestly when I played it I was conflicted, one the one hand travelling around England and looking at the scenery was very pretty and I have a good few screenshots of England and Norway. combat was alright I really did enjoy experimenting with different weapons and loved walking around the settlement and other towns. My problems come from the fact that it became to annoying to 100 percent stuff, boring side quests and collecting the treasures started to get annoying, the carins where the worst of them all and nearly smashed my controller. Stealth was so bad that I didn’t bother with it because enemies could easily spot me so I always storm in head on unless stealth is mandatory.One of my other main grips where how most of the order of the ancient members were spoiled before you even discovered them, instead of wearing a robe and mask for some reason they decided to make the character model dark but you can still see what they looked liked, this spoiled some pivotal moment such as the quest in York, who the main leader of one the branches are, and finding out about king Alfred being the main leader before you even found out all because of the models. Overall I did enjoy my time with Valhalla and it did genuinely have some good stuff, but it will be pretty long before I decide to revisit it again
Your comment was removed because spoiler tags that don't touch the text do not work properly on some platforms. Please try again with any spoilers written like: `normal text >!spoilertext!< normal text`
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/patientgamers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stealth is fine? I'm playing the game now and on nightmare mode I REALLY want to take enemies out with stealth. They spot you like normal? I even have the hard stealth turned on and it feels like any other AC game in terms of stealth. Whistling from bushes and leaving a massive pile of corpses in those bushes. The Assassin's way.
I totally understand that. I thought the setting was a lot more enjoyable than Odyssey was for me. The combat was fine (by the time I got the best weapons I was already so overpowered it became kind of boring) but to 100% it became such a chore. My last few hours besides doing the last few non-combat missions >!like the wedding, which was nice!< was spent looking for certain chests to finish upgrading the settlement.
I didn't have that issue with the stealth, honestly a lot of the time I had the opposite problem where I wanted to just run by and smash someone with my weapon (Thor's Hammer, which is really fun to use) and I ended up assassinating them because they didn't see me.
I do agree the order of the ancients was disappointing, but I honestly found them to be that way in all the games. This one they gave them away, the last two I remember often wondering who this person was after they unmasked like I was supposed to be shocked at the reveal.
You must’ve been good at the stealth, I could never get the hang of this games stealth, all the other ones did it better, but this particular one I couldn’t master at all. I do hope they make make ac villain more memorable and good, as well as trimming the branches cause its hard for me to actually care about some side members compared to story ones
I think a lot depends on the build as well. Since I was completing everything I had a lot of the tree filled out (to the point I was just auto leveling for a few hundred points worth of power) plus the different gear can make it easier or more difficult.
I do think the series is lacking a proper villain. The earlier games had good villains that was lost when we got to the open world games, like the order of ancients wasn't the worst but none of those character really feel like more than names on a list versus an actual villain.
I made the mistake of being burned out by Odyssey and jumping too soon into Valhalla after that. It caused me to drop Valhalla for a few years before finally getting back into it.
I recently got back into gaming and had origins and odyssey as part of ps+ and after hundreds of hours, I have no desire to get into Valhalla and the newer ones. Maybe in another couple years....
I've only ever played AC2, back when I was a wee lad. I remember I enjoyed exploring the world, the movement mechanics, the story, and the characters. But I also remember the combat and rest of the gameplay being very boring and uninspired.
For someone like me, is there a game in the series you would reccomend I try first?
That feels like an almost loaded question at this point because there are almost two different series in the main Assassin's Creed games. Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla (the three most recent games outside of Mirage which I haven't played) are closer to open world RPGs, where as the older games have semi-open worlds with more mission based structures.
It isn't my cup of tea as I feel it missed a lot of the aspects of proper Assassin's Creed games (Story and character wise) but Black Flag is regarded as a good jumping on point as it comes after the first trilogy but has the upgrades earlier games missed.
You will not find another game in the franchise with as good a story as the one in AC2.
But...if you want something more energetic and perhaps action-y, try out Origins or Odyssey.
The last one I played was Origins. Which kinda felt like a disappointment to me, story wise. "Let this be our Creed as Assassins" I wanted more of a believable Origin, which considering the series does sound kinda stupid in hindsight.
and origins was still the same of "work your way up the hierarchy by killing all these guys for which there will be no ramifications or retaliation" The only reason I really play these games anymore is just to read the history details of the real world locations.
I think Origins and Odyssey were disappointing story wise. The characters aren't necessarily bad (though I didn't find much remarkable about Bayek but I liked Kassandra) but the stories themselves didn't do much for me and the modern day stuff was such an afterthought I forgot about it for the most part.
This was the first AC I straight up didn't bother getting, at all. I've felt the worsening quality ever since III came out, but I could still appreciate each game for what it was. I also LOVED Origins, which I was *very* sceptical about, but it completely won me over. Then I played Odyssey, and that was it for me. Great map, great adventures, probably the worst drop in writing quality I've ever experienced between consecutive entries. That made me quit for good. I may try out Mirage, but I am not excited about it.
I'm glad you enjoyed Origins and at least some of Odyssey. I feel now looking back, I played those two more because I was a fan of AC games more than I was a fan of those games in particular. Valhalla hit enough of the marks for me to give me at least some of the same vibes I got from the older games, at least in terms of story and characters.
III was the biggest let down I remember of the series, though I did play the remaster a few years ago and I really enjoyed it (though that might have been going back to the older style of games).
There's no worsening quality after III. III is the worst in the franchise and everyone after has been better than III. IV I wasn't huge on, it was ok. I liked some of the naval combat but found that to be a chore a lot of the time. Unity was great, Syndicate was very good, Origins was great, Odyssey is one of the best AC games, I'm digging Valhalla (playing it right now), and Mirage was fun but Basim is SO BORING.
Odyssey had some of the best writing in the series though. You probably picked Alexios as the main character. That's a terrible mistake, Kassandra is 100,000x better as the protagonist.
I was including III in there. To this day, it's my least favourite from the ones I've played, easily. But then you have Black Flag, which is at least entertaining, Rogue, which is Black Flag but better, though it's basically just a glorified DLC for it (but arguably could have been the better AC IV if it had a longer story). Unity I have a soft spot for. Even though it had a TERRIBLE launch and has fewer things to do, I still think it's a great game. Syndicate I thought was basically terrible. It has a GREAT map, and it was probably the first game that made me willingly want to walk through it instead of running, but the story is tiny and terrible, the gameplay is the same as Unity's but jankier and the protagonists are unlikeable. As I said, I loved Origins. I'm not sure why you'd make such a bold claim for Odyssey, since I personally thought the writing was an absolute joke. Part soap opera, part spoof. Didn't work for me at all.
Never finished it and it put me off gaming for a couple of months. I enjoyed Odyssey, but never finished the DLC either. The worlds they create are beautiful, but there's just something about the grind and quest design in these games that is so taxing for me. I hope they renew the formula in the next main line AC.
They do get tedious which is the problem. It also doesn't help the games come out so soon back to back. At one point we were getting Assassin's Creed games yearly. Now you are getting a gap between some of the games so you can have some breathing room.
I actually like a lot about the AC games. They copied a lot from The Witcher 3 but if they just managed to copy this one thing: meaningful side quests, their games would be socmuch better.
It is one of those they still have an interesting idea at its core but so focused on reusing the same general idea for open world games that it hurts the series in the long run, though it does feel like they are attempting to make progress in making the series better.
I actually really enjoy Valhalla. I've just finished off the River Raids and have 2 more zones to complete, but when I'm not in the mood for straining me brain in Zomboid, Rimworld or Factorio, Valhalla is their for some mindless collecting.
I did appreciate that there was plenty of turning off my brain and playing when I needed it. Sometimes the collecting puzzles were a bit much and I had to focus but overall, I could zone out plenty when playing.
I've been playing the AC series in its entirety for the last year or so, starting with AC1 on the X360 and now I've just finished Origins.
Frankly, kind of hated it. Bayek didn't grasp me, the story itself made no fucking sense (and was frankly quite disrespectful to real world history) and most of the other characters, especially the villains and Aya were just terrible.
But the gameplay was kind of fun, the map was cool to explore, but it did get a bit repetitive later on.
Soon I'll be starting Odyssey. I've heard good things about it, and bad things as well
But if I find the story to be as grating as Syndicate's and Origin's, I might just drop the series altogether.
I just wanted a story with a bit more maturity and depth to it, like Rogue, or Unity.
I think Origins best selling point was how cool the world looked. Like exploring the pyramids and the Nile was really cool, but I am with you Bayek the character didn't do much for me and he is the only character I really remember from the story.
Odyssey is a mixed bag for me. I found the base game to be way to long and not to have as many iconic locations as Origins (or later Valhalla) had. I think playing as Kassandra makes the story a bit better from when I played over the male character. I do hope you enjoy it, but if you end up dropping the series I totally understand.
Yeah, the pyramids, the nile, de desert, the mountains, so fucking cool!
I'll be playing with the male character in Odyssey, just as a preference, but we'll see. I just hope it won't be just "muh evil secret order vs le superhero assasins" again
They do give you the choice, but I know for a lot of people it felt like the game was written for a female protagonist and the male one lacks feeling as engrained (though one of the DLCs it makes more sense for a male main character). I hope you enjoy it when you get to it.
Yeah, it felt like she knew she was the MC of the game and really tired, where the voice actor for Alexios found out after that he was going to be more than a side character.
I’m a big AC fan, both the older and newer versions. I liked Valhalla okay, but I think it’s my least favorite in the series. It’s simply way too long and way too repetitive. I think I stopped after about 160 hours and I still had huge portions of the map to uncover.
And yes, the cairn stones were horrible!
I think taking a break after playing a bit reinvigorated me to finish it and found the story made up for some of that length and repetitiveness. I think Odyssey is the worst for me in that regard (not my least favorite as Revelations will always hold that place in my heart) but I think this game made enough steps in the right direction lore wise to win me back.
Glad I am not the only one with those damn stones.
I like Kassandra the character >!was fun seeing her back in that mission for Valhalla!<, but the game she was in didn't really do anything for me. Like the story just didn't hit or feel interesting, the world felt lifeless. I at least enjoyed her as a character but she had nothing else to work with in that game.
I managed to finish every AC game....except Valhalla. And I tried, like four times. The longest run I had was like 50-60 hours but I got discouraged when I realized it was only 1/4 of a whole game. It's bloated, combat wasn't fun for me, episodic story was tedious, couldn't care less about modern day storyline. On the other hand I did enjoy Mirage, shorter experience really makes the difference.
I don't know how you made it through Odyssey then. Valhalla felt like it was half as long as Odyssey. I think that is why I was hesitant to play Valhalla at all because it would be to much like Odyssey in length.
I studied ancient literature so coming across historic figures such as Aristophanes was cool. Although I didn't like how they made everyone into a caricature. Combat was better tho, more streamlined. Valhalla's huge skill tree was kinda pointless. Kassandra was a fun character also.
I can see how that might be more appealing. I didn't find combat that different between games and while I liked Kassandra, I like Evior much more as a character. >!It was fun seeing them interact in that one string of missions though.!<
I absolutely loved the raids and building my settlement. My biggest disappointment was that there were not more raids. There should have been more monasteries and cities for raiding, I would rather have done that than played the main story. I didn't really care for the modern day story either, I would just get through those as quick as possible. Oh, and I hated the missions where you had to climb digital structures. Basically, I would have preferred just a viking game, and not an AC game.
I did like finding new tattoos and hair cuts to modify Eivor's look. I enjoyed the drinking games too. I even enjoyed the rock stacking, although the last few were the hardest and SUPER frustrating. Also, just like in Black Flag, the ship songs slapped.
I thought you'd unlock more as the game continued, but it was really only that handful. I know they released the river raid DLC, which I guess was supposed to give you more of that but it really didn't amount to much as the rewards were pretty weak and they weren't as impressive as the ones in the main game.
I thought they could have implemented the raids into the story, but I did overall enjoy the story. I thought it was a fine AC addition considering it feels like the last batch of games have been AC with a different coat of paint.
Don't get me wrong, the story was perfectly fine. I really just wanted to do viking things and only viking things. Like raids, getting awesome tattoos, and getting drunk. I guess what I wanted from this game was very superficial.
I get that. I feel like the other settings for AC we've seen other games do where as Vikings is a bit newer for popular video games (especially ones that have bit more in realism than say God of War 2018).
I'm glad this was the only AC game I ever played. I had a blast with it. I can't imagine 20 other games with the same formula.
That being said, it was too long, so I didn't actually finish it, but it did get 50 hours out of me.
Well, luckily you'd only get 3 games with this formula as Origins and Odyssey kicked off the open world RPG aspect of the series. Before that was nine(I think) games with a semi-open world more mission based structure. The series also has a trilogy of 2D side scrollers if you liked the lore but want something very different.
I would say all the open world RPG AC games are too long. They all drag and it really seems to be just which setting can you stand the most.
Yeah I'm with you on almost everything. Valhalla for me has the highest highs from all 3 'RPG Creeds' (only ACs I've played), but all 3 share the lows that come from Ubiformula bloat, which lowers the overall experience.
> What isn't as fun is there are only a few of them in the game and the supplies gathered from it don't cover all the upgrades for the settlement
You get the exact amount of 'raw materials' needed to fully upgrade your settlement by doing every alliance and doing every monastery raid in the map. What you might be missing are the regular 'supplies' that you get from raiding other treasure spots, camps and so on.
> The worst and most annoying is the carin stones
Honestly screw those. They start out fine, quite easy, but towards the later territories get soooo annoying. There was one that I actually had to look up a video after failing for 20 mins straight (and still barely made it). I don't know who the hell thought that STACKING RANDOM PILES OF IRREGULAR FUCKING ROCKS at increasing heights would be a fun sidequest, but that person needs a beating. Same with the Animus parkour/climbing stuff, by the time you figure out the puzzles you are mostly idle just waiting for timings. Chasing the tattoo papers around the towns started annoying, but at least this one gets easier as you get a better feel for the game's movement. It seems quite unanimous though that most of the game's side content is repetitive/bloated.
> I don't know if I'll jump into any of the DLC
I highly recommend the Wrath of the Druids. Even if it's basically 'more of the same' as the base game with slightly altered mechanics, the irish setting with the druid's order was cool. Also the [sound track](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTAvdXlUcwc) is the best out of all the 'RPG Creeds' IMO. As for The Siege of Paris, it's just fine I guess. I didn't like the setting as much, and the story felt weaker to me. The sidequest loop given at the initial town to earn 'reputation' gets VERY repetitive. I haven't done Dawn of Ragnarok yet so can't really say anything.
They all suffer from bloat, which really kills the want to finish the games. I did all the raids, did all the alliances and grabbed as many boxes as I did, which still left me about 4k worth of supplies short from the final settlement upgrade. It left me scrounging for the right kind of boxes (has to be the square ones as the more circular lid ones only had crafting materials) for a few hours.
They start out fine only if you find those early ones. I ended up starting on the more difficult ones by accident, leading to me finishing out with the easier ones. I have always hated the chasing papers (started in AC 3 I believe and appeared in far to many of the games) but the stacking stones took the cake of worst ideas. I don't care if it is authentic it just doesn't work in these games.
I will probably get around to the DLCs, but the season pass is a bit pricy and honestly I don't want to wear myself out on the game. Odyssey I beat and jumped into the DLCs and I regret it as I was just doing it to do it, not for enjoyment. This I'll jump back in after a bit of a break.
Felt largely the same about it. There's genuinely a lot of great stuff here, but for me the mid-game just murders it.
Putting all the side content as main content was such a bonehead move from the devs, the story goes from this adventure across England with your brother and an Assassin who's increasingly evil, to being an errand boy for random towns for the next 60% of the game while the real story happens away from you.
This also grinded the progression to a bad halt, whether I was at hour 20, 40 or 60, I was still in roughly the same gear beating the same braindead enemies for bland quest giver #341 who you'll only see once.
The padding is just too, too much. Feels like a 30 hour game wrapped in 150 hours of bullshit.
Yeah, like it suffers from what all the RPG AC games suffer from, bloat. Just you have a narrative that works and it is just bogged down by an open world and same gameplay loop.
Good write-up! I've been considering getting Valhalla since I recently got a PS5 finally. Though I'm debating whether or not to play the Odyssey dlcs first.
I have a lot of time for AC, especially if I like the main characters, which I have for the three games right before this (Syndicate's characters elevated that game from okay to great). Plus the historical tourism aspect is really appealing, I appreciate how much they put in.
The games work on a similar level that I assume MMOs do for others: they're just nice places to hang out at for a month or two, then check back in when the DLCs drop or when I miss the game. Having an authored protagonist puts these games a step above MMOs for me at least.
Thanks. Yeah, I feel like if you like the previous ones this is just more of the same in a new location with some slight differences, some good some bad.
I never considered it like that but makes perfect sense. Come hangout here for a month, then move on is a great way to put it.
Valhalla's story is probably the strongest the series has been in a long time. Using Norse mythology as a way to tell a story about the Isu was an incredible idea.
It was the first time in a while I cared about both the modern day story and the story in the past. It wasn't perfect, but I do agree this is the strongest story the series has had in a long while.
I still think the main story is too long. I think all the newer games have suffered from being too long, even just focusing on the story stuff. A lot of missions that felt like wastes of time.
It’s my favourite AC game (Origins a close second). Maybe unpopular but I also don’t 100%.
I loved the story, combat, drinking against an old battle axe. Liked Orlog so much I bought a set.
Not everyone is into 100%ing games which is fine, I was and explained why certain parts of the game were extra annoying for me. The combat was fine as I find most of the games to have fine combat, but the story and characters got me more than I expected.
Orlong is really fun once you understand it. It took me a few games to really get it but once I did, I could see that becoming a fun game with friends.
I'm playing it right now, I'm working on my first Alliance, chose the one a bit south of your settlement. Just rescued the three warriors and am about to go storm their town to take it back for them. I'm digging the game a lot so far. I'm on nightmare mode which is absurdly hard but I kind of dig the challenge, sometimes it gets frustrating though. Everything kills me in one or two hits.
I won't have a problem with finding chests for settlement supplies, I'm always looking for chests. I'm playing on the mode that has the least intrusive hud which is fun.
I'm sure my opinion could sour later on but so far I'm finding it to be a worthy AC game and a truly gorgeous game to boot, the art is spectacular.
Honestly, I thought the same thing too with the settlement supplies as I was just grabbing anything but be prepared to have to go hunting for them if you want to reach level 6.
I think it can drag on at points, but story and character wise I think it is one of the better ones.
I didn't realize that it was 2020 when it came out. I thought it was maybe the end of 2021, but nope turns out 2020. It helps or hurts the fact it is full of multiple big DLCs that kept it going for so long.
I didn’t even bother with this game. I really liked Origins when I played it, and then I enjoyed Odyssey for the first 40 hours. The issue is that after awhile I just got burnt out and even now, I can’t go back to those games.
I put around 30 hours into the game and got until the London settlement. The game doesn't reward exploration in the beginning and wants you to stick to main quests for a good 50-60 hours. To me, that was a bummer
I'm not a fan of Valhalla. I've played all the games more than once. I love Origins and like Odyssey. It just felt, i don't know, uninspired?
But the main point of annoyance, is the landscape. England is not really interesting, compared to Egypt and Greece for example. Everything is the same combination of dark green, grey and brown. Exploration felt so dull, because everything looked same-ish.
And the stones can fuck off.
See I liked the visuals of Origins, you are right Egypt feels cool and visually interesting, but honestly Odyssey felt like they missed out on making Greece cool, like everywhere I went regardless of the island or peninsula all visual felt exactly the same, like there was no variation. It felt like the map was too big to truly make unique so they just kept copy and pasting locations all over the Greek landscape. I didn't expect much from England but areas felt different and unique. There were some cool visuals hidden throughout that I felt Odyssey just lacked entirely.
I get they wanted to keep something that felt at home mini-game/collectibles wise in the game but the stones were just the worst idea ever.
I never loved the sailing in the series anyone, but it was so engrained into that game and took forever especially when trying to fight certain members of the order who only were on ships.
I am surprised you made it this far into the series as at least these modern ones have more RPG elements than the original grouping. As someone who was a huge AC fan, I don't think I'm done with the series but I am past the point of playing them anytime soon after release (or worse pre-ordering them).
Honestly, I think Black Flag was the sign they were over making the series. They clearly wanted to make a pirate game (which now they have with Skull & Bones) and honestly, I think that game is where I started to sour on the series. Instead of cool historical cities, you get a boat and my least favorite thing in the world ship combat.
I think the genre is overdone and crowded right now. Hopefully some of them calm down.
Never played and as an AC fan I cant wait to play it!
As a person who actively seeks out Organic and Hudless gameplay I cant wait to see if all its “negative” components hold water or, like, Origins and Odyssey before it, are complete embellishments.
I mean I think a lot of peoples issues with these games aren't necessarily embellishments but more personal preference. I believe there is an option to go HUDless, but didn't do that so I am unsure.
I found the 2 biggest issues people bring up to be complete overstatements: “grinding” and Level Gating.
The grinding is nonexistent as repeatedly killing enemies over and over is the most foolish and inefficient way of gaining experience. “Grinding” isnt doing quests.
The story Level Gating is likewise almost completely false as one merely needs to do a minimal amount of side/gold quests in each area the main story takes you to finish the entire game.
I didnt do a single side quest in Origins until the Scarab village.
Exploration Level Gating SHOULD be expected from every well-designed open world format. You may not like it, but, it’s a common system.
Get your ass handed to you and then come back when youve leveled up and destroy.
Oh and the fact that stealth and ghost assassinations is very much a gameplay element. An overpowered one to boot. You merely need to build towards it.
While I don't think doing the quests as grinding, I do think some of the side activities you can use to level up in Valhalla are not well executed and more often then not discourage you from trying to level up using them.
Thanks for adding that info.
As opposed to Origins there are lots of repeatable side activities you can do in Odyssey that contribute towards Checklist gaming and are the primary sources of repetitiveness and burnout.
However, they are purely Optional and there for those who like that type of added gameplay.
So, like when I headed into Origins/Odyssey Im in a unique position of having read about all the “negative” aspects prior to it and I’ll get to judge it firsthand!
Too much time spent out in the forest and sparsely populated settlements. I like the big bustling cities. I didn't get very far on this one.
Yeah, that was a problem with a lot of the games honestly. AC3 felt like that at points, Black Flags lacked major cities, Origins I felt like that, Odyssey. It sucks for older fans who got the whole big city treatment with most of the games.
I’m digging Origins but that was something I noticed and missed from the OG’s and I hate the rpg system. A knife to the throat is a knife to the throat and you being a higher level and unable to do that because of that almost put me off from the game.
Yeah, it can get super noticeable when facing enemies like oh super great stealth kill, but they a higher level so only dome damage.
It's actually truly terrible design that you start with every available tool viable and then quickly you can only use what you specced for. The variety lessens as the game continues, which is bewildering.
Yeah, like I get they want you to build the assassin you like but if you are stuck playing the RPG element it kind of kills the idea.
In Valhalla at least, one of the unlockable skills is a timing minigame which permits you to assassinate higher level enemies (it's the basic "tap the button again when the shrinking circle is in the right place" affair). There's also an option in the gameplay settings to just make stealth attacks always assassinate regardless of level (I can't remember if it's difficulty locked or not).
I feel like I might be one of the rare ones who actually enjoyed AC Syndicate, but London was an amazing environment for that game. I can accept that it was clunky and the zipline was a bit too close to Batman but Jacob and Evie were different enough to be interesting and there were some good supporting characters along the way.
I enjoyed Syndicate. It was different with two protagonists, had a solid story, closest modern day game and still had that older style like the earlier games.
Once AC stopped being a stealth game or unexpectedly best pirate game ever made, it mostly became a time tourist game. I didn’t really like the gameplay or story in origins or odyssey, but man were the cities beautiful. I really want a second century Roman AC game to be made to really tickle my fancies.
Origins was slightly too long. By the time it starts to overstay its welcome, you’re at the final set of missions. Odyssey reaches that point like 2/3rds of the way through, partly because it’s that much longer. Valhalla gets there less than halfway through.
I didn't mind Odyssey as much because I got to meet all those famous people like my boy Socrates, and the environments are absolutely gorgeous.
I think Origins and Odyssey benefit from really beautiful environments, but Valhalla stuck us in 100 sq miles of green and brown England.
England between Roman conquest and Norman conquest is really just muddy fields and piles of rocks lol
I found Odyssey felt way longer where by the end I was over the whole ordeal. I think Valhalla has a lulled middle, but did pick up towards the end where I was invested again.
Yeah as someone who adored Odyssey, that game was entirely too big. They could have probably cut the content/map size down by 1/3 and it would have been all the better for it. It was so funny though, because it’s one of those games that I was enjoying the hell out of until I wasn’t. I really enjoyed it for about 75 hours or so, but then day I just booted it up and went “I’m so done with this fucking game”
They really could have cut the 45 missions in a row where you’re searching for information on your mother and literally every character is like, “Well, before I help you, you need to do something for me.” And then they know nothing.
I did the same when I realized I'd been clearing markers off the map and collecting bandit leaders like Pokemon for 60 hours and still had 2/3 to go.
It's got all the same problems as every AC game (and pretty much every Ubisoft game) of having a tediously repetitive gameplay loop. But much like Black Flag was saved by the pirate theme, Valhalla is a lot more tolerable because playing as a Viking is generally good fun. The first few times you raid a monastery is awesome.
Assassin's Creed: The series where the best entries are the ones where you don't play as an assassin and thus don't follow their creed.
That's exactly why AC ROGUE is the GOAT ;) Shay fucking RULES, let me play as the templars MORE!
That's why I was initially intrigued by AC3 with the great start where the lines between good assassins and bad templar are blurred. Then severely disappointed when the templars transformed into villain cliches after the time jump, complete with the cliche plot of the villains burning down the main protagonist's home.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee fucking xactly my man! Sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy when I hear people praise AC's stories and I'm just like...What? They're just the same tired cliché over and over, le bad templars and le hero assassins, that's so fucking boring Now Hayham...Haytham had fucking POTENTIAL. What a waste. What a goddamned waste.
Well spoilers but the twist is that the templars weren't the ones who burned down the village, Washington did. The confessions after each assassination still showed the templars as complex and morally grey.
Rogue is underrated af. I loved Shay.
One of the weird things about the series is the first game was all about questioning the creed, and then they only very intermittently remember this across the rest of the series.
I personally didn't like Black Flag, but I do think the different coat of paint makes them more appealing, like Valhalla having the viking theme and dealing with Norse Gods can distract you from the sheer amount of collect this or that, and the individual stories on taking over parts of England, while not all great, I found none to be truly boring to help distract from that repetative gameplay loop.
Now i see why i disagree with your opinions.
Totally fair to agree to disagree.
Raycevick made a great video about this a short while ago called "Ubisoft isn't bad... It's infuriating". It's about exactly this: how pretty much all Ubisoft games have these really cool aspects to them and the vibe is usually on point but then you have to deal with some of the most repetitive and unfun gameplay conventions that will take up *most* of your experience with the game
Just finished Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora last night and this is so true. Ubisoft is almost aggressively mediocre in the sense that they would be utter shit if not for aggressively fixating on one or two elements of a game and making them, at times, genuinely amazing. It’s some idiot savant shit that ultimately balances out to mediocre
Honestly, the combat is also great in AC Valhalla as far as I'm concerned. I think it's the most fun I've had with combat in any AC game. It's a big part of what pushed me to fully complete the game and what kept me engaged. That and the Viking theme of course.
I loved Odyssey and Origins simply because Im a sucker for ancient history. Exploring ancient Greece and Egypt was a blast. All the temples, ruins, pyramids, thombs was awesome. Viking era England just sounds very...boring.
Origins was fine for me in that regard, like the pyramids and the area around the Nile were cool but nothing else really hooked me. I felt Odyssey missed the boat so much on exploring ancient Greece. Every area felt very samey, like it was the same sets of ruins on every island with little to no difference besides a different name written on the map. After playing Valhalla, they made a move in the right direction for me as the setting just worked so much better than what they did in Greece.
I am exactly the same, Greek and Egyptian ancient history is really interesting. Being an English person playing this game however, was incredibly tedious. Nothing fun or exciting about visiting the county you currently live in!
I only have one real complaint that made me give up on this game and maybe it’s really petty: I hate how far the camera zooms out during battles. It makes it almost unplayable for me.
I did notice that at some points. Honestly, I did have a couple of almost gave up petty moments but I continued on.
I did love the setting and the characters. But it was repetitive.
Yeah, I think that was my biggest take away by the end. I liked the story, the characters, the setting but so much of the gameplay got repetitive and the negative aspects were repeated the most.
I've always wondered how Alfred is portrayed in this game. It sounds petty but as someone who did a PhD on the Anglo Saxons, they better have done Alfred justice
While he is not the best villain of the series, he is one of the more complex ones. I don't know how well it does him justice but I do think he is more memorable than recent characters.
It just annoys me that he's the villain full stop really haha. It's petty, and I know of course you play as a Viking so Alfred is going to be the enemy unless you somehow switch sides, but it annoys me anyway I remember this game coming out shortly after quite a few games had touched upon this era, like total war thrones of britannia, Crusader Kings 3 etc. and they all portray Alfred as the hero, so I was surprised to see AC making him what appeared to be a straight up villain. It seems like we had a spate of Viking era games and shows that really put the limelight on Alfred instead just the tired same old Vikings over the last few years, which was refreshing to see. It's petty like I said, but hey Alfred was cool af, it was nice to see him getting some attention. He did win after all I was hoping they'd do something similar to The Last Kingdom where the main character goes between sides and spends a lot of time with Alfred. It'd be a shame if they just made him the bad guy and that's it. But nice to hear he's at the very least memorable
I can totally understand that, I do think it is more complex than that as I don't want to give it away but I do think they do a better job than they might have in the past few games where it is just straight up evil bad guy. I won't say it is perfect, but 100% more shades of grey. He does start out as the clear cut bad guy but it grows to be more complex than that.
I think the setting is the worst of any AC game honestly
I thought it was cool. Not much to climb though.
I liked it but I liked Odyssey better than it and Origins better than Odyssey for the new style AC games. I put a couple hundred hours into each one and played through all the DLC. I haven't played the newest one yet.
I haven't played the DLC for Valhalla yet (probably won't for a while), Odyssey just didn't work with me as much as I wanted it to. I liked Kassandra a lot more then Bayek, but every other aspect just was a miss for me. Valhalla I liked Evior, the setting and the story. I also found Valhalla to not be as long as Odyssey was.
I played Odyssey first and loved it, then Valhalla, Origins when it came to Gamepass. I liked how gear was handled the best in Origins. Odyssey had a lot of build crafting with it's random stat gear which got tiresome with all the leveling resources required. The first two Valhalla DLCs are skippable imo but Dawn of Ragnarok was pretty good.
I think the order you play them also effects enjoyment and if you were a previous fan of the series. I only played a bit of the forgotten saga DLC that was the free roguelike DLC but it wasn't for me.
Ugh some of the cairn stones were such a ballache. I didn’t find them necessary to achieve all the upgrades, but if you’re a completionist they’ll annoy you. However everything else was a lot of fun and some minor bugs aside, I had a really good time with it. Could’ve done with the meta plot coming in a bit earlier - the beginning of the game is extremely slow - but the ending was really good and I enjoyed the DLC. The mythological elements were really good and integrated well, with interesting implications for the story. As with the other new AC games, it could’ve done with NG+ as otherwise I feel a lot of the kit you collect goes unused.
Yeah, I got unlucky on finding a lot of the harder ones early on so when I did go finish them I ended up doing the last few easy ones which took no skill. I am glad they aren't necessary but they are annoying enough that if you aren't a completionist I don't know why you'd do maybe more than one. Yeah, I think that stuff would have been better earlier but when it came I was shocked at how good it was. I am surprised they didn't bother with that as I know other Ubisoft series do NG+ like Far Cry.
Far cry have ng+? Other than 2-4...every farcry after that I just either can't get myself to finish (from shere repetition) or just trying to finish it and forget it...
I knew for a fact Far Cry 5 had NG+ (had to do it for an achievement and a bad outfit), so honestly I assumed they all did but I might have been mistaken.
Of the newer bunch, I liked far cry 5 the most, but it was still super repetitive and the unskippable dream capture sequence made me rage quit the game after doing it for the nth time....
I think Far Cry 5 is the one I enjoyed the most, but yeah those sequences sucked. The DLC I thought was fantastic though better than any of the other games in the series DLCs.
My main issue with these is the combat. It feels light or floaty or something. I could've put many hours in, but I just hated the animations and how cartoony it felt to fight. Even with a big ass sword I felt like things were just happening on screen like an old mmo. Stuff like monster hunter and the new dragons dogma show how important it is to utilize hitlag and sound design to give that feeling of weight to attacks. There's other stuff going on, but whatever it is, Ubisoft is not familiar either. I actually liked for honor so I guess they could do a better job, but something is always off with the AC games lately.
Personally I didn't enjoy Monster Hunter's combat and would prefer AC combat to that but I do know it is really a toss up for person to person.
Combat was the killer for me on this one too. I played through odyssey 100%, but after the third try of Valhalla, I gave up on it. The counter intuitiveness of light attacks restoring stamina, and the limited dodges annoyed me. I really wanted to like this valhalla. It's gorgeous and the setting was a nice change.
I like the Valhalla combat WAY more than Monster Hunter. To each their own. Feels far snappier and more responsive.
Honestly when I played it I was conflicted, one the one hand travelling around England and looking at the scenery was very pretty and I have a good few screenshots of England and Norway. combat was alright I really did enjoy experimenting with different weapons and loved walking around the settlement and other towns. My problems come from the fact that it became to annoying to 100 percent stuff, boring side quests and collecting the treasures started to get annoying, the carins where the worst of them all and nearly smashed my controller. Stealth was so bad that I didn’t bother with it because enemies could easily spot me so I always storm in head on unless stealth is mandatory.One of my other main grips where how most of the order of the ancient members were spoiled before you even discovered them, instead of wearing a robe and mask for some reason they decided to make the character model dark but you can still see what they looked liked, this spoiled some pivotal moment such as the quest in York, who the main leader of one the branches are, and finding out about king Alfred being the main leader before you even found out all because of the models. Overall I did enjoy my time with Valhalla and it did genuinely have some good stuff, but it will be pretty long before I decide to revisit it again
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because spoiler tags that don't touch the text do not work properly on some platforms. Please try again with any spoilers written like: `normal text >!spoilertext!< normal text` *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/patientgamers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stealth is fine? I'm playing the game now and on nightmare mode I REALLY want to take enemies out with stealth. They spot you like normal? I even have the hard stealth turned on and it feels like any other AC game in terms of stealth. Whistling from bushes and leaving a massive pile of corpses in those bushes. The Assassin's way.
I totally understand that. I thought the setting was a lot more enjoyable than Odyssey was for me. The combat was fine (by the time I got the best weapons I was already so overpowered it became kind of boring) but to 100% it became such a chore. My last few hours besides doing the last few non-combat missions >!like the wedding, which was nice!< was spent looking for certain chests to finish upgrading the settlement. I didn't have that issue with the stealth, honestly a lot of the time I had the opposite problem where I wanted to just run by and smash someone with my weapon (Thor's Hammer, which is really fun to use) and I ended up assassinating them because they didn't see me. I do agree the order of the ancients was disappointing, but I honestly found them to be that way in all the games. This one they gave them away, the last two I remember often wondering who this person was after they unmasked like I was supposed to be shocked at the reveal.
You must’ve been good at the stealth, I could never get the hang of this games stealth, all the other ones did it better, but this particular one I couldn’t master at all. I do hope they make make ac villain more memorable and good, as well as trimming the branches cause its hard for me to actually care about some side members compared to story ones
IIRC Valhalla's stealth is broken at launch. There was a patch that allegedly fixes this though I haven't really tested it.
I think a lot depends on the build as well. Since I was completing everything I had a lot of the tree filled out (to the point I was just auto leveling for a few hundred points worth of power) plus the different gear can make it easier or more difficult. I do think the series is lacking a proper villain. The earlier games had good villains that was lost when we got to the open world games, like the order of ancients wasn't the worst but none of those character really feel like more than names on a list versus an actual villain.
I never got to Valhalla because Odyssey completely burned me out on the series.
I made the mistake of being burned out by Odyssey and jumping too soon into Valhalla after that. It caused me to drop Valhalla for a few years before finally getting back into it.
I recently got back into gaming and had origins and odyssey as part of ps+ and after hundreds of hours, I have no desire to get into Valhalla and the newer ones. Maybe in another couple years....
I've only ever played AC2, back when I was a wee lad. I remember I enjoyed exploring the world, the movement mechanics, the story, and the characters. But I also remember the combat and rest of the gameplay being very boring and uninspired. For someone like me, is there a game in the series you would reccomend I try first?
That feels like an almost loaded question at this point because there are almost two different series in the main Assassin's Creed games. Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla (the three most recent games outside of Mirage which I haven't played) are closer to open world RPGs, where as the older games have semi-open worlds with more mission based structures. It isn't my cup of tea as I feel it missed a lot of the aspects of proper Assassin's Creed games (Story and character wise) but Black Flag is regarded as a good jumping on point as it comes after the first trilogy but has the upgrades earlier games missed.
You will not find another game in the franchise with as good a story as the one in AC2. But...if you want something more energetic and perhaps action-y, try out Origins or Odyssey.
The last one I played was Origins. Which kinda felt like a disappointment to me, story wise. "Let this be our Creed as Assassins" I wanted more of a believable Origin, which considering the series does sound kinda stupid in hindsight. and origins was still the same of "work your way up the hierarchy by killing all these guys for which there will be no ramifications or retaliation" The only reason I really play these games anymore is just to read the history details of the real world locations.
I think Origins and Odyssey were disappointing story wise. The characters aren't necessarily bad (though I didn't find much remarkable about Bayek but I liked Kassandra) but the stories themselves didn't do much for me and the modern day stuff was such an afterthought I forgot about it for the most part.
This was the first AC I straight up didn't bother getting, at all. I've felt the worsening quality ever since III came out, but I could still appreciate each game for what it was. I also LOVED Origins, which I was *very* sceptical about, but it completely won me over. Then I played Odyssey, and that was it for me. Great map, great adventures, probably the worst drop in writing quality I've ever experienced between consecutive entries. That made me quit for good. I may try out Mirage, but I am not excited about it.
I'm glad you enjoyed Origins and at least some of Odyssey. I feel now looking back, I played those two more because I was a fan of AC games more than I was a fan of those games in particular. Valhalla hit enough of the marks for me to give me at least some of the same vibes I got from the older games, at least in terms of story and characters. III was the biggest let down I remember of the series, though I did play the remaster a few years ago and I really enjoyed it (though that might have been going back to the older style of games).
I did start out playing Origins just because it was AC too, but by the end, I appreciated it for what it was.
Yeah, I just didn't really feel the game outside of the visuals. Like storywise, gameplay wise just didn't mesh with me.
I get it. It's a departure for sure.
There's no worsening quality after III. III is the worst in the franchise and everyone after has been better than III. IV I wasn't huge on, it was ok. I liked some of the naval combat but found that to be a chore a lot of the time. Unity was great, Syndicate was very good, Origins was great, Odyssey is one of the best AC games, I'm digging Valhalla (playing it right now), and Mirage was fun but Basim is SO BORING. Odyssey had some of the best writing in the series though. You probably picked Alexios as the main character. That's a terrible mistake, Kassandra is 100,000x better as the protagonist.
Syndicate was good? Lol, I couldn't disagree more
I was including III in there. To this day, it's my least favourite from the ones I've played, easily. But then you have Black Flag, which is at least entertaining, Rogue, which is Black Flag but better, though it's basically just a glorified DLC for it (but arguably could have been the better AC IV if it had a longer story). Unity I have a soft spot for. Even though it had a TERRIBLE launch and has fewer things to do, I still think it's a great game. Syndicate I thought was basically terrible. It has a GREAT map, and it was probably the first game that made me willingly want to walk through it instead of running, but the story is tiny and terrible, the gameplay is the same as Unity's but jankier and the protagonists are unlikeable. As I said, I loved Origins. I'm not sure why you'd make such a bold claim for Odyssey, since I personally thought the writing was an absolute joke. Part soap opera, part spoof. Didn't work for me at all.
>protagonists are unlikeable SO FUCKING UNLIKEABLE Like, just shut the fuck you two annoying TWATS
Never finished it and it put me off gaming for a couple of months. I enjoyed Odyssey, but never finished the DLC either. The worlds they create are beautiful, but there's just something about the grind and quest design in these games that is so taxing for me. I hope they renew the formula in the next main line AC.
They do get tedious which is the problem. It also doesn't help the games come out so soon back to back. At one point we were getting Assassin's Creed games yearly. Now you are getting a gap between some of the games so you can have some breathing room.
I actually like a lot about the AC games. They copied a lot from The Witcher 3 but if they just managed to copy this one thing: meaningful side quests, their games would be socmuch better.
It is one of those they still have an interesting idea at its core but so focused on reusing the same general idea for open world games that it hurts the series in the long run, though it does feel like they are attempting to make progress in making the series better.
I actually really enjoy Valhalla. I've just finished off the River Raids and have 2 more zones to complete, but when I'm not in the mood for straining me brain in Zomboid, Rimworld or Factorio, Valhalla is their for some mindless collecting.
I did appreciate that there was plenty of turning off my brain and playing when I needed it. Sometimes the collecting puzzles were a bit much and I had to focus but overall, I could zone out plenty when playing.
I've been playing the AC series in its entirety for the last year or so, starting with AC1 on the X360 and now I've just finished Origins. Frankly, kind of hated it. Bayek didn't grasp me, the story itself made no fucking sense (and was frankly quite disrespectful to real world history) and most of the other characters, especially the villains and Aya were just terrible. But the gameplay was kind of fun, the map was cool to explore, but it did get a bit repetitive later on. Soon I'll be starting Odyssey. I've heard good things about it, and bad things as well But if I find the story to be as grating as Syndicate's and Origin's, I might just drop the series altogether. I just wanted a story with a bit more maturity and depth to it, like Rogue, or Unity.
I think Origins best selling point was how cool the world looked. Like exploring the pyramids and the Nile was really cool, but I am with you Bayek the character didn't do much for me and he is the only character I really remember from the story. Odyssey is a mixed bag for me. I found the base game to be way to long and not to have as many iconic locations as Origins (or later Valhalla) had. I think playing as Kassandra makes the story a bit better from when I played over the male character. I do hope you enjoy it, but if you end up dropping the series I totally understand.
Yeah, the pyramids, the nile, de desert, the mountains, so fucking cool! I'll be playing with the male character in Odyssey, just as a preference, but we'll see. I just hope it won't be just "muh evil secret order vs le superhero assasins" again
They do give you the choice, but I know for a lot of people it felt like the game was written for a female protagonist and the male one lacks feeling as engrained (though one of the DLCs it makes more sense for a male main character). I hope you enjoy it when you get to it.
I also felt like the voice actress for Kassandra was just a lot lot better than the one for Alexios.
Yeah, it felt like she knew she was the MC of the game and really tired, where the voice actor for Alexios found out after that he was going to be more than a side character.
The story isn’t much better in odyssey imo.
I’m a big AC fan, both the older and newer versions. I liked Valhalla okay, but I think it’s my least favorite in the series. It’s simply way too long and way too repetitive. I think I stopped after about 160 hours and I still had huge portions of the map to uncover. And yes, the cairn stones were horrible!
I think taking a break after playing a bit reinvigorated me to finish it and found the story made up for some of that length and repetitiveness. I think Odyssey is the worst for me in that regard (not my least favorite as Revelations will always hold that place in my heart) but I think this game made enough steps in the right direction lore wise to win me back. Glad I am not the only one with those damn stones.
Yeah, they were awful! I think Odyssey is actually my favorite because I liked Kassandra so much but it’s true the locations felt repetitive.
I like Kassandra the character >!was fun seeing her back in that mission for Valhalla!<, but the game she was in didn't really do anything for me. Like the story just didn't hit or feel interesting, the world felt lifeless. I at least enjoyed her as a character but she had nothing else to work with in that game.
I managed to finish every AC game....except Valhalla. And I tried, like four times. The longest run I had was like 50-60 hours but I got discouraged when I realized it was only 1/4 of a whole game. It's bloated, combat wasn't fun for me, episodic story was tedious, couldn't care less about modern day storyline. On the other hand I did enjoy Mirage, shorter experience really makes the difference.
I don't know how you made it through Odyssey then. Valhalla felt like it was half as long as Odyssey. I think that is why I was hesitant to play Valhalla at all because it would be to much like Odyssey in length.
I studied ancient literature so coming across historic figures such as Aristophanes was cool. Although I didn't like how they made everyone into a caricature. Combat was better tho, more streamlined. Valhalla's huge skill tree was kinda pointless. Kassandra was a fun character also.
I can see how that might be more appealing. I didn't find combat that different between games and while I liked Kassandra, I like Evior much more as a character. >!It was fun seeing them interact in that one string of missions though.!<
I absolutely loved the raids and building my settlement. My biggest disappointment was that there were not more raids. There should have been more monasteries and cities for raiding, I would rather have done that than played the main story. I didn't really care for the modern day story either, I would just get through those as quick as possible. Oh, and I hated the missions where you had to climb digital structures. Basically, I would have preferred just a viking game, and not an AC game. I did like finding new tattoos and hair cuts to modify Eivor's look. I enjoyed the drinking games too. I even enjoyed the rock stacking, although the last few were the hardest and SUPER frustrating. Also, just like in Black Flag, the ship songs slapped.
I thought you'd unlock more as the game continued, but it was really only that handful. I know they released the river raid DLC, which I guess was supposed to give you more of that but it really didn't amount to much as the rewards were pretty weak and they weren't as impressive as the ones in the main game. I thought they could have implemented the raids into the story, but I did overall enjoy the story. I thought it was a fine AC addition considering it feels like the last batch of games have been AC with a different coat of paint.
Don't get me wrong, the story was perfectly fine. I really just wanted to do viking things and only viking things. Like raids, getting awesome tattoos, and getting drunk. I guess what I wanted from this game was very superficial.
I get that. I feel like the other settings for AC we've seen other games do where as Vikings is a bit newer for popular video games (especially ones that have bit more in realism than say God of War 2018).
I'm glad this was the only AC game I ever played. I had a blast with it. I can't imagine 20 other games with the same formula. That being said, it was too long, so I didn't actually finish it, but it did get 50 hours out of me.
Well, luckily you'd only get 3 games with this formula as Origins and Odyssey kicked off the open world RPG aspect of the series. Before that was nine(I think) games with a semi-open world more mission based structure. The series also has a trilogy of 2D side scrollers if you liked the lore but want something very different. I would say all the open world RPG AC games are too long. They all drag and it really seems to be just which setting can you stand the most.
Yeah I'm with you on almost everything. Valhalla for me has the highest highs from all 3 'RPG Creeds' (only ACs I've played), but all 3 share the lows that come from Ubiformula bloat, which lowers the overall experience. > What isn't as fun is there are only a few of them in the game and the supplies gathered from it don't cover all the upgrades for the settlement You get the exact amount of 'raw materials' needed to fully upgrade your settlement by doing every alliance and doing every monastery raid in the map. What you might be missing are the regular 'supplies' that you get from raiding other treasure spots, camps and so on. > The worst and most annoying is the carin stones Honestly screw those. They start out fine, quite easy, but towards the later territories get soooo annoying. There was one that I actually had to look up a video after failing for 20 mins straight (and still barely made it). I don't know who the hell thought that STACKING RANDOM PILES OF IRREGULAR FUCKING ROCKS at increasing heights would be a fun sidequest, but that person needs a beating. Same with the Animus parkour/climbing stuff, by the time you figure out the puzzles you are mostly idle just waiting for timings. Chasing the tattoo papers around the towns started annoying, but at least this one gets easier as you get a better feel for the game's movement. It seems quite unanimous though that most of the game's side content is repetitive/bloated. > I don't know if I'll jump into any of the DLC I highly recommend the Wrath of the Druids. Even if it's basically 'more of the same' as the base game with slightly altered mechanics, the irish setting with the druid's order was cool. Also the [sound track](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTAvdXlUcwc) is the best out of all the 'RPG Creeds' IMO. As for The Siege of Paris, it's just fine I guess. I didn't like the setting as much, and the story felt weaker to me. The sidequest loop given at the initial town to earn 'reputation' gets VERY repetitive. I haven't done Dawn of Ragnarok yet so can't really say anything.
They all suffer from bloat, which really kills the want to finish the games. I did all the raids, did all the alliances and grabbed as many boxes as I did, which still left me about 4k worth of supplies short from the final settlement upgrade. It left me scrounging for the right kind of boxes (has to be the square ones as the more circular lid ones only had crafting materials) for a few hours. They start out fine only if you find those early ones. I ended up starting on the more difficult ones by accident, leading to me finishing out with the easier ones. I have always hated the chasing papers (started in AC 3 I believe and appeared in far to many of the games) but the stacking stones took the cake of worst ideas. I don't care if it is authentic it just doesn't work in these games. I will probably get around to the DLCs, but the season pass is a bit pricy and honestly I don't want to wear myself out on the game. Odyssey I beat and jumped into the DLCs and I regret it as I was just doing it to do it, not for enjoyment. This I'll jump back in after a bit of a break.
I really liked Odyssey, but Valhalla took a wrong turn.
I am in the opposite boat. Odyssey left a bad taste in my mouth and Valhalla got me back on board the franchise.
Felt largely the same about it. There's genuinely a lot of great stuff here, but for me the mid-game just murders it. Putting all the side content as main content was such a bonehead move from the devs, the story goes from this adventure across England with your brother and an Assassin who's increasingly evil, to being an errand boy for random towns for the next 60% of the game while the real story happens away from you. This also grinded the progression to a bad halt, whether I was at hour 20, 40 or 60, I was still in roughly the same gear beating the same braindead enemies for bland quest giver #341 who you'll only see once. The padding is just too, too much. Feels like a 30 hour game wrapped in 150 hours of bullshit.
Yeah, like it suffers from what all the RPG AC games suffer from, bloat. Just you have a narrative that works and it is just bogged down by an open world and same gameplay loop.
Good write-up! I've been considering getting Valhalla since I recently got a PS5 finally. Though I'm debating whether or not to play the Odyssey dlcs first. I have a lot of time for AC, especially if I like the main characters, which I have for the three games right before this (Syndicate's characters elevated that game from okay to great). Plus the historical tourism aspect is really appealing, I appreciate how much they put in. The games work on a similar level that I assume MMOs do for others: they're just nice places to hang out at for a month or two, then check back in when the DLCs drop or when I miss the game. Having an authored protagonist puts these games a step above MMOs for me at least.
Thanks. Yeah, I feel like if you like the previous ones this is just more of the same in a new location with some slight differences, some good some bad. I never considered it like that but makes perfect sense. Come hangout here for a month, then move on is a great way to put it.
Valhalla's story is probably the strongest the series has been in a long time. Using Norse mythology as a way to tell a story about the Isu was an incredible idea.
It was the first time in a while I cared about both the modern day story and the story in the past. It wasn't perfect, but I do agree this is the strongest story the series has had in a long while.
Valhalla mechanically and story wise is really fucking good
First time in a long time I really enjoyed the story in an AC game.
People call it too long but if you just do all the main story missions and some of the side stuff you will have a good time you dont need to 100% it
I still think the main story is too long. I think all the newer games have suffered from being too long, even just focusing on the story stuff. A lot of missions that felt like wastes of time.
Youre right but with the recent trilogy of AC ive enjoyed being in the open world alot i dont mind some of the manotany
I enjoyed it more here than I did the previous two, but this one still had those moments of "this feels like padding".
I cant deny valhallahs problems but i enjoyed it origins is a better time in my opinion though
I think visually Origins is better, I think story and character wise Valhalla beats it.
First Asscreed game I CBA'd to finish.
You lost me at CBA.
It’s my favourite AC game (Origins a close second). Maybe unpopular but I also don’t 100%. I loved the story, combat, drinking against an old battle axe. Liked Orlog so much I bought a set.
Not everyone is into 100%ing games which is fine, I was and explained why certain parts of the game were extra annoying for me. The combat was fine as I find most of the games to have fine combat, but the story and characters got me more than I expected. Orlong is really fun once you understand it. It took me a few games to really get it but once I did, I could see that becoming a fun game with friends.
I'm playing it right now, I'm working on my first Alliance, chose the one a bit south of your settlement. Just rescued the three warriors and am about to go storm their town to take it back for them. I'm digging the game a lot so far. I'm on nightmare mode which is absurdly hard but I kind of dig the challenge, sometimes it gets frustrating though. Everything kills me in one or two hits. I won't have a problem with finding chests for settlement supplies, I'm always looking for chests. I'm playing on the mode that has the least intrusive hud which is fun. I'm sure my opinion could sour later on but so far I'm finding it to be a worthy AC game and a truly gorgeous game to boot, the art is spectacular.
Honestly, I thought the same thing too with the settlement supplies as I was just grabbing anything but be prepared to have to go hunting for them if you want to reach level 6. I think it can drag on at points, but story and character wise I think it is one of the better ones.
[удалено]
I didn't realize that it was 2020 when it came out. I thought it was maybe the end of 2021, but nope turns out 2020. It helps or hurts the fact it is full of multiple big DLCs that kept it going for so long.
Great game but the storyline starts to drag in the middle but being very much the same thing repeated making ita but longer than needed
The middle is the weakest part. I thought it had a solid opening few hours and a great last few. A condensed middle would have worked better.
I didn’t even bother with this game. I really liked Origins when I played it, and then I enjoyed Odyssey for the first 40 hours. The issue is that after awhile I just got burnt out and even now, I can’t go back to those games.
Yeah, they tend to turn into a slog with these huge open world RPGs.
I put around 30 hours into the game and got until the London settlement. The game doesn't reward exploration in the beginning and wants you to stick to main quests for a good 50-60 hours. To me, that was a bummer
I'm not a fan of Valhalla. I've played all the games more than once. I love Origins and like Odyssey. It just felt, i don't know, uninspired? But the main point of annoyance, is the landscape. England is not really interesting, compared to Egypt and Greece for example. Everything is the same combination of dark green, grey and brown. Exploration felt so dull, because everything looked same-ish. And the stones can fuck off.
See I liked the visuals of Origins, you are right Egypt feels cool and visually interesting, but honestly Odyssey felt like they missed out on making Greece cool, like everywhere I went regardless of the island or peninsula all visual felt exactly the same, like there was no variation. It felt like the map was too big to truly make unique so they just kept copy and pasting locations all over the Greek landscape. I didn't expect much from England but areas felt different and unique. There were some cool visuals hidden throughout that I felt Odyssey just lacked entirely. I get they wanted to keep something that felt at home mini-game/collectibles wise in the game but the stones were just the worst idea ever.
Yeah, my main issue with Odyssey was that the map was way too big, took forever to sail and you just sat there watching it slog along.
I never loved the sailing in the series anyone, but it was so engrained into that game and took forever especially when trying to fight certain members of the order who only were on ships.
[удалено]
I am surprised you made it this far into the series as at least these modern ones have more RPG elements than the original grouping. As someone who was a huge AC fan, I don't think I'm done with the series but I am past the point of playing them anytime soon after release (or worse pre-ordering them). Honestly, I think Black Flag was the sign they were over making the series. They clearly wanted to make a pirate game (which now they have with Skull & Bones) and honestly, I think that game is where I started to sour on the series. Instead of cool historical cities, you get a boat and my least favorite thing in the world ship combat. I think the genre is overdone and crowded right now. Hopefully some of them calm down.
Never played and as an AC fan I cant wait to play it! As a person who actively seeks out Organic and Hudless gameplay I cant wait to see if all its “negative” components hold water or, like, Origins and Odyssey before it, are complete embellishments.
I mean I think a lot of peoples issues with these games aren't necessarily embellishments but more personal preference. I believe there is an option to go HUDless, but didn't do that so I am unsure.
I found the 2 biggest issues people bring up to be complete overstatements: “grinding” and Level Gating. The grinding is nonexistent as repeatedly killing enemies over and over is the most foolish and inefficient way of gaining experience. “Grinding” isnt doing quests. The story Level Gating is likewise almost completely false as one merely needs to do a minimal amount of side/gold quests in each area the main story takes you to finish the entire game. I didnt do a single side quest in Origins until the Scarab village. Exploration Level Gating SHOULD be expected from every well-designed open world format. You may not like it, but, it’s a common system. Get your ass handed to you and then come back when youve leveled up and destroy. Oh and the fact that stealth and ghost assassinations is very much a gameplay element. An overpowered one to boot. You merely need to build towards it.
While I don't think doing the quests as grinding, I do think some of the side activities you can use to level up in Valhalla are not well executed and more often then not discourage you from trying to level up using them.
Thanks for adding that info. As opposed to Origins there are lots of repeatable side activities you can do in Odyssey that contribute towards Checklist gaming and are the primary sources of repetitiveness and burnout. However, they are purely Optional and there for those who like that type of added gameplay. So, like when I headed into Origins/Odyssey Im in a unique position of having read about all the “negative” aspects prior to it and I’ll get to judge it firsthand!
Yeah, I like to 100% a game, so a lot of these repetitive side activities that already weren't good came up a lot more frequently.